Loading...
CC Resolution 2014-021RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - 021 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LA QUINTA MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, AS REVISED BY THE MAJOR AMENDMENT; APPROVING THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, AS REVISED BY THE MAJOR AMENDMENT; APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT; AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan ("CVMSHCP") is a regional, comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan focusing on Conservation of Federal and State -Listed Species, other rare and sensitive species, and their Habitats, while maintaining opportunities for recreation and a strong and sustainable environment for economic Development in the region; and WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission ("CVCC") is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 at seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 at seq.); and WHEREAS, a joint Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Statement ("EIR/EIS") was previously prepared in February 2006 pursuant to CEQA and NEPA ("2006 Final MSHCP"), which provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental impacts that could result from the adopted CVMSHCP, and provides the appropriate decision -makers with the required information upon which to base a decision to adopt the amendment to the CVMSHCP; and WHEREAS, thereafter the Plan was revised to remove the City of Desert Hot Springs (the "City") as a Permittee and to reflect other project description modifications and, as a result, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") prepared a Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Final EIS which it certified in September 2007, (the "September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS"); and Resolution No. 2014-021 Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Adopted: June 4, 2014 Page 2 WHEREAS, the CVCC now wishes to add the City and Mission Springs Water District as Permittees and so CVCC prepared a Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP (the "Major Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the Project proposed for approval is the inclusion into the CVMSHCP, as revised by the Major Amendment, of the City of Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District, as Permittees (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Major Amendment includes the issuance of Take Authorization associated with Covered Activities that are not currently included under the existing federal Section 10(a) Permit and state NCCP Permit ("Permits"). This Major Amendment will restore the boundaries from the 2006 Final CVMSHCP for the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area and would include all of the private lands within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs. The private lands to be included total approximately 770 acres that were removed from this Conservation Area when Desert Hot Springs chose not to participate in 2006. The city limits of Desert Hot Springs also include two parcels in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area that are both owned by BLM and are currently managed consistent with the Plan, therefore no additional disturbance associated with the Major Amendment will occur in this area; and WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR/EIS") has been prepared pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and CEO NEPA Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c) in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, CVCC, at a public meeting on March 13, 2014 reviewed the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP and CVMSHCP/Natural Communities Conservation Plan ("CVMSHCP"), Implementing Agreement, and other related documents in the record before it and by Resolution No. 2014-004, certified the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, and approved the Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP, and Implementing Agreement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091, 15096 sub. (h), 15381, and other provisions of CEQA, the City is a responsible agency for the Project and must therefore make certain findings prior to the approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on June 3rd, 2014, independently reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS and other related documents in the record before it; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been met, and the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, prepared in connection with the Resolution No. 2014-021 Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Adopted: June 4, 2014 Page 3 Major Amendment, as well as the September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, are sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the above -referenced Act and Guidelines; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data presented to it, including the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, the September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, and other documentation relating to the Project, and all oral and written evidence presented to it; WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and WHEREAS, the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings/administrative record for the City's approval of the Project are located at La Quinta City Hall; and the custodian of these records is Frank Spevacek, City Manager of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta as follows: SECTION 1. The Final Supplemental EIR/EIS prepared for the Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP is hereby received by the City Council in the form attached hereto as (Exhibit "A"), and incorporated herein by this reference. The September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS is hereby received by the City Council in the form attached hereto as (Exhibit "B" ), and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, as revised by the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and, as the decision -making body for the City of La Quinta, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, as revised by the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, and related documents before it and Resolution No. 2014-021 Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Adopted: June 4, 2014 Page 4 all of the environmental effects of the CVMSHCP, as revised by the Major Amendment, and finds that the September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, as revised by the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. SECTION 3. The City Council concurs with the environmental findings in CVAG Resolution No. 07-009 and CVCC Resolution No. 14-004 and adopts these findings, attached hereto as (Exhibits "C" and "D"), respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves the CVMSHCP (as amended by the Major Amendment) and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Implementing Agreement. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of the County of Riverside within five (5) working days of approval of the Project. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 3rd, day of June, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Evans, Franklin, Henderson, Osborne, Mayor Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None (T)AM, L 0. DON AD P yor City of La Quinta, California Resolution No. 2014-021 Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Adopted: June 4, 2014 Page 5 ATTEST: t?7�, SUSAN MAYSELS, C y Clerk City of La Quinta, California (CITY SEAL) APPROVED AS TO. FO1 M. ATHERINE JENSQN, y Attorney City of La Quinta, Califor a I, Susan Maysels, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2014-021 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 3rd day of June, 2014, and that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of said Resolution. Susan Maysels, Ity Clerk Resolution No. 2014-021 Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Adopted: June 4, 2014 Page 6 Due to the large document size of the exhibits referenced in the resolution a hard copy has not been provided; however, they are available upon request. The exhibits are also available to view on-line at http://www.cvmshcp.org/ Exhibit "A" — Final Supplemental EIR/EIS ti-09052013.htm , r Exhibit "B" — September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS http://www.cvmshcp.org/Plan Documents. htm#plan Exhibit "C" — CVAG Resolution No. 07-009 and Exhibit "D" — CVAG Resolution No. 14-004 http://www.cvmshcp.org/Plan Documents DHS Major Amendment 09052013.htm EXHIBIT "A" FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT (SCH No. 2000061079) for the COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN and associated NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN Prepared For Coachella Valley Conservation Commission US Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife Prepared By Dudek 3685 Main Street, Suite 250 Riverside, CA 92501 MARCH 2O14 MAJORAMENDMENT. COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP COVER SHEET FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/STATEMENT (SCH No. 2000061079) COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN March 13, 2014 Lead Agencies: Coachella Valley Conservation Commission US Fish and Wildlife Service/Department of the Interior Coordinating Agencies/Responsible Agencies: California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Transportation, Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, Coachella Valley Water District, Desert Water Agency, Mission Springs Water District, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District, Riverside County Waste Management District, Imperial Irrigation District, County of Riverside, Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District, the nine following cities: Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage. Proposed Action/Proposed Project: The proposed Project is a Major Amendment to the approved CVMSHCP to include the City of Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as Permittees of the Plan. The proposed action is the issuance of Take Authorization associated with the Major Amendment for Covered Activities that are not currently included under the existing federal Section 10(a) Permit and state NCCP Permit (Permits). This Major Amendment will restore the boundaries from the 2006 Final CVMSHCP for the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area that would be amended to include all of the private lands within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs. Inquires or comments on this document should be directed to: Fish & Wildlife Service US Department of the Interior Contact Person: Kennon Corey 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 Palm Springs, CA 92011 (760) 322-2070 Coachella Valley Conservation Commission Contact Person: Tom Kirk 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-1127 Designation: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (SEIR/SEIS) Abstract: The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan) boundaries encompass 1,205,839± acres, and a net planning area of 1,136,400± acres, excluding Indian Reservation lands not covered by the Plan. The Plan area extends from Cabazon area of the San Gorgonio Pass in the northwest, to Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS ii March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT: COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP lands surrounding the northern portions of the Salton Sea to the southeast. The Plan area also includes mountainous areas and most of the associated watersheds surrounding the valley floor. The proposed Major Amendment Plan would add the City of Desert Hot Springs and the Mission Springs Water District as Permittees of the Plan. As a result, an additional 770 acres would be added to the Plan's Conservation Areas. The Plan's conservation Reserve System encompasses 747,600± acres comprised of 557,100± acres of existing public and private conservation lands (in 2006), and the acquisition and/or management of 166,580± acres of additional conservation lands. The subject Final Supplemental EIR/EIS provides an assessment and objective evaluation of environmental impacts of the "preferred" project and alternative projects set forth in the MSHCP. This Supplemental EIR/EIS is being prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 in order to provide the additional information necessary to make the previous EIR/EIS adopted in September 2007 adequate for the Major Amendment. This document will be considered as revisions to the previous EIR/EIS. Pursuant to the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment that was prepared in spring 2011, this Supplemental EIR/EIS will only address revisions to biological resources, land use and planning, socioeconomic and fiscal effects and transportation, traffic and circulation. The Final Supplemental EIR/EIS also reflects responses to comments received on the September 2013 Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS iii March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT. COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP Coachella Valley MSHCP/NCCP Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Table of Contents iv List of Figures ix List of Tables ix Executive Summary xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.0 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Project Summary 1-2 1.2 Lead Agencies 1-4 1.3 Purpose and Need for Revised CVMSHCP 1-4 1.4 Project Objectives 1-8 1.5 Purpose of the Supplemental EIR/EIS 1-8 1.6 Environmental Issues Analyzed in the SEIR/SEIS 1-11 1.7 Public Participation and Scoping Process 1-11 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 2-1 2.2 Plan/Permit Amendments and Boundary Adjustments 2-5 2.3 Covered Activities 2-6 2.4 Take Authorization for Covered Activities 2-6 2.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 2-10 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1 3.1 Existing and Surrounding Land Use 3-1 Existing Land Use 3-1 City of Desert Hot Springs 3-1 Mission Springs Water District 3-2 Surrounding Land Use 3-2 Topography 3-3 Climate 3-4 Revised Plan Area 3-4 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS iv March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT. COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.1-1 4.1.1 Introduction and Methodology 4.1-1 4.1.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment 4.1-1 Natural Communities 4.1-1 Sensitive Wildlife 4.1-1 Sensitive Plant Species 4.1-2 4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance 4.1-2 4.1.4 Biological Resource Impacts 4.1-3 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.1-3 Covered Activities 4.1-3 Sensitive Species and Natural Communities 4.1-4 Riparian Habitat 4.1-17 Federally Protected Wetlands 4.1-17 Wildlife Movement 4.1-18 Local Policies 4.1-18 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan 4.1-18 Public Lands Alternative 4.1-20 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.1-21 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.1-21 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.1-21 4.1.5 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures 4.1-22 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.1-22 Public Lands Alternative 4.1-22 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.1-22 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.1-22 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.1-23 4.1.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation 4.1-23 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.1-23 Public Lands Alternative 4.1-23 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.1-23 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.1-23 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.1-24 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.2-1 4.2.1 Introduction and Methodology 4.2-1 4.2.2 Existing and Surrounding Land Use/Affected Environment 4.2-1 Existing Land Use 4.2-1 City of Desert Hot Springs 4.2-1 Mission Springs Water District 4.2-2 Surrounding Land Use 4.2-2 Revised Conservation Area Boundaries 4.2-2 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations 4.2-3 4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance 4.2-3 4.2.4 Land Use -Related Project Impacts 4.2-4 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.2-4 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS V March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT. COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP Community Separation 4.2-4 Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations 4.2-4 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan 4.2-4 Public Lands Alternative 4.2-5 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.2-5 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.2-5 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.2-6 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures 4.2-6 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.2-6 Public Lands Alternative 4.2-6 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.2-6 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.2-6 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.2-7 4.2.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation 4.2-7 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.2-7 Public Lands Alternative 4.2-7 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.2-7 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.2-7 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.2-7 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS 4.3-1 4.3.1 Introduction and Methodology 4.3-1 4.3.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment 4.3-2 Population/Housing/Employment 4.3-2 Existing Revenue Sources 4.3-3 Property Tax Revenue 4.3-3 Property Transfer Tax Revenue 4.3-3 Sales and Use Tax Revenue 4.3-3 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue 4.3-4 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue 4.3-4 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee 4.3-4 Highway User Gas Tax Revenue 4.3-4 Measure A Revenue 4.3-5 County Service Area 152 Revenue 4.3-5 Other City Specific Revenues 4.3-6 Government Costs 4.3-6 Investment Income 4.3-6 Costs of General Government 4.3-6 Costs of Public Safety Services 4.3-7 Costs of Roadway Maintenance 4.3-7 4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance 4.3-7 4.3.4 Socioeconomic Project Impacts 4.3-8 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.3-8 Socioeconomic and Fiscal Effects 4.3-8 Property Tax Revenue 4.3-9 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BROS Vi March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT. COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP Property Transfer Tax Revenue 4.3-11 Sales and Use Tax Revenue 4.3-12 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue 4.3-13 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees 4.3-14 Highway User Gas Tax Revenue 4.3-15 Measure A Revenue 4.3-15 County Service Area 152 Revenue 4.3-16 Special Revenue Sources 4.3-17 Investment Income 4.3-20 Summary of Revenues 4.3-20 Potential Costs to the City of Desert Hot Springs 4.3-21 Costs of General Government 4.3-22 Costs of Public Safety Services 4.3-22 Costs of Roadway Maintenance 4.3-23 Summary of Costs 4.3-23 Cost/Revenue Summary 4.3-24 Public Lands Alternative 4.3-26 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.3-26 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.3-27 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.3-27 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures 4.3-27 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.3-27 Public Lands Alternative 4.3-28 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.3-28 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.3-28 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.3-28 4.3.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation 4.3-28 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.3-28 Public Lands Alternative 4.3-29 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.3-29 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.3-29 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.3-29 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4.4-1 4.4.1 Introduction and Methodology 4.4-1 4.4.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment 4.4-1 Roadways within Major Amendment Area 4.4-2 Airports within Major Amendment Area 4.4-2 Public Transportation within Major Amendment Area 4.4-3 4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance 4.4-3 4.4.4 Transportation, Traffic and Circulation Impacts 4.4-4 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.4-4 Public Lands Alternative 4.4-6 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.4-6 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.4-6 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BROS V5 March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT. COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP No Action/No Project Alternative 4.4-6 4.4.5 Transportation, Traffic and Circulation -Related Mitigation Measures 4.4-7 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.4-7 Public Lands Alternative 4.4-7 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.4-7 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.4-7 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.4-7 4.4.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation 4.4-8 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative 4.4-8 Public Lands Alternative 4.4-8 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 4.4-8 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 4.4-8 No Action/No Project Alternative 4.4-8 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS 5-1 5.1 Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented 5-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Caused By the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented 5-2 5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts 5-3 5.4 Effects Not Found to Be Significant 5-3 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 Background 6-1 7.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 7-1 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Summary of Alternatives 7-1 Public Lands Alternative 7-1 Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 7-2 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 7-2 7.3 Alternative Locations 7-3 7.4 No Action/No Project Alternative 7-3 7.5 NEPA/CEQA Environmentally Preferred/Superior Alternative 7-3 8.0 LIST OF REFERENCES AND APPENDICES 8-1 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS viii March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT: COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Regional Location Map 1-6 1-2 Vicinity Map 1-7 2-1 Desert Hot Springs Covered Activities 2-9 2-2 Mission Springs Water District Covered Activities 2-10 4-1 Natural Communities 4.1-11 4-2 Species Habitat 4.1-12 LIST OF TABLES 2-1 City of Desert Hot Springs Proposed Covered Activities 2-7 2-2 Mission Springs Water District Proposed Covered Activities 2-8 4.1-1 Comparison of Take Authorized for Covered Species in 2008 Permit and Proposed Major Amendment 4.1-5 4.1-2 Comparison of Impact to Natural Communities in 2008 Permit and Major Amendment 4.1-9 4.3-1 County Service Area 152 Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) Factors 4.3-5 4.3-2 Desert Hot Springs Summary of Potentially Developable Vacant Lands 4.3-9 4.3-3 Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Revenue Summary Table 4.3-11 4.3-4 Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Revenue Summary 4.3-12 4.3-5 Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Revenue Summary 4.3-13 4.3-6 Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Summary Table 4.3-13 4.3-7 Desert Hot Springs TUMF Revenue Summary Table 4.3-14 4.3-8 Desert Hot Springs Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Summary 4.3-15 4.3-9 Desert Hot Springs Measure A Revenue Summary 4.3-16 4.3-10 Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Revenue Summary 4.3-17 4.3-11 Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Revenue Summary 4.3-17 4.3-12 Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Rates 4.3-18 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS ix March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT: COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP 4.3-13 Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Revenue Summary 4.3-19 4.3-14 Desert Hot Springs Community Facilities District Revenue Summary 4.3-20 4.3-15 Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary 4.3-21 4.3-16 Desert Hot Springs Costs of General Government Summary 4.3-22 4.3-17 Desert Hot Springs Costs of Public Safety Summary 4.3-23 4.3-18 Desert Hot Springs Costs of Roadway Maintenance Summary 4.3-23 4.3-19 Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Costs Associated with Development Of Conservation Lands Summary 4.3-24 4.3-20 Total Potential Costs/Revenues Associated with Development Of Conservation Lands Summary Table — City of Desert Hot Springs 4.3-24 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS x March 2014 MAJORAMENDMENT: COACHELLA VALLEYMSHCP FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR A PROPOSED MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE COACHELLA VALLEYMULTIPLESPECIESHABITAT CONSERVATIONPLANI NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSER VA TION PLAN Executive Summary: The following document includes Sections I through 7 of the Final Supplemental SEIR/SEIS for a proposed Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The proposed Project is a Major Amendment to the approved CVMSHCP to include the City of Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as Permittees of the Plan. The proposed action is the issuance of Take Authorization associated with the Major Amendment for Covered Activities that are not currently included under the existing federal Section 10(a) Permit and state NCCP Permit. This Major Amendment will restore the boundaries from the 2006 Final CVMSHCP for the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area that would be amended to include all of the private lands within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs. The subject Final Supplemental EIR/EIS provides an assessment and objective evaluation of environmental impacts of the "preferred" project and alternative projects set forth in the MSHCP. A Supplemental EIR/EIS is being prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 in order to provide the additional information necessary to make the previous EIR/EIS adopted in September 2007 adequate for the Major Amendment. This document will be considered as revisions to the previous EIR/EIS. The Final Supplemental EIR/EIS also reflects responses to comments received on the September 2013 Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. The Final SEIR/SEIS prepared for the Project addresses those issues identified as a result of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Federal Register review process, including a public scoping period in spring 2011. The SEIR/SEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15000 et seq., as amended, and the California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq., State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study Checklist and comments received, it was determined that the SEIR/SEIS should focus on biological resources, land use, socioeconomic and fiscal impacts, and traffic and circulation. Note: The 2008 CVMSHCP capitalized defined terms that were listed in the approved Plan. For consistency, this SEIR/SEIS also capitalizes these defined terms. The definitions can be found at: http: //www. cvmshcp. org/Plan%20Documents/05. %20C VAG%20MSHCP%20Plan%20DefinitionLpdf Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS A March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION A comprehensive Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) for the Coachella Valley in Riverside County, California, was prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) in cooperation and coordination with the Coachella Valley cities, Riverside County, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California State Parks, Caltrans, the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Planning Agreement that initiated this effort was signed in 1996. In February 2006 the Final Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the Plan or CVMSHCP) and Final Environment Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) were released for review and approval by the participating jurisdictions and agencies. However, the City of Desert Hot Springs (City) voted not to approve the Plan in June 2006. Subsequently, the CVAG Executive Committee rescinded its approval of the Plan and directed that Desert Hot Springs be removed as a Permittee. A revised Plan was prepared and recirculated that removed the City of Desert Hot Springs and made other modifications consistent with direction from the CVAG Executive Committee. These changes included a Special Provisions Area within the City of Desert Hot Springs in support of conservation for a wildlife habitat corridor and additional habitat necessary to accomplish the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the Plan, and included a 1,200 foot wide corridor for Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's (County Flood Control) planned Morongo Wash flood control facility. The revised and recirculated CVMSHCP was approved by CVAG and the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) in September 2007 and subsequently by all local Permittees by the end of October 2007. The state Permittees (Caltrans, Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy, and California State Parks) approved the Plan and all Permittees signed the Implementing Agreement as of March 2008. The Final Recirculated CVMSHCP, which did not include Desert Hot Springs, received final state and federal permits as of October 1, 2008. In a reversal of their June 2006 decision to opt -out of the Plan, the City Council of Desert Hot Springs reconsidered their decision and unanimously approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in October 2007, stating the parties' mutual intent to enter into negotiations for the City to join the CVMSHCP as a Permittee after the Plan was officially adopted. The MOU was subsequently approved by the CVCC, CVAG, and the County of Riverside as of February 2008. Subsequent to the Desert Hot Springs decision, the Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) has also made the decision to become a Permittee of the Plan and the addition of both agencies will be evaluated in this document. MSWD has an approximately 135 square mile service area that is Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 1-1 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY situated in the City of Desert Hot Springs, unincorporated areas of Riverside County, and the City of Palm Springs. Currently, projects within the MSWD territory that are authorized by Riverside County or the City of Palm Springs are covered by the Plan and projects within MSWD territory that are under the jurisdiction of Desert Hot Springs or MSWD are not covered by the Plan. The regional context of the MSWD and Desert Hot Springs boundaries within the overall Plan area are shown on Figure 1-1. Figure 1-2 shows the City and MSWD boundaries along with proposed Conservation Area boundary changes. As described in more detail below, this joint Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (SEIR/SEIS) addresses changes to the September 2007 Final Recirculated Coachella Valley CVMSHCP EIR/EIS that did not include Desert Hot Springs or MSWD as Permittees. 1.1 Project Summary The proposed Project is a Major Amendment to the approved CVMSHCP to include the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan. The proposed action is the issuance of Take Authorization associated with the Major Amendment for Covered Activities that are not currently included under the existing federal Section 10(a) Permit and state NCCP Permit (Permits). This Major Amendment will restore the boundaries from the 2006 Final CVMSHCP for the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area that would be amended to include all of the private lands within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs. The private lands to be included total approximately 770 acres that were removed from this Conservation Area when Desert Hot Springs chose not to participate in 2006. The city limits of Desert Hot Springs also include two parcels in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area that are both owned by BLM and are currently managed consistent with the Plan, therefore no additional disturbance associated with the Major Amendment will occur in this area. The Morongo Wash Special Provisions Area designation would be removed and the affected area would be subsumed into the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area within the City; however, a minimum 1,200 foot wide corridor area provided for the planned Morongo Wash flood control facility would remain. MSWD will also be added as a Permittee and all lands within MSWD boundaries will be included in the Plan. The result would be minor Conservation Area boundary changes such that additional lands within the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area would be managed consistent with the Plan. More importantly, the City of Desert Hot Springs will be responsible for exercising its land use authority to ensure the goals and objectives of the Plan are met. MSWD will also be responsible as a Permittee to ensure the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the Plan are met. Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 1-2 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY As part of this Major Amendment, both the City and MSWD have requested that a number of projects within their boundaries be established as Covered Activities as provided for in the Plan (refer to Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Covered Activities include certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees, Participating Special Entities, Third Parties Granted Take Authorization, and others within the Plan Area, as described in Section 7 of the CVMSHCP. These Covered Activities will receive Take Authorization under the Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP Permit, provided they are otherwise lawful. Project details including proposed Covered Activities and changes to Conservation Area boundaries are further discussed in Section 2.0 of this SEWSEIS. As Permittees under the Plan, both the City and MSWD would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures for Covered Activities within Conservation Areas as outlined in Section 4.4 of the Plan. These measures have been developed and incorporated into the CVMSHCP to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Covered Species, associated Habitat, natural communities, and Essential Ecological Processes. Therefore, under the Major Amendment both the City and MSWD will ensure the conservation, monitoring and management, and mitigation consistent with the CVMSHCP, of the land to be added back into the Conservation Area. Under the current approved CVMSHCP, conservation within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs relies on acquisitions of private land by willing sellers. This Major Amendment will make the City of Desert Hot Springs a full partner in the Plan, responsible for exercising their land use authority and collecting fees to ensure implementation of the Conservation Goals and Objectives. In addition to the required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (refer to Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the existing Plan), Section 6.6.1 of the Plan specifies certain other obligations of all Local Permittees for lands within and outside Conservation Areas. These obligations ensure compliance with all terms and conditions of the CVMSHCP including achievement of the Plan's Conservation Goals and Objectives and Required Measures in each Conservation Area. The CVMSHCP also ensures that Permittees are responsible for collecting funds generated by the Local Development Mitigation Fees; that habitat preservation is occurring roughly proportional to development as defined in the Rough Step requirements; that public and private projects comply with all applicable Required Measures in Section 4.4 of the Plan; and that Reserve Assembly occurs as contemplated in the CVMSHCP. Certain other obligations are outlined for Permittees that own and administer lands within Conservation Areas including water agencies such as Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). Consistent with those obligations as outlined in Section Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 1-3 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY 6.6.1 of the Plan, MSWD has committed to conservation measures for the acres they own in the Conservation Areas and other measures for activities outside Conservation Areas. MSWD has also agreed to contribute a total of $350,000 toward the CVMSHCP as specified in Section 6.6.1 of the Plan to support the Monitoring Program, the Management Program, and Adaptive Management. This may be paid in full the first full fiscal year after approval of the Major Amendment, or it may be paid in installments over a maximum of five years, beginning in the first full fiscal year after approval of the Major Amendment. 1.2 Lead Agencies CVAG served as the lead agency responsible for project compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the previous environmental documents associated with the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS for the Plan. However, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), as the established administrator for the CVMSHCP will function as the lead agency ensuring compliance with CEQA for this SEIR/SEIS. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the federal lead agency responsible for project compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1.3 Purpose and Need for Revised CVMSHCP The USFWS proposed action analyzed in this Final SEWSEIS is to consider the issuance of an amended Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit that designates the City of Desert Hot Springs and the Mission Springs Water District as permittees under the CVMSHCP. The amended permit would authorize the City and MSWD to incidentally take Covered Species resulting from their proposed Covered Activities. The USFWS purpose for taking action is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide a program for the conservation of such species for the continued benefit of the American people. The USFWS need for taking action is to respond to permit requests by determining whether or not to issue or amend permits for Covered Species related to activities that have the potential to result in incidental take, pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations and policies. In making permit decisions, USFWS needs to ensure the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species affected by proposed Covered Activities. The USFWS decision to amend the incidental take permit would be based on approval of the proposed amendment to the CVMSHCP. As discussed above, the City of Desert Hot Springs and the Mission Springs Water District have expressed a desire to become Permittees of the CVMSHCP subsequent to the final approvals by state and local Permittees in 2007 and the state and federal lead agencies in 2008. This Major Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 1-4 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY Amendment is necessary to incorporate the City and MSWD into the Plan as Permittees, define their obligations, commitments, and Covered Activities consistent with the original Plan, and authorize Take associated with their Covered Activities. As Permittees, the City and MSWD will benefit from the CVMSHCP as they become part of this effort to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth within the Coachella Valley. The CVMSHCP allows preservation of a quality of life characterized by well - managed and well -planned growth integrated with an associated open -space system. As Permittees, the City and MSWD will assist in creation of sustainable conservation areas that protect endangered and threatened species and the habitats upon which they depend. This approach provides that project mitigation is directed to those areas most critical to maintenance of ecosystem function and species viability. This ecosystem or natural community based approach protects general biological diversity in the Plan Area, resulting in healthier ecosystems, reduces conflicts with development activities, and reduces the potential for additional species to be listed in the future. Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 1-5 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY Legend Ar — } ` Highways F— ,City Boundary Desert Hot Springs Boundary Mission Springs Water District Boundary s Morongo Wash Special Provisions Area ft_l�,iir�s CVMSHCP Boundary r � �Trti�c , _I I Tara a Napmv.n� -e,�w�.irw.ywcanenar:urrK.nr. {XY6.Or8. 2010 turnsxcP_uyo�_R.c�on. rw 77v: s d. Mlles 2 5 5 10 15 wcorwrek!naPUPmme� ,_t 9w�nM.kiew UenY of he %k v- end --- aa.vayaW��rnn �e�e ma�vw isaarsniy orrnure, . Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Amendment FIGURE Regional Location leap 1-1 Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 1-6 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTIONAND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY 7 J CRY 3—dry T. Enc se " Sp-o B—d.r, CVT ISHCP Boundary FA W. Sp-p VVa Dlwd Bauad Adddiam to Can —anon Area Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Amendment F'cu E Vicinity Map -� Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 1-7 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY Each Permittee participating in the Plan is a signatory to the Implementing Agreement (IA), which is an obligation among the individual Permittees, CDFW, and USFWS. Upon issuance of the Permit, the Permittees are granted Take Authorization for otherwise lawful activities addressed in the CVMSHCP, such as development, that may result in Take. Local Permittees are also required to ensure future development is consistent with the CVMSHCP. Local Development Mitigation Fee In 2011, the CVCC completed a new Fee Nexus Study to address a number of significant changes in the assumptions used in the 2007 Fee Nexus Study. The 2011 Fee Nexus Study produced a financial plan that resolves the long term funding issues of the CVMSHCP. The LDMF may now be used for any plan related expenses including land acquisition, land management, and biological monitoring. The overall acquisition period has been increased from 30 years to 45 years although it is anticipated that all the priority acquisitions will be completed in approximately 30 years. The LDMF collection period has been increased from only the first 50 years of the permit to the full 75 year term of the permit. As Desert Hot Springs is expected to become a Permittee in the near future, the 2011 Nexus Study calculated the LDMF both with and without the City. Should the City become a Permittee under the Plan, the LDMF will decrease by 8% throughout the Plan area. 1.4 Project Objectives The specific objective of the Major Amendment is to add the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan. In so doing, all of the private lands within the city limits of the City of Desert Hot Springs will be included, thus restoring the 2006 boundaries of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area within city limits. In addition, as Permittees of the Plan, Desert Hot Springs and MSWD will contribute to the overall goals and objectives of the CVMSHCP along with the other Permittees within the Plan Area. Desert Hot Springs and MSWD will be included in the state and federal Incidental Take permits issued for species covered by the CVMSHCP in lieu of the current case -by -case development review process, as it relates to biological resources. At the same time, the proposed Major Amendment will bring lands within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs into the CVMSHCP's comprehensive biological resource conservation strategy that provides adequate assurance of habitat conservation and long-term viability and protection of Covered Species. 1.5 Purpose of the Supplemental EIR/EIS Section 6.12 of the Plan describes procedures for processing CVMSHCP Modifications, Like Exchanges to Conservation Areas, and Minor or Major Amendments to the CVMSHCP. Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 1-8 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY Modifications include Clerical Changes that do not change the intended meaning and corrections of any maps or exhibits to correct insignificant errors in mapping; Land Use Changes include adoption and amendment of general plans, specific plans, community plans, zoning ordinances and similar land use ordinances; and Adaptive Management Changes are changes to avoidance, minimization, compensation and CVMSHCP Conservation Area management strategies developed consistent with the Adaptive Management Program in Section 8 of the Plan. None of these modifications require any amendment to the CVMSHCP. Like Exchanges are changes proposed by a Permittee to modify the boundary of one or more Conservation Areas in exchange for reducing or modifying the boundary of a Conservation Area. A Like Exchange must result in equal or greater benefits to Covered Species and conserved natural communities as compared to those benefits analyzed in the Plan. If the Wildlife Agencies concur with the Like Exchange Analysis that finds it results in equal or greater benefits to Covered Species, then an Amendment to the CVMSHCP is not required. Minor Amendments are amendments to the CVMSHCP of a minor or technical nature where the effect on Covered Species, level of Take, and Permittees' ability to implement the CVMSHCP are not significantly different than those described in the CVMSHCP as originally adopted. Minor Amendments to the CVMSHCP shall not require amendments to the IA or the Permits. Major Amendments are those proposed changes to the CVMSHCP and the Permits that are not Modifications, Like Exchanges or Minor Amendments as described in Section 6.12 of the Plan. Major Amendments to the CVMSHCP shall require a subsequent amendment to the IA and the Permits, and public notice as required by applicable laws and regulations. The CVCC shall submit any proposed Major Amendments to the Wildlife Agencies. Major Amendments include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. All amendments not contemplated in the IA as modifications or Minor Amendments to the CVMSHCP, except subsequent minor changes which are not specifically listed as a Minor Amendment in the IA that the Wildlife Agencies have determined to be insubstantial and appropriate for implementation as a Minor Amendment. 2. Changes to the boundary of the CVMSHCP Plan Area. 3. Addition of species to the Covered Species list. 4. Changes in anticipated CVMSHCP Reserve Assembly or funding strategies and schedules that would have substantial adverse effects on the Covered Species. The proposed Project meets the requirements of a Major Amendment because it involves changes to the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area, adds two new Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 1-9 March 2014 SECTION 1. 0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY Permittees under the Plan, and increases Authorized Take for some Covered Species and natural communities. The boundary of the CVMSHCP Plan Area does not change but Desert Hot Springs will have the responsibility of using its land use authority in the Conservation Areas within the city limits. Major Amendments require the same process to be followed as the original CVMSHCP approval. This process includes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, states that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines one or more of the following: 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that involve new significant effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken involve significant new or increased effects; or 3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. CVCC, the lead agency responsible for state environmental compliance, has determined that since none of the above circumstances are anticipated to occur with the revised CVMSHCP, a Supplemental rather than Subsequent EIR is appropriate. The NEPA guidelines indicate that an agency must prepare a supplement to either a draft or final EIS if it makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or if there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts (CEQ NEPA Regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(c)). In this case, the EIR/EIS being supplemented is the September 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (State Clearinghouse #200061079). The document Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 1-10 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY was certified by CVAG on September 10, 2007, and a Record of Decision was signed by USFWS on October 1, 2008. The approved Plan and associated environmental documents are available for review at http://www.cvmshcp.org/. As such, this joint Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (SEIR/SEIS) addresses changes to the September 2007 Final Recirculated Coachella Valley CVMSHCP EIWEIS that did not include Desert Hot Springs or MSWD as Permittees of the Plan. 1.6 Environmental Issues Analyzed in the SEIR/SEIS This joint SEIR/SEIS has been prepared to address changes to the September 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS that did not include Desert Hot Springs or MSWD as Permittees of the Plan. Per Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. As such, this SEIR/SEIS focuses only on changes to the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and on those environmental topics most likely to be affected by the Plan revisions as discussed in Section 2.0. For purposes of the SEIR/SEIS, the September 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS shall be incorporated by reference pursuant to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. The SEIR/SEIS prepared for the Project addresses those issues identified as a result of the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A) and Federal Register review process (see below) and in accordance with NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 15000 et seq., as amended, and the California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq., State CEQA Guidelines, as amended. Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study Checklist and comments received, it was determined that the SEIR/SEIS should focus on biological resources, land use, socioeconomic and fiscal impacts, and traffic and circulation. 1.7 Public Participation and Scoping Process In compliance with NEPA, USFWS posted a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on March 30, 2011, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a NOP was prepared by the CVCC and sent to the State Clearinghouse on March 30, 2011, for distribution to responsible state agencies. The NOP was also posted in the Desert Sun Newspaper on March 31, 2011, to inform the public of the proposed Major Amendment and Supplemental EIR/EIS being prepared. These actions initiated the 30-day public scoping period for the Project, which officially ended on May 2, 2011. The scoping process provides an opportunity for the lead agencies and the public to provide comments on the issues and scope of the SEIR/SEIS. The CVCC also held a public scoping meeting on April 4, 2011, at the Carl May Community Center in Desert Hot Springs, to further provide the public and other interested parties information on the CEQA and NEPA process and to give them opportunities to identify environmental issues and alternatives for Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 1-11 March 2014 SECTION 1.0 INTR OD UCTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY consideration in the SEIR/SEIS. The public review period to comment on the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS was from September 6, 2013 through October 21, 2013. Major Amendment - Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 1-12 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative As indicated in Section 1.0, the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative (Project) is considered a Major Amendment to the approved CVMSHCP to establish the City of Desert Hot Springs (City) and the Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) as Permittees of the Plan and issue Take Authorization under the Section 10(a) Permit associated with the Major Amendment activities. The Amendment to add the City as a Permittee of the Plan proposes that the Plan provisions and boundaries will be primarily based on the February 2006 CVMSHCP that included Desert Hot Springs, with modifications as described in the September 2007 Final Recirculated CVMSHCP to provide for Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's (County Flood Control) future flood control facility. The Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area boundary would be amended to include all of the private lands within the City limits of Desert Hot Springs that were removed in 2006. The private lands to be added to restore the 2006 boundary of this Conservation Area total approximately 770 acres. Adding the City as a Permittee will require a Major Amendment to the Plan in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section 6.12.4 of the Plan, Major Amendments. The 4,000 acre area annexed to the City from the County of Riverside on September 12, 2010 will not be included in the analysis in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (SEIR/SEIS) because this area was analyzed in the 2007 Final Recirculated CVMSHCP EIR/EIS. However, the Fiscal Impact Analysis discussed in Section 4.3 of this SEIR/SEIS included data on the land use designations applicable to these lands, and whether the land was vacant or developed. In addition, the Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) has also opted to become a Permittee to the Plan. The MSWD has proposed that a number of planned water and sewer infrastructure projects be included as Covered Activities under the CVMSHCP. Covered Activities include certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees, Participating Special Entities, Third Parties Granted Take Authorization, and others within the CVMSHCP area, as described in Section 7 of the CVMSHCP, that will receive Take Authorization under the Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP Permit, provided these activities are otherwise lawful. The City also has proposed that a number of roadway improvement projects be included in the Plan as Covered Activities. Details of the proposed Covered Activities are described in Section 2.3. As discussed in more detail in Section 1.5 of this SEIR/SEIS, the Proposed Action meets the requirements of a Major Amendment and therefore requires the same process to be followed as the original CVMSHCP approval including CEQA/NEPA compliance. As such, although no Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-1 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION significant impacts related to the proposed Major Amendment are anticipated, this joint SEIR/SEIS will be prepared to address changes to the September 2007 Final Recirculated CVMSHCP EIR/EIS, which did not include Desert Hot Springs or MSWD as Permittees of the Plan. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will serve as the federal lead agency ensuring compliance with the NEPA Guidelines and the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) will function as the regional agency ensuring compliance with CEQA. The CVCC is a joint powers authority made up of representatives of the Permittees to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the CVMSHCP, as set forth in Section 6.1.1 of the CVMSHCP. Although CVAG functioned as the state lead agency for the approved September 2007 Recirculated EWEIS, the CVCC, as the established Plan administrator, will serve as the state lead agency for this SEWSEIS. The Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP to include the City and MSWD has been prepared concurrent with the SEIR/SEIS. An Initial Study Checklist/Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared for the Project and circulated for a 30-day public review and comment period beginning on April 1, 2011. As indicated in that document (Appendix A), none of the CEQA/NEPA environmental topics were anticipated to be potentially significant or likely to require mitigation beyond what is outlined in Section 4.4 of the Plan (avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements for Covered Activities within the Conservation Areas). However, based on comments received during the NOP review period, an effort was made to identify measures to ensure the continued viability of mesquite hummocks as a natural community and to enhance the Monitoring Program contained in Section 8.4 of the Plan as it pertains to mesquite hummocks. Further details can be found in Section 4.1 of this SEIR/SEIS. As part of the Major Amendment, both the City and MSWD would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the required avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures for Covered Activities within Conservation Areas as outlined in Section 4.4 of the Plan. These measures have been developed and incorporated into the CVMSHCP to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Covered Species, associated Habitat, natural communities, and Essential Ecological Processes. Therefore, the Major Amendment will provide conservation, monitoring and management, and mitigation consistent with the CVMSHCP for the approximately 770 acres of private lands to be added back into the Conservation Area. The Plan also incorporates Land Use Adjacency Guidelines as described in Section 4.5 to avoid or minimize indirect effects from Development adjacent to or within the Conservation Areas. Such indirect effects are commonly referred to as edge effects, and may result from noise, lighting, drainage, intrusion of people into the adjacent Conservation Area, and the introduction of non-native plants and non-native predators such as dogs and cats. In addition to the required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, Section 6.6.1 of the Plan specifies certain other obligations of all Local Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-2 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Permittees for lands within and outside Conservation Areas. These obligations include the following: ➢ Within Conservation Areas -- Ensure achievement of the Plan's Conservation Goals and Objectives and Required Measures in each Conservation Area identified in Section 4.3 and attainment of the Species Conservation Goals and Objectives identified in Section 9. -- As described in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.2.2.1, conserve Local Permittee owned land in the Conservation Areas. Except as otherwise set forth in this section, the Local Permittees shall commit their currently not -conserved lands to conservation in perpetuity within 3 years of Permit issuance. -- Existing and future lands on which the County Flood Control has Take Authorization for construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities that are Covered Activities will be conserved only to the extent compatible with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities. -- Participate in the Joint Project Review Process for projects within Conservation Areas as described in Section 6.6.1.1 and implement the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines described in Section 4.5. -- Upon request from the Wildlife Agencies, the Local Permittees shall provide (a) an analysis and determination of consistency with the Plan at the time of, and along with, certification of applicable CEQA documents for approval of Development projects within Conservation Areas and (b) a copy of the final project approval documents within 30 days. -- Applicable Permittees will employ HANS as described in Section 6.6.1.2 as appropriate. -- Jurisdictions that received Take Authorization for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard pursuant to the Incidental Take Permit issued for that species pursuant to the CVFTL HCP will relinquish the Permit and comply with Section 6.6.1.3 and IA Section 16.2. ➢ Within and Outside Conservation Areas -- Ensure that habitat preservation is occurring in rough proportionality with Development and that Reserve Assembly occurs as contemplated in the CVMSHCP. -- Ensure compliance for public and private projects with all applicable Required Measures in Section 4.4. -- If a project shares a common boundary with a Conservation Area, require compliance with Land Use Adjacency Guidelines set forth in Section 4.5. -- Ensure compliance with Plan requirements for public projects. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-3 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION -- Impose adopted Local Development Mitigation Fees. The Local Permittees shall be responsible for collecting all revenues generated within their respective jurisdictional boundaries for Plan implementation and transferring those revenues to CVCC within thirty (30) days of collection. -- Adopt an appropriate Plan implementation mechanism as set forth in Section 11.1 of the IA. -- Maintain a record of total acres and location of Development within its jurisdiction and transmit this information to CVCC monthly. The undeveloped portions of parcels in Conservation Areas on which Development is approved by a Permittee shall count toward meeting the CVMSHCP's Conservation Objectives only when the undeveloped portion of the parcel is legally described and permanently protected through an appropriate Legal Instrument, and provision is made for the land to be monitored and managed pursuant to the CVMSHCP's Monitoring Program and Management Program. Review of individual Development projects will occur in accordance with the Implementation Manual. -- At the end of each calendar year, convey any changes in city boundaries or general plan land use designations to CVCC for inclusion in its Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies. -- Take will be allocated by the relevant Permittee(s). -- On parcels approved for Development, the Permittees shall encourage the opportunity to salvage Covered sand -dependent species in accordance with the Implementation Manual. Certain other obligations are outlined for Permittees that own and administer lands within Conservation Areas including water agencies such as Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and Imperial Irrigation District (IID). Consistent with those obligations as outlined in Section 6.6.1 of the Plan, MSWD has committed to conservation measures for the approximately 61 acres that they own in the Conservation Areas and other measures for activities outside Conservation Areas. The proposed measures to be included in the Major Amendment include the following: ➢ Lands on which MSWD has Take Authorization for O&M of facilities that are Covered Activities will be conserved only to the extent compatible with the O&M of the facilities. ➢ For future projects outside the Conservation Areas, MSWD may commit an equivalent dollar value of its lands in the Conservation Areas to permanent Conservation in lieu of paying the Local Development Mitigation Fee. These lands are not subject to the requirement that Local Permittee-owned lands that are not currently conserved must be committed to Conservation in perpetuity within 3 years of Permit issuance. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-4 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ➢ For future facilities (listed in the attached Table 1) that are Covered Activities in a Conservation Area for which MSWD is the lead agency, MSWD may commit an equivalent dollar value of its lands in the Conservation Areas to permanent conservation in lieu of paying the Local Development Mitigation Fee. CVCC will continue to be responsible for ensuring that the Conservation Area Conservation Objectives are met. ➢ If before Year 45 of Plan implementation, MSWD still owns land in the Conservation Areas that has not been conserved by any of the foregoing methods, MSWD shall cooperate with CVCC in the conservation of these lands through acquisition by CVCC or other means. ➢ Conservation will be accomplished through conveyance of fee title to CVCC, recordation of a conservation easement or other legal instrument, or entering into an MOU for cooperative management with CVCC. ➢ It is understood that some portion of MSWD's 61 acres will be needed for future facilities including permanent operational sites. These future facilities will require limited area; MSWD agrees to cooperate with CVCC to ensure that these facilities are consistent with the CVMSHCP Conservation Goals and Objectives, required measures, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, and land use adjacency guidelines as applicable. Additional specific MSWD obligations are discussed in Section 4.1.4 of this SEM/SEIS. These additional obligations will be added to Section 6.6.1 of the Plan should this Major Amendment be adopted. These obligations include contribution of $110,000 to the CVCC to provide for the permanent monitoring and management of the MSWD lands in the Conservation Areas in perpetuity as required by the CVMSHCP, including removal of invasive species and monitoring of mesquite hummocks. MSWD will also provide funds to support monitoring and analysis of groundwater levels in the amount of $120,000, provide funds to CVCC to be used for the removal of non-native tamarisk from the Willow Hole Conservation Area in the amount of $100,000, and provide $20,000 toward a study being conducted by CVCC on the feasibility of mesquite restoration and development of a mesquite restoration plan. 2.2 Plan/Permit Amendments and Boundary Adjustments The currently approved CVMSHCP acknowledges that over the life of the Permit, the Permittees may wish to amend the Plan. Such amendments are to be processed pursuant to the guidelines outlined in Section 6.12 of the Plan, including the Major Amendment analyzed in this document. Figure 1-2 in Section 1.0 shows the existing Conservation Area boundaries and proposed Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-5 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION changes to the Conservation Area boundaries that will be affected by the Major Amendment. 2.3 Covered Activities The City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD have proposed that the projects shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 be listed as Covered Activities in the Major Amendment. City of Desert Hot Springs proposed Covered Activities are roadway improvement projects and MSWD proposed Covered Activities include construction of wells, water storage facilities, water transmission lines, recycled water lines, and sewer lines. Those projects within or adjacent to Conservation Areas would be given Take Authorization subject to incorporation of the Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines required by the Plan and any specific measures developed under the Major Amendment. 2.4 Take Authorization for Covered Activities The Major Amendment proposes certain projects, categorized as Covered Activities in accordance with procedures under the existing Plan, which would receive Take Authorization. As indicated in the approved CVMSHCP, Covered Activities are of two types: 1) projects within or adjacent to Conservation Areas; and 2) those projects outside Conservation Areas. The development permitted or approved by Local Permittees includes, but is not limited to, new projects approved pursuant to county and city general plans including the circulation element of said general plans, transportation improvement plans for roads in addition to those addressed in Section 7.2 of the Plan, master drainage plans, capital improvement plans, water and waste management plans, the County's adopted Trails Master Plan, and other plans adopted by the Permittees. The Take Authorization that would be granted to Desert Hot Springs would allow limited development, consistent with CVMSHCP Conservation Goals and Objectives, in the Conservation Areas. However, the approved CVMSHCP assumed that 10% of the Special Provisions Area within the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area would not be conserved, since Desert Hot Springs is not currently a Permittee. The amount of authorized disturbance, or Take, to be allocated to the City within Conservation Areas as a result of the Major Amendment would not exceed the amount of acres previously analyzed. Take outside Conservation Areas was analyzed in the 2008 Plan and will not increase the total amount of disturbance analyzed under the CVMSHCP Permit. However, through this Major Amendment, an additional 770 acres would be added to the Conservation Area and conserved, managed, and monitored consistent with the CVMSHCP. The Covered Activities for each respective agency are shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-6 March 2014 ,.SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Table 2-1 City of Desert Hot SprinlIs Proposed Covered Activities Roadway Project Palm Dr. north of Pierson Blvd., south of Mission Lakes Blvd. Indian Ave. north of 20th Ave., south of 19th Ave. Indian Ave. north of 19th Ave., south of Dillon Rd. Indian Ave. north of Dillon Rd., south of 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. Indian Ave. north of 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr., south of Pierson Blvd. Indian Ave. north of Pierson Blvd., south of Mission Lakes Blvd. Indian Ave. north of Mission Lakes Blvd., southeast of Worsley Rd. Little Morongo Rd. north of Pierson Blvd., south of Mission Lakes Blvd. Little Morongo Rd. north of 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr., south of Pierson Blvd. Little Morongo Rd. north of Dillon Rd., south of 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. Mountain View Rd. north of Dillon Rd., south of Hacienda Ave. Mountain View Rd. north of 20th Ave., south of Dillon Rd. Dillon Rd. east of Palm Dr., west of Mountain View Rd. Dillon Rd. east of Mountain View Rd., west of Bennett Rd. Pierson Blvd. east of Hwy 62, west of Indian Ave. Pierson Blvd. east of Indian Ave., west of Little Morongo Rd. Pierson Blvd. east of Little Morongo Rd., west of Palm Dr. Mission Lakes Blvd. east of Indian Ave., west of Little Morongo Rd. Mission Lakes Blvd. east of Little Morongo Rd., west of Verbena Dr. 13th Ave./Hacienda Ave. east of Little Morongo Rd., west of Palm Dr. 13th Ave./Hacienda Ave. east of Palm Dr., west of Mountain View Rd. Mountain View Rd. north of Varner Rd., south of 20th Ave. Long Canyon Rd. north of Dillon Rd. to Hacienda Ave., west to Mountain View Rd. 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. east of Indian Ave., west of Little Morongo Rd. 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. east of Little Morongo Rd., west of Palm Dr. 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. east of Palm Dr., west of Miracle Hill Rd. Dillon Rd. east of Hwy 62, west of Indian Ave. Dillon Rd. east of Indian Ave., west of Palm Dr. 20th Ave. east of Worsley Rd, west of Indian Ave. 20th Ave. east of Indian Ave., west of Little Morongo Rd. 20th Ave. east of Little Morongo Rd., west of Palm Dr. 20th Ave. east of Palm Dr., west of Mountain View Rd. 13th Ave./Hacienda Ave. east of Hwy 62, west of Indian Ave. 13th Ave./Hacienda Ave. east of Indian Ave., west of Little Morongo Rd. Little Morongo Rd. north of 20th Ave., south of Dillon Rd. Mission Lakes Blvd. east of Hwy 62, west of Indian Ave. Palm Dr. north of Varner Rd., south of 20th Ave. Palm Dr. north of 20th Ave., south of Dillon Rd. Palm Dr. north of Dillon Rd., south of 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. Pierson Blvd. east of Palm Dr., west of Miracle Hill Rd. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-7 March 2014 ,.SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Roadway Project Pierson Blvd. east of Miracle Hill Rd. to Mountain View Rd., south to Hacienda Ave. 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. east of Hwy 62, west of Indian Ave. Varner Rd. south east of Little Morongo Rd., west of Palm Dr. Worsley Rd. north of 20th Ave., south of Dillon Rd. Worsley Rd. north of Dillon Rd., south of 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr. Worsley Rd. north of 14th Ave./Two Bunch Palms Tr., south of Pierson Blvd. Worsley Rd. north of Pierson Blvd., south of Indian Ave. Varner Rd. east of Palm Dr., west of Mountain View Rd. Bubbling Wells Rd. north of 20th Ave., south of Calle Campanero 8th Street east of Alignment of Golden Eagle Dr., west of Verbena Dr. Western Ave. north of 14th Ave., south of Mission Lakes Blvd Table 2-2 MSWD Proposed Covered Activities 913 / 1070 Pressure Zone - Two wells and one reservoir. 1400 Pressure Zone-2 New Wells, 3 Water Transmission Lines -Little Morongo Road 1530 Pressure Zone -New Water Transmission Line -Indian Avenue to the north of Mission Lakes Boulevard 1700 Pressure Zone-1 Water Storage Reservoir -north of Verbena Drive 1875 Pressure Zone-3 Water Storage Reservoirs- 2035 Pressure Zone-3 Water Storage Reservoirs, 3 Water Transmission Lines -west of Highway 62, north of Mission Lakes Boulevard 2155 Pressure Zone-1 Water Storage Reservoir and one water transmission line -West of Mission Creek Trails project Network of sewer main lines along Dillon Road to Palm Drive and onto Indian Avenue. One sewer trunk line under the 62 freeway down Dillon Road to Diablo, and then to 181" Avenue Recycled Water and Purple Pipe lines — Pipe #1 from the future Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Pipe #2 from the Horton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-8 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION w Covered Activities Desert Hot Springs Boundary .n Additions to Conservation Area Mission Springs Water District Boundary trtm.mngm eau e y Fz! 01 I / l SCALE MitES I 0 1 2 4 I Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Amendment FIGURE Desert Hot Springs Covered Activities 2 1 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-9 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION C3Dssen H t Springs Ecurdary r 'I 1 Ask EDAdditicns tc Conssrvatlor Area s�'• - [3Mlsslon Springs Water District'Scuncar. Covered Activities a Potential Well Locations New Tanks New Wells New Pumps 'j— Pipes SCALE -MILES 0 1 2 4 Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Amendment FIGURE Mission Springs Water District Covered Activities 1 2-1 2.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action In developing alternatives to be addressed in this SEIR/SEIS, consideration was given regarding their ability to: (1) meet the USFWS purpose and need for deciding whether to amend the CVMSHCP and permit; (2) meet the basic objectives of the Project described in Section 2.0; and (3) eliminate significant environmental impacts as identified in Section 4.0 of this SEIR/SEIS. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project Alternative, be identified in an EIR, after comparing the potentially significant impacts of each alternative as compared to the Proposed Project. NEPA requires that in addition to the agency's Preferred Alternative, the environmentally preferable alternative be identified. As discussed in detail in Section 7.0, this document supplements the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS that discusses a wide range of alternatives to the CVMSHCP that Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-10 March 2014 SECTION Z 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION considered approving the Plan without the City of Desert Hot Springs as a Permittee. The Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA and the environmentally preferred alternative under NEPA because it is the only alternative that would meet the primary objectives of the Project, which is adding both Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as Permittees of the Plan. Amending the CVMHCP and permit as proposed would be the environmentally preferable alternative because adding these two new permittees would provide a more comprehensive and cohesive Plan that would benefit the Covered Species and natural communities protected within the Plan Area. Furthermore, no significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative have been identified in this SEIR/SEIS. Therefore, the alternatives discussed in the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS provide sufficient analysis and no further alternatives other than an updated No Action/No Project Alternative are considered in this SEWSEIS for the Plan Amendment. However, each of the environmental topics discussed in Section 4.0 provide an analysis of whether the proposed Major Amendment would change any conclusions contained in each of the alternatives. These alternatives include a Public Lands Alternative; Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative; and an Enhanced Conservation Alternative. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 2-11 March 2014 ,SECTION 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Introduction In accordance with Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 1502.15 of NEPA, the general environmental setting or affected environment for the Project area is provided in this section. More detailed descriptions of the setting specifically pertaining to each environmental issue are provided at the beginning of each impact issue area addressed in Section 4.0. 3.1 Existing and Surrounding Land Use Existing Land Use City of Desert Hot Springs The City of Desert Hot Springs is located in the northwestern portion of the Coachella Valley in Riverside County. The City is generally bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains west of Highway 62, the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north, Long Canyon Road on the east and Interstate 10 on the south (refer to Figure 1-2). The incorporated City limits, which are subject to analysis in this SEIR/SEIS, encompass approximately 23 square miles. The City also recently annexed approximately 4,000 acres (the I-10 Annexation area) of unincorporated territory, previously under Riverside County's jurisdiction, into the City's municipal service boundaries. The I-10 Annexation area is mostly vacant desert lands, interspersed with low density residential, commercial, light industrial, and wind energy uses. The annexation did not include or authorize any site -specific development projects, capital improvements, community facilities, or other forms of development. The I-10 Annexation was approved by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on September 12, 2010. This increased the size of the City from approximately 23 square miles to approximately 29.3 square miles. However, the roughly 6.3 square mile annexation area is not included in the analysis in this document since the City of Desert Hot Springs was delegated Permittee status for the affected area by the CVCC as part of the annexation process. This action involved a transfer of existing conservation lands and Permittee status from the County to the City; no new Conservation Area or additions to the overall Plan Area were created because the Conservation Area within the annexation area was already included in the CVMSHCP through Riverside County as a designated Permittee. Consistent with Section 12.21 of the CVMSHCP Implementing Agreement, the City has adopted the Local Development Mitigation Fee, to be levied on new development within the annexation area, and has committed to implementing the Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 3-1 March 2014 ,SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING applicable Conservation Goals and Objectives, and minimization measures of the Plan within the affected annexation area. In addition, the existing County of Riverside General Plan policies have been retained so that the present rules governing land uses in the affected annexation area will not change. Pursuant to state law, the land use designations within the annexation area cannot be changed for two (2) years following approval of an annexation. Future development within this area will be subject to independent environmental review and subject to the applicable Conservation Goals and Objectives, and minimization measures of the Plan. Consequently, the approximate 6.3 square mile annexation area is not included in this analysis as it is already subject to the provisions of the CVMSHCP. Most of the area within the city limits that is currently developed is located in the eastern portion of the City generally in the vicinity of Mission Lakes Boulevard on the north, Dillon Road on the south, Indian Avenue on the west, and Mountain View Road to the east. The majority of the developed area includes a mix of lower density, single-family and multi -family residential uses within subdivisions. There are also older, individually -built homes and higher density condominiums, apartment dwellings, and mobile home parks. This is the part of the City that also contains the majority of retail/commercial uses and public facilities such as schools, police and fire departments, and city government. There are also a number of hotels and resorts/spas in this area. The portion of the City generally to the west of Little Morongo Road contains scattered single family homes and residential subdivisions in between expanses of open desert land. Mission Springs Water District Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) provides water and sewer service to an approximately 135 square mile area and a population of approximately 30,000. The area served by MSWD is located in the northwestern portion of the Coachella Valley and encompasses the entire incorporated city limits of Desert Hot Springs, unincorporated areas of Riverside County, and a small area of the northern portion of Palm Springs. The northern boundary extends to the Riverside County line; the western boundary generally follows the limits of the Morongo Indian Reservation and the southern and eastern boundaries abut the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) boundaries (Refer to Figure 1-2). Surrounding Land Use Land uses surrounding the Major Amendment area are primarily under the County of Riverside's land use authority, with a limited area near the southwest portion of Desert Hot Springs that is under the City of Palm Springs jurisdiction. Unincorporated County areas north of the City are designated Desert Areas near the base of the Little San Bernardino Mountains, Mountainous Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 3-2 March 2014 ,SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Areas within the foothills, and Water Resources along Mission Creek and Morongo Wash. Existing land use in this area consists of large expanses of rugged, undeveloped desert. Adjoining County lands to the west are also designated as Mountainous Areas within the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, Desert Areas in low-lying areas at the base of the mountains, and Water Resources along the Whitewater River. Existing land use in this area consists of windfarm development, and scattered low density, single-family homes within the unincorporated community of Painted Hills. Areas south of the City include a combination of lands managed by Riverside County and the City of Palm Springs. Palm Springs jurisdictional lands south of Desert Hot Springs and north of the I-10 Freeway are primarily designated for windfarm, industrial and related development, with the exception of a small area near the northwest corner of I-10 and Indian Avenue, which has been designated for commercial uses. Palm Springs lands immediately south of I-10 and north of the Union Pacific Rail line, including portions of the Whitewater River have Limited Industrial, Conservation and Desert designations. Existing land uses in this area include the I-10 Freeway, windfarm facilities, electrical substations and regional transmission line corridors, along with general commercial and light industrial uses at the southwest corner of the Indian Avenue and I- 10 interchange. County lands south of Desert Hot Springs are designated for commercial, a mix of residential, industrial and water resources. Existing land uses in these areas include more windfarm facilities and vacant desert land. Adjoining Riverside County lands to the northeast of Desert Hot Springs include Mountainous Areas, with low density residential and limited commercial lands to the immediate east and southeast. These areas are primarily undeveloped, with scattered low density residential development. Land use changes resulting from the Major Amendment process are discussed in Section 4.2 of this document. Topography The physical character of the City and MSWD planning area is largely defined by the San Bernardino Mountains and Little San Bernardino Mountains to the west and north respectively. Hydrologic processes emanating from these adjacent mountain ranges have created washes that drain toward the valley floor creating alluvial fans and plains, sand dunes, and rocky sand fields. The City is situated on a gently sloping alluvial fan with a consistent slope trending from the foothills in the north toward the valley floor in the south. The Major Amendment area varies greatly in elevation and topographic features, with elevations ranging from approximately 2,800 feet above sea level within the foothills of the Little San Bernardino Mountains in the northeast, Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 3-3 March 2014 ,SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING to approximately 580 feet above sea level near the I-10/Palm Drive interchange near the southern portion of the Major Amendment area. Other mountain ranges visible from the City include the San Jacinto Mountains to the south and southwest, and the more distant Santa Rosa Mountains further south and southeast. Climate The climate of the area affected by the proposed Major Plan Amendment is similar to the overall Coachella Valley which is characterized as an and desert type climate, with hot summers, mild winters, and very little annual rainfall. Precipitation is less than 6 inches annually and occurs mostly in the winter months and in the late summer months from thunderstorms. The majority of precipitation generated by these storms falls on the adjoining mountain slopes, resulting in generally higher rainfall in the western and northern portions of the Major Amendment area. Daytime temperatures in the valley can reach 125 degrees on the desert floor, while winter nights can fall to sub -freezing temperatures. The mountainous areas bounding the valley are generally cooler than the valley floor, averaging approximately a 5 degree reduction for every 1,000 foot rise in elevation. Consequently, temperatures found in the northern and western regions of the Major Amendment area are slightly cooler on average than temperatures at the lower elevations in the south. During the winter season, daytime highs are quite mild, although dry air is conducive to nocturnal radiational cooling, with early morning lows around 40 degrees. The Major Amendment area is exposed to frequent gusty winds. The extreme aridity of the region combines with the coastal air masses that are funneled through the San Gorgonio Pass located southwest of the Major Amendment area, and creates strong wind conditions throughout the area, typically in the spring months of April through June. The strongest and most persistent winds typically occur immediately to the east of the San Gorgonio Pass, which is noted as a wind power generation resource area. Revised Plan Area As shown on Figure 1-2, there are five separate areas proposed to be added to the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area within the City limits that together total approximately 770 acres. Four of these added areas are located in the western portion of the City limits west of State Route 62. The three smaller portions of this area are currently designated as Residential Estate, 1 dwelling per 10 acres (RE-10) in the City's General Plan adopted in 2000. These parcels are currently undeveloped. The largest of the four parcels is designated as a combination of Industrial -Energy Related and Open Space -Mountain Reserve. It is largely vacant except for some wind energy development along several ridgelines. The final added area Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 3-4 March 2014 ,SECTION 3. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING is located in the north -central portion of the City just north of Mission Lakes Boulevard and west of Mission Creek. The current land use designation is Residential Low Density (0-5 du/ac) with a Specific Plan Overlay. This parcel is presently undeveloped. The City's General Plan is being updated concurrent with preparation of this SEIR/SEIS, and the proposed land use changes will reflect the City's commitment to becoming a Permittee of the Plan by assigning conservation and rural land use designations in the Conservation Areas within the city limits. A more detailed discussion of land uses in these areas and proposed changes to the land use designations is provided in Section 4.2. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 3-5 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.1.1 Introduction and Methodology This section provides a general discussion of existing biological resources within the area affected by the Major Amendment and discusses potential project impacts to biological resources. This analysis is a supplement to the Biological Resources discussion in the September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the CVMSHCP. It focuses only on those changes resulting from adding the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan and is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of biological conditions within the entire Plan area. Additionally, as noted in Section 2.0, the approximately 4,000 acre area annexed to the City from the County of Riverside in September 2010 will not be included in the environmental analysis of this SEIR/SEIS since the annexation area was addressed in the September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS. However, the Fiscal Impact Analysis discussed in Section 4.3 includes data on the land use designations applicable to these lands, and whether the land was vacant or developed. 4.1.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment As described in the Environmental Setting/Affected Environment section of this document (Section 3.0) the majority of land area within the City of Desert Hot Springs is currently undeveloped vacant desert land. The developed area is primarily in the eastern portion of the City and consists of a mix of single and multi -family residences and various commercial uses along with public facilities such as schools, parks, police, fire and other City government uses. A detailed discussion of existing land uses is contained in Section 4.2. Natural Communities Most of the undeveloped land in the western portion of the City consists of desert scrub natural communities including Sonoran creosote bush scrub, comprised primarily of creosote and burrobush with widely spaced shrub growth intermixed with bare ground, and Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub, comprised of creosote and other shrubs with various cactus species. Portions of these natural communities also occur to the east of the downtown core as well as an area of Mojave mixed woody scrub in the northeast portion of the City. Sensitive Wildlife Sensitive wildlife species that may occur in or adjacent to the City have been described in detail and identified as Covered Species in the September 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and the approved Plan, including: burrowing owl; desert tortoise; Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket; Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard; Le Conte's thrasher; Palm Springs pocket mouse; and Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-1 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Other wildlife species not included in the Covered Species list that are identified in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for the Desert Hot Springs area are state Species of Special Concern including the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), pallid San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax pallidus), red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus Tuber), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia); and one watch list species, the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). Several of these species were considered in the development of the CVMSHCP; due to their coastal distribution they were not included in the Covered Species list. Sensitive Plant Species Sensitive Plant species that are Covered Species and that may occur in or adjacent to the City include the federally endangered Coachella Valley milkvetch and triple -ribbed milkvetch, and Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus, a California Species of Special Concern. Other sensitive plant species identified in the CNDDB for this area include chaparral sand verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita, rare plant rank 1B.1), white-bracted spineflower (Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca, 1B.2), spiny -hair blazing star (Mentzelia tricuspis, 2.1), cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera, 2.2), desert spike -moss (Selaginella eremophila, 2.2), slender cottonheads (Nemacaulis denudata var. gracilis, 2.2), and Arizona spurge (Chamaesyce arizonica. 2.3). 4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance The following thresholds are taken from the certified September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS and reflect both NEPA and CEQA thresholds agreed to by all the Parties for analysis of biological impacts. Because CEQA has more stringent and detailed thresholds related to biological resources, over those for NEPA, the following thresholds are based on the criteria identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-2 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 4.1.4 Biological Resource Impacts/Environmental Consequences Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative Covered Activities As discussed in Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of this document, both the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD have requested that a number of anticipated projects within their boundaries be established as Covered Activities as provided for in the Plan. Covered Activities as defined in Section 7 of the Plan include certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees, Participating Special Entities, third parties granted Take Authorization and others within the Plan Area that will receive Take Authorization under the Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP Permit, provided these activities are otherwise lawful. The Plan requires permanent protection of specified acreages to ensure the continued persistence of the identified natural communities and Habitat for the Covered Species. The number of acres of additional authorized disturbance as well as additional conservation proposed in this Major Amendment are shown in Table 4.1-1 for Covered Species. Table 4.1-2 identifies the additional acres of impact and conservation for natural communities. The increase in authorized disturbance in Conservation Areas provided for in the Major Amendment would result from the covered projects identified for Mission Springs Water District. When Desert Hot Springs opted not to participate in the CVMSHCP in 2006, it was anticipated that development would still occur inside and outside the Conservation Areas. Therefore, the amount of disturbance, or Take, authorized in the 2008 Permit the acres subject to disturbance within the city of Desert Hot Springs. City of Desert Hot Springs covered projects in the Conservation Areas are road improvements that are already covered as CVAG's covered projects. Although this Take was authorized by the state and federal permits, as a non-Permittee, the City does not have the authority to allocate this Take. The Major Amendment will include Take authorization for Desert Hot Springs in the CVMSHCP Permits, allowing the disturbance to occur consistent with the Plan Conservation Goals and Objectives. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRUS 4.1-3 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The additional disturbance to Covered Species and natural communities associated with MSWD Covered Activities will be mitigated through the Plan by permanent protection of habitat within Conservation Areas and contributions to the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program. MSWD projects will be subject to the Joint Project Review process to minimize the potential impacts and ensure consistency with Conservation Goals and Objectives. Sensitive Species and Natural Communities Major Amendment benefits would include the expansion of conserved, unfragmented Habitat and natural communities, continued maintenance of Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Covered Species and their Habitat, and further protection of Biological Corridors and Linkages. Most of the disturbance associated with the city of Desert Hot Springs is already covered under the existing Permit. As shown in Table 4.1-1, the potential additional disturbance authorized by the Major Amendment is limited (less than three acres) for a majority of the Covered Species and would not exceed approximately 29 acres of Habitat (e.g., desert tortoise). The disturbance allowed under the Preferred Alternative would be less than significant for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes because additional loss of Habitat within Conservation Areas would be offset by approximately 770 acres of additional conservation within the Conservation Area, including desert tortoise Habitat. The following summarizes the acres of additional disturbance and conservation identified in Table 4.1-1 for the affected Covered Species: For several of the Covered Species associated with sand dunes or sandy substrates (Coachella Valley milkvetch, Coachella Valley giant sand treader cricket, Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, Flat -tailed horned lizard), the amount of additional Take to be authorized through the Major Amendment is two to three acres. The 770 acres of additional conservation added to the Conservation Area includes two acres of additional conservation of milkvetch habitat but does not include habitat for the other species. The additional disturbance of two to three acres for the sand treader cricket and fringe -toed lizard is in areas where the active sand dune habitat these species prefer is not present. Two acres of additional conservation are also identified for the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket; this area is at the margins of potential habitat for this species. The impact of this potential disturbance will be offset by the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures as well as species conservation goals and objectives that require sustainable populations are maintained. The additional disturbance identified for the Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus would not exceed 12 acres. The additional 770 acres of conservation lands does not include modeled linanthus habitat. However, the conservation objective for linanthus within the Plan area, will remain approximately the same even with a slight increase in the acres of Take authorized. Additionally, a net conservation benefit is anticipated as the provisions of the CVMSHCP, including avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, species conservation objectives, and Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.14 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES the Joint Project Review process will ensure that disturbance is minimized. Finally, since 1996, over 66% of the 2,235 acres of linanthus habitat remaining to be conserved have been acquired for conservation in perpetuity, the conserved lands include 40 of the 63 known occurrences for linanthus, and the Upper Mission Creek/Morongo Wash Conservation Area continues to be a priority acquisition area. For all other Covered Species identified in Table 4.1-1, the increase in acres to be conserved exceeds the additional acres of disturbance. For example, the desert tortoise, 665 additional acres will be conserved compared with the 29 acres of potential additional disturbance. The additional conserved Habitat will be included in the Management and Monitoring Program to ensure persistence of the Covered Species. Other sensitive or special status species identified in Section 4.1.2 are also expected to benefit from the additional conservation, monitoring and management under the Preferred Alternative. Overall, we anticipate a net conservation benefit with the Preferred Alternative relative to the No Action Alternative. Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Take Authorized for Covered Species in 2008 Permit and Proposed Major Amendment Extent of Extent of Species Name (27 Listing Status Take Take Additional Additional Species) Federal/State Authorized Authorized Take Conservation (2008 (Major (acres) (acres) Permit) Amendment) *LISTED PLANTS Coachella Valley milk -vetch (As tragal us lentiginosus var. coachellae) FE/- 15,706 acres 15,709 acres 3 2 Triple -ribbed milkvetch (Astragal us tricarinatus) FE/- 278 acres 278 acres 0 0 *UNLISTED PLANTS Mecca aster (Xylorhiza cognata) -/- 6,459 acres 6,459 acres 0 0 Orocopia sage (Salvia greatae) -/- 6,960 acres 6,960 acres 0 0 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-5 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Take Authorized for Covered Species in 2008 Permit and Proposed Major Amendment Extent of Extent of Species Name (27 Listing Status Take Take Additional Additional Species) Federal/State Authorized Authorized Take Conservation (2008 (Major (acres) (acres) Permit) Amendment) Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus (Linanthus maculatus) -/- 695 acres 707 acres 12 0 UNLISTED INVERTEBRATES Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum) -/- 13,802 acres 13,804 acres 2 0 Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket (Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis) -/- 10,236 acres 10,239 acres 3 2 LISTED FISH Desert pupfish Take of Take of (Cyprinodon individuals individuals macularius) from ongoing from ongoing FE/SE operations operations 0 0 LISTED AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) FE/CSC 89 acres 89 acres 0 0 LISTED REPTILES Desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) FT/ST 68,453 acres 69,482 acres 29 694 Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata) FT/SE 13,801 acres 13,803 acres 2 0 UNLISTED REPTILES Flat -tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcalli) -/CSC 19,520 acres 19,523 acres 3 0 LISTED BIRDS Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-6 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Take Authorized for Covered Species in 2008 Permit and Proposed Major Amendment Extent of Extent of Species Name (27 Listing Status Take Take Additional Additional Species) Federal/State Authorized Authorized Take Conservation (2008 (Major (acres) (acres) Permit) Amendment) Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris FE & MBTA/ yumanensis) ST & SFP 71 acres 71 acres 0 0 Southwestern 180 acres of 180 acres of willow flycatcher breeding breeding (Empidonax traillii habitat habitat extimus) 15,600 acres 15,603 acres of migratory of migratory FE & MBTA/SE habitat habitat 3 18 Least Bell's vireo 778 acres of 778 acres of (Vireo bellii pusillus) breeding breeding habitat 15,021 habitat acres of 15,024 acres migratory of migratory FE & MBTA/SE habitat habitat 3 18 UNLISTED BIRDS California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis M BTA/ST & coturniculus) SFP 66 acres 66 acres 0 0 Burrowing owl 55 55 (Athene cunicularia) MBTA/CSC occurrences occurrences 0 0 Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale) MBTA/CSC 5,231 acres 5,231 acres 0 0 Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei) MBTA/CSC 97,752 acres 97,780 acres 28 154 Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) MBTA/CSC 3,945 acres 3,945 acres 0 0 Yellow warbler 180 acres of 180 acres of (Dendroica petechia breeding breeding brewsteri) habitat habitat 15,620 acres 15,623 acres of migratory of migratory MBTA/CSC habitat habitat 3 18 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-7 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.1-1 Comparison of Take Authorized for Covered Species in 2008 Permit and Proposed Major Amendment Extent of Extent of Species Name (27 Listing Status Take Take Additional Additional Species) Federal/State Authorized Authorized Take Conservation (2008 (Major (acres) (acres) Permit) Amendment) Yellow -breasted 180 acres of 180 acres of chat breeding breeding (Icteria virens) habitat habitat 15,606 acres 15,609 acres of migratory of migratory MBTA/CSC habitat habitat 3 18 Summer tanager 180 acres of 180 acres of (Piranga rubra) breeding breeding habitat habitat 15,620 acres 15,623 acres of migratory of migratory MBTA/- habitat habitat 3 18 LISTED MAMMALS Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) FE/ST & SFP 6,873 acres 6,906 acres 0 0 UNLISTED MAMMALS Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chorus) FC/CSC 62,366 acres 62,385 acres 19 123 Western (Southern) yellow bat (Lasiurus ego xanthinus) -/- 78 acres 78 acres 0 0 Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognothus longimembris bangsi) -/CSC 76,889 acres 76,917 acres 28 144 As shown in Table 4.1-2, disturbance to natural communities is limited to approximately 34 acres. Disturbance allowed under the Preferred Alternative would be less than significant for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes because permanent protection of natural communities would be offset by additional conservation as a result of additions to the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area. Table 4.1-2 identifies the additional conservation resulting from these additions for the affected natural communities. These natural communities will be Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-8 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES included in the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program to ensure persistence of the Covered Species, natural communities, and ecosystem processes. Table 4.1-2 Comparison of Impact to Natural Communities in 2008 Permit and Major Amendment Natural Community Total Acres Subject to Impact (2008 Permit) Total Acres Subject to Impact (Major Amendment) Additional Disturbance (acres) Additional Conservation (acres) Active Desert Dunes 25 25 0 0 Stabilized & Partially Stabilized Desert Sand Dunes 94 95 1 0 Active Desert Sand Fields 1,519 1,519 0 0 Ephemeral Desert Sand Fields 885 886 1 0 Stabilized & Partially Stabilized Desert Sand Fields 296 296 0 0 Stabilized Shielded Desert Sand Fields 10,928 10,928 0 0 Mesquite Hummocks 550 550 0 0 Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub 54,818 54,822 4 66 Sonoran Mixed Woody & Succulent Scrub 24,385 24,411 26 554 Mojave Mixed Woody Scrub 5,891 5,891 0 0 Desert Saltbush Scrub 4,552 4,552 0 0 Desert Sink Scrub 1,699 1,699 0 0 Chamise Chaparral 52 52 0 0 Redshank Chaparral 979 979 0 0 Semi -Desert Chaparral 305 305 0 0 Interior Live Oak Chaparral 3,858 3,858 0 0 Cismontane Alkali Marsh 23 23 0 0 Coastal & Valley Freshwater Marsh 27 27 0 0 Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest 4 4 0 0 Sonoran Cottonwood -Willow Riparian Forest 65 65 0 0 Southern Sycamore -Alder Riparian Woodland 27 27 0 0 Arrowweed Scrub 14 14 0 0 Desert Fan Palm Oasis Woodland 79 79 0 0 Mesquite Bosque 36 36 0 0 Desert Dry Wash Woodland 8,714 8,716 2 18 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-9 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Table 4.1-2 Comparison of Impact to Natural Communities in 2008 Permit and Major Amendment Total Acres Total Acres Subject to Subject to Additional Additional Natural Community Impact Impact Disturbance Conservation (2008 Permit) (Major (acres) (acres) Amendment) Mojavean Pinyon -Juniper Woodland 134 134 0 0 Peninsular Juniper Woodland And Scrub 1,108 1,108 0 0 Subtotal 121,067 121,110 34 638 Agriculture — Conversion to Development Of Up To This Amount or Wind Energy 84,900 84,900 0 57 Total 205,967 206,010 34 693 The establishment and management of Conservation Areas, including additional conserved lands within the City, would help further reduce Habitat fragmentation, promote maintenance of Essential Ecological Processes including sand transport that supports sensitive Habitat, and enhance connectivity along corridors and linkages by limiting development in this area. Consequently, implementation of the proposed Major Amendment will not result in significant impacts to any sensitive species. Figure 4-1 shows Natural Communities in the Conservation Area with the proposed additions. As shown, the additional areas to be conserved consist of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub. Figure 4-2 shows Covered Species in the Conservation Area with the proposed additions. As shown, two Covered Species occur in the additional areas to be conserved, the Palm Springs pocket mouse and desert tortoise. The limited impact identified in Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 will be offset by additional conservation of 770 acres; with a maximum of 10% development allowed in Conservation Areas, 693 of these acres will be permanently conserved. It should also be noted that significant acquisition along Morongo Wash in the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area has occurred since the Permits were issued by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission and other conservation partners. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-10 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Natural Communities - 17-1 Chy Boundaries Major Roads Upper Mission Creek/Biy Marong. Cyn M—go Wash Flood CdrtrogCorddor Natural Communities Desert dry wash woodland Mojawa mixed woody scrub r - r1 !r r Sonoran cattonwood-wiHow riparian fares Sonoran croosoh, bush scrub mixed Sonoran wwdy 8 succulent scrub .. Desert Hot ;` Additions[. conservation area Springs F CVCC USCLAIMER. klapa and dpu are rn ae uaed !or reravence p.-- onry. Map fea>urea a approyhnaR, and are sanly e o�rc drway;rg m angmeer�np ar�enanrd:. cvaa m. count' p! Ri—,. make no anry p a tae e t !ma a even grw Aird pan arany, er rompNxeneaa ed. e o! M< data pnwded. and asaumea no le➢ar (h. d ,,d d palm, espana;allrubf [hem drmarwn on[arnea an z—w in�p. Any a[ d/ rMa prvdpercwirh reapeCr rp Springs ncy and pnalalon aaan ae rm sm.1e a:pnnalhrr;ty nr rae aae. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Amendment FIGURE Natural Communities 1 4-1 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-11 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES •4-� = -L1 Species Habitats city Bomdanas Majos Roads Upper Mii— CreekrSig Morongo Cyn - , ?.,• r wt Q Morongo Wash Flood Control/Comdor I ;r�*Z Trgil—bbad Milkvatch X I Palm Springs Pocket Mouse LMIa Sin Berardino Mt— Lininth- Velley Jamsalar CrMet �r40 \. Coachella Coachella Thm RTitkveiCh La Gonfa's Thrasher if rSprings Desert Hot _ CesanTotaisa Additions to consar atlon area t of f \ \, r I a ae CVCC kind i � a p / �; % INSCL4kNER: M P eav �r vsae ro. r4r0✓prlPa purppdpd Pnly Map P!oal- irg IPPrarlm M and era not neceddanly accunta •a --ling or ongineonrl; srondards, CVAG and Ina County or R.1-1 hr make na .—W ar puarentee as ro toe oanrdnr (rho source is oho, !hhd'nyl. --y dm.liMsf, o. eemploterwdd Palm of any o/ rho d= provid&d. snd asaumos no legal upanslb y ror Me inrnrmodon cane mad on mis - �+ Springs map Any udo or cold Produm whh Mdpdct to ittu—Y na Pra 4— shall is thu sofa reap-Wbohy o/ rho uaar. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Major Amendment FIGURE Species Habitat 1 1-1 The existing CVMSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Activities as long as such activities comply with required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures as specified in Section 4.4 and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines as specified in Section 4.5 of the Plan, and Obligations of Permittees as described in Section 6.6 of the Plan. Details of the general requirements for all Local Permittees are described in Section 2.1 of this SEIR/SEIS and specific obligations that MSWD has committed to are discussed below. The required measures are designed and implemented as part of the Plan to assure future development within and adjacent to established Conservation Areas would result in less than significant impacts to Covered Species, Habitats, natural communities, and Essential Ecological Processes. The development and operation of any Covered Activities proposed by the City and MSWD within the Major Amendment areas will be required to comply with the applicable measures in the Plan designed to mitigate potential effects on the Covered Species. The CVMSHCP has made significant steps in Plan implementation. Since the 2008 Permits were issued, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) has focused acquisition efforts Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-12 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES in several key areas, including the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon and Willow Hole Conservation Areas. As of the baseline year of 1996, 80,138 acres have been acquired by Permittees, state and federal agencies and non-profit partners toward completing the CVMSHCP Reserve System. CVCC and the local Permittees have protected 6,488 of these acres. Reserve Management Plans have been completed and adopted by the CVCC. These management plans provide guidance and priorities for adaptive management of the reserve lands. The Monitoring Program initiated by CVAG before the CVMSHCP was approved is ongoing, with a focus on threats and stressors to the Covered Species and natural communities. The Reserve Management Oversight Committee, which brings together local, state and federal land management agencies, meets regularly to coordinate monitoring and management of the CVMSHCP Reserve System. Covered Activities for MSWD would not include groundwater extraction and therefore, no direct impacts to sensitive species or associated Habitats related to such activity would occur as a result of the Major Amendment. However, because MSWD will be added as a Permittee and in light of comments received during the NOP review period (Letter from Worden-Williams, Appendix A), MSWD has committed to a number of obligations in addition to the current Monitoring Program outlined in Section 8.4.1 of the Plan as it pertains to the relationship between groundwater extraction and the continued viability of mesquite hummocks as a conserved natural community. These mesquite hummocks often occur along fault zones where groundwater is forced to the surface, such as the mesquite hummocks along the Banning Fault in the Willow Hole Conservation Area. The vegetation structure of the mesquite traps sand that has been transported by wind from sand deposited or exposed by flood events in Mission Creek and Morongo Wash floodplains on the south side of the Banning Fault (Lancaster et al. 1993), forming dunes and hummocks along the fault line. The mesquite associated with sand dunes enhances conditions that provide Habitat for these Covered Species. Mesquite hummocks provide core Habitat for Covered Species including Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, Palm Springs pocket mouse and Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel. These substantial sand accumulations in the Willow Hole area extend up to 0.5 km (0.3 mi) wide and 5 km (3 mi) long along the trace of the Banning Fault (Lancaster et al. 1993, The Nature Conservancy 1985, Meek and Wasklewicz 1993, Simons, Li, and Assoc. 1997). Potential threats to the mesquite hummocks natural community in this area include competition for sub -surface water from non- native tamarisk and the drawdown of the water table within the Mission Creek Subbasin. The health of the mesquite hummocks in this area varies considerably. Some of the mesquite plants have many leafless branches and appear decadent, while other plants have many leafy branches and appear to be healthy. Along the western extent of mesquite hummocks (between Mission Creek and Morongo Wash), mesquite plants appear to be dying, which may be related to lowered groundwater levels in the subbasin (MSWD 2008). The hummocks farther to the east, (near Palm Drive and the Main Site Area) show substantially greater density of leafed -out mesquite plants (MSWD 2008). These hummocks near Palm Drive are closer to groundwater levels (MSWD 2008). The hydrological regime, including availability of groundwater that Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-13 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES supports the mesquite hummocks in this area is complex and not well understood. MSWD's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (MSWD 2011) indicates that a decline in water levels of approximately 100 feet has occurred in portions of the Mission Creek subbasin between the years 1936 and 2003 as a result of groundwater production by MSWD and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). At the request of MSWD, recharge facilities were constructed jointly by CVWD and Desert Water Agency (DWA). Recharge activities began in December 2002 to address the continuing overdraft conditions in the Mission Creek subbasin. This replenishment program has increased water levels and indications are that the water level is expected to stabilize or reverse the decline (MSWD 2011). As part of a Water Management Plan currently being prepared by MSWD, CVWD, DWA, and at the request of MSWD, models are being developed which include expected natural inflow and recharge and artificial recharge at the existing Mission Creek recharge ponds, as well as existing and anticipated future groundwater withdrawals. This Water Management Plan is focused on stabilizing the water levels in the Mission Creek subbasin. As discussed in Section 8.4.1 of the Plan, the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program will include the use of appropriate methods and technologies (which may change over time) to monitor groundwater levels in the Willow Hole, East Indio Hills, and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas where a substantial lowering of the water table could have a significant adverse impact on mesquite hummocks and associated Covered Species. Should monitoring detect a substantial lowering of the water table or a decline in mesquite health, the following actions will be taken by the CVCC: 1) evaluate the results of the monitoring, including in relation to proposed Covered Activities, 2) prepare a damage assessment report, 3) develop effective measures to ameliorate the direct and indirect effects of substantial lowering of the water table on mesquite hummocks and associated Covered Species, and 4) implement effective measures through Adaptive Management. Furthermore, if Permittees propose Covered Activities within the Willow Hole Conservation Area, the impacts to the mesquite natural community shall be addressed during the Joint Project Review process. MSWD as a Permittee, will limit the installation of new wells within the fault zone associated with mesquite hummock natural communities, in the area east of Little Morongo Road and south of 18th Avenue, until the development and implementation of a mesquite restoration plan (described in Section 4.1, page 4.1-15) is completed. In addition to the required Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, Section 6.6.1 of the Plan specifies certain other obligations of all Local Permittees for lands within and outside Conservation Areas. MSWD has also agreed to implement measures that will be added to Section 6.6.1 of the Plan should this Major Amendment be adopted. They include conservation measures for the approximately 61 acres they own in the Conservation Areas and other measures for activities outside Conservation Areas (see Section 2.1). Additional MSWD obligations include the following: Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-14 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. A contribution of $110,000 toward the Endowment Fund for the Monitoring Program, the Management Program, and Adaptive Management. This contribution will provide for the permanent monitoring and management of the MSWD lands in the Conservation Areas in perpetuity as required by the CVMSHCP, including removal of invasive species and monitoring of mesquite hummocks. CVCC would also assume responsibility for the monitoring and management of those lands transferred by MSWD in perpetuity as a result of MSWD's contribution to the Endowment Fund. Prior to transfer of lands to CVCC, MSWD will cooperate with CVCC to enhance and manage the mesquite hummocks on land it owns in the Conservation Areas to mitigate and provide for the Conservation of impacts to this natural community from MSWD's operation and management activities in the CVMSHCP Conservation Areas. The MSWD contribution to the CVCC Endowment Fund will also support management and monitoring of mesquite hummocks on other CVCC lands additional to those transferred to CVCC by MSWD. 2. With regard to the CVMSHCP requirements to maintain the mesquite hummock natural community, MSWD agrees to provide as available: 1) data on water levels in the Willow Hole Conservation Area, the "fault dunes" and associated mesquite hummocks east and west of Palm Drive; 2) water samples for a study of stable isotopes in mesquite tissue for use by the CVCC Monitoring Program team; 3) historical photographs or aerial imagery of the mesquite hummock areas in the Willow Hole Conservation Area that would help document changes from current conditions; 4) technical expertise of MSWD staff, or consultants as appropriate, in coordination with the CVCC Monitoring Team. MSWD is willing to provide any and all relevant data they have available to CVCC; however, MSWD does not have facilities that will provide needed data near the mesquite hummocks habitat. Additional facilities will be required to collect data on groundwater levels near the hummocks habitat. The District will also provide funds to be used for water monitoring wells or other means of gathering data on groundwater levels related to mesquite hummocks. The determination of how to best accomplish this monitoring, including placement of wells will be made in coordination with the CVCC staff, CVCC monitoring team, Wildlife Agencies, relevant Reserve Management committees, other relevant Permittees, and MSWD staff. These data and support from MSWD will enhance understanding of the hydrological regimes that support mesquite hummocks in the CVMSHCP area and provide baseline data for the ongoing monitoring of mesquite hummocks. The District will provide funds to support monitoring and analysis of groundwater levels in the amount of $120,000. 3. To improve the water available to mesquite hummocks, MSWD will provide funds to CVCC to be used for the removal of non-native tamarisk from the Willow Hole Conservation Area in the amount of $100,000 to cover the costs of tamarisk removal Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-15 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES from approximately 30 acres of conservation lands. CVCC will ensure that removal of tamarisk occurs on lands controlled by CVCC or other public or private conservation lands. 4. MSWD will contribute $20,000 to the cost of a study being conducted by CVCC of the feasibility of mesquite restoration and development of a mesquite restoration plan. CVCC has initiated this study with creation of a constraints analysis detailing site conditions where current stands of mesquite are now absent (but were extant within the past century), declining, or are currently doing well (defined by leaf area, fruit production, and other relevant variables). MSWD will contribute to the mesquite study plan that will detail the location, water requirements, and monitoring and management responsibilities, including funding, for this mesquite restoration effort. CVCC will provide the final study to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval. 5. CVCC is responsible for evaluating the relationship between mesquite hummocks and groundwater through the Monitoring Program. MSWD will contribute to and participate in this research for the mesquite hummock areas within their district boundary. The objectives of this research will include: (1) to monitor the plant characteristics and hydrologic conditions of mesquite hummocks in the Coachella Valley; (2) to determine the source(s) of water utilized by the mesquite; and (3) to relate vegetation health and reproduction to varying hydrologic conditions in the Coachella Valley. The study will involve compiling existing vegetation and hydrologic data as GIS layers, coordination with MSWD on ground -water level data they collect from existing wells, and monitoring plant characteristics and hydrologic conditions at the sites including Willow Hole. The water -level trends from these sites can be compared to precipitation and pumping trends to help determine the natural and/or human -induced impacts on the groundwater system. The GIS will be updated on an annual basis with the data collected by other agencies during this study. These data will be used in conjunction with the hydrologic data to determine if there is a correlation between the health of the mesquite and the hydrologic properties at the site (depth to water and soil moisture). Persistence of the mesquite trees will be monitored to determine if there is a relationship between water -table depth, soil moisture, and reproduction. 6. If the study undertaken by the CVCC demonstrates the decline of mesquite hummock areas in the Willow Hole Conservation Area, MSWD will work with CVCC, the Wildlife Agencies, and other relevant Permittees to identify and implement a plan to enhance, restore, and maintain the mesquite hummocks natural community and to address changed circumstances, identified in the CVMSHCP, that affect this natural community as a part of their CVMSHCP implementation activities. As is required of all Permittees, MSWD commits to participate in additional measures that will result from the CVMSHCP Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-16 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Adaptive Management Plan analysis to the extent that measures are -consistent with what is required of other Permittees. reasonable, feasible, and v4dhilfl the of the Wit. Further, MSWD confirms that the goals of the 2013 Water Management Plan prepared in cooperation with CVWD and Desert Water Agency are consistent with the objectives of the CVMSHCP to manage the groundwater resource in perpetuity for the benefit of mesquite hummocks and the species that depend on this natural community. MSWD will contribute a total of $350,000 toward the CVMSHCP as described above to support the Monitoring Program, the Management Program, and Adaptive Management. This may be paid in full the first full fiscal year after approval of the Major Amendment, or it may be paid in installments over a maximum of five years, beginning in the first full fiscal year after approval of the Major Amendment. Interest shall be paid by MSWD at the annual rate of 5.14% on the outstanding balance. The measures identified as responsibilities of MSWD in Section 6.6.1 of the Plan, along with those requirements already adopted in the Plan as Monitoring and Adaptive Management procedures, will ensure the ongoing health of mesquite hummocks in the affected Conservation Areas of the Mission Creek Subbasin. Riparian Habitat As discussed above, the addition of approximately 770 acres to the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area would result in an overall beneficial effect to natural communities within the Plan area. As shown on Figure 4-1, the areas to be added to the Conservation Area consist of Sonoran Creosote bush scrub and Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub. There are no riparian communities currently located within either the existing or the additional lands in the Conservation Areas to be addressed under the Major Amendment; therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the Major Amendment. However, a CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1602 of the California Fish & Game Code may be required in certain areas in addition to federal permitting discussed below. Federally Protected Wetlands There are no wetlands, defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or other sensitive natural communities such as wetlands, marshes, or vernal pools within the existing or the additional areas to be addressed under the Major Amendment. Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur. However, a Section 404 permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) would be required for any Covered Activities that would result in the dredge or fill of waters of the U.S. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-17 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Wildlife Movement The additional areas to be included within the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area would result in a beneficial effect to the movement of wildlife species by expanding the limits of the established Conservation Area. The establishment of Conservation Areas within the City would reduce the potential for urban development in the affected area, and would preserve it as open -space and natural desert areas, allowing the continued use by wildlife species. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement would occur as a result of implementing the Major Amendment. T.nnal MiniPc There are currently no local policies protecting biological resources within the areas to be included in the Conservation Area. However, due to two recent annexations of approximately 4,000 acres of County lands into the City (together known as the Desert Hot Springs I-10 Annexation) all provisions of the approved CVMSHCP were adopted by the City for that area. The Major Amendment would provide for adoption of CVMSHCP policies throughout the remaining parts of the City not currently covered by the Plan, resulting in a more cohesive biological planning policy throughout the City. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan The proposed Major Amendment will result in the City being included as a Permittee to the MSHCP that will allow for expansion and continuity of the established Conservation Areas. Conservation Areas within the MSWD service area outside Desert Hot Springs City limits will remain unchanged. As indicated in preceding discussions, adding the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan, and establishing Conservation Areas within the City, would result in an overall beneficial effect to the Covered Species and natural communities currently protected by the Plan. Climate Change The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that in the past two decades climate research has unequivocally shown that large-scale worldwide changes in climate, enhanced by anthropo eg nic greenhouse gas, have occurred and will continue to occur for decades (IPCC 2007). The changing climate has the potential to affect wildlife throughout North America, either directly or indirectly through responses to changing habitat conditions (Inkley et. al. 2004). Climate change assessments encompassing the CVMSHCP Plan Area suggest that since the 1970s, the region appears to have experienced widespread warming trends in winter and spring, increased minimum winter temperatures, and more variable precipitation (Weiss and Overpeck Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-18 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 2005). An ecoregional climate change analysis conducted by PRBO had similar conclusions for the Sonoran (Colorado,) desert region of California (PRBO 2011). These assessments align with the general overall climate change predictions for California (Moser et. al. 2012),and the Southwest in general (Dominguez et. al. 2010), that is, a significant rise in temperatures and a shift toward dryer conditions. The effects these predicted climate changes will have on wildlife populations and range distributions of wildlife are expected to be species specific and highly variable, with some effects considered negative and others considered positive (Inkley et. al. 2004). Because specific effects of climate change on CVMSHCP Covered Species and Natural Communities are speculative and could change over time, both the State of California (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) and the USFWS (2012) emphasize flexible, adaptive strategies for coping with climate change. Hulme (2005) states that adaptation strategies should focus on increasing the flexibility of managing vulnerable ecosystems and increasing the adaptability of vulnerable ecosystems and species. Management also needs to address interacting species and ecosystems. Additionally, large reserves, especially those spanning broad elevational gradients, are critical to encompass a broad range of present and future climates (Ackerly 2012). Halpin (1997) recommended the followingmanagement ment prescriptions to address climate changes: 1. Selection of redundant reserves and selection of reserves that protect habitat diversity 2. Management for buffer zone flexibility 3. Management for landscape connectivity 4. Management for habitat maintenance The CVMSHCP incorporates all four elements identified by Halpin (1997) to address climate change; builds a large, interconnected reserve system that spans temperature and elevational gradients; incorporates adaptation strategies to increasing the flexibility of Reserve managers; provides adaptive monitoring to address interacting species and ecosystems. The external boundaries of the Plan Area encompass approximately 1.1 million acres and the Plan preserves the majority of land from the toe of slope to the ridgeline of mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley and, as such, includes a redundant reserve system that protects habitat diversity in the Coachella Valley. Additionally, the Plan includes adjacency guidelines to manage for buffer zone effects; conservation goals to maintain biological corridors and linkages; and an adaptive management and monitoring strategy to ensure Covered Species and Natural Communities persist in the Plan Area. The CV MSHCP provides for the long-term conservation of ecological diversity by creating a 210,000 acre integrated Reserve system that maintains physical linkages over a range of existing temperature -moisture regimes and elevations. This climate envelope approach includes the current range of climatic and environmental conditions occupied by each Covered Species and Natural Community. For example, the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard has a Core Habitat at Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-19 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Windy Point Conservation Area (elevation 1000 feet), another site 5 miles east at Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area (elevation 600 feet); a third site another 3 1/2 miles east-northeast at Willow Hole Conservation Area (elevation 750 feet); and the fourth site another 9 miles from Willow Hole at the Thousand Palms Conservation Area (elevation 200 feet). These sites are spread out over a distance of over 18 miles, and each has a distinct assemblage of sand sources. There is also a descending gradient in annual precipitation at points increasingly distant (farther east) from the San Gorgonio Pass. By including_ geographically distinct sites, the multiple sites criterion will include the range of conditions a given species inhabits today. As the climate changes in the future, there is a possibility that the habitat at one or more sites will become unsuitable for a target species. But preserving multiple sites will increase the likelihood that some refugia for each of the Covered Species will be maintained if climatic conditions change over time, which may provide Covered Species and Natural Community resiliency to even the most extreme predicted effects of climate change Barrows et. al. 2010). The Plan uses adaptive management and monitoring to ensure Covered Species and Natural Community persistence and support a landscape -scale, ecosystem -based management strategy. The Plan incorporates flexibility into management of vulnerable ecosystems by coordinating the necessary management to achieve the conservation goals and objectives through Resource Management Unit Plans (RMUP). RMUP's are intended to provide a framework for and to facilitate the collaborative management by all the involved management entities (local, state and federal agencies and non-profit organizations) to provide for effective, efficient, and cooperative use of the combined resources available. The premise of the RMUP is that maximizing cooperation and coordination will result in enhanced, flexible management of all Reserve lands and facilitate management actions. Additionally, RMUP's include components for monitoring and managing natural communities; ecological processes; and biological corridors and linkages to address interacting species and ecosystems. To summarize, the Coachella Valley MSHCP will help to ameliorate anticipate changes in climate by creating large, interconnected blocks of habitat that encompass varying degrees of temperature and precipitation gradients that will be adaptively managed and monitored cooperatively over the life of the Plan (Noss 2001.. The Major Amendment enhances the Plan's ability to ensure Covered Species and Natural Communities persist in the face of accelerated climate change because it will expand an existing conservation area and improve the coordination of management and monitoring by adding Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as permittees with responsibilities and obligations to ensure the Plan's conservation goals are achieved. Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would not include a broad acquisition plan as part of the Plan requirements. Management of the existing reserves would be Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-20 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES increased, so that Covered Species within these reserves would receive greater protection. Overall conservation lands would decrease under this Alternative and would thus result in a greater impact to Covered Species and natural communities. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would result in less conservation than the Preferred Alternative, and thus would have greater impact on Covered Species and natural communities. It is not known what species the Wildlife Agencies would determine meet the criteria for issuance of Take Authorization under this Alternative. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would result in the acquisition and management of more land than the Preferred Alternative. All other provisions of the Preferred Alternative would apply. Therefore, impacts from this Alternative would be less than significant for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. No Action/No Project Alternative The USFWS No Action Alternative is no amendment of the CVMSHCP and permit. Under the approved EIR/EIS, it was determined this alternative may result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes due to the lack of protection for both Covered and non -Covered Species. Since there is now an approved Plan in place, the No Project Alternative for the proposed Major Amendment would mean that both the City and MSWD would not become Permittees of the Plan. Similar to the conclusion in the approved EIR/EIS, the No Project Alternative under this scenario would mean that some areas of the City and the MSWD boundaries would not receive full protection for Covered and non -Covered Species as provided by the Plan. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to biological resources could occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. Impacts to Covered Species and natural communities under the No Action Alternative are discussed in Section 4.1.4. No Action impacts to Covered Species are quantified in Table 4.1-1 under the column titled "Extent of Take Authorized (2008 Permit)"; under No Action, impacts quantified under the columns "Additional Take (acres)" and "Additional Conservation (acres)" would not occur. No Action impacts to natural communities are quantified in Table 4.1-2 under the column titled "Total Acres Subject Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-21 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES to Impact (2008 Permit)"; under No Action, impacts quantified under the columns "Additional Disturbance (acres)" and "Additional Conservation (acres)" would not occur. 4.1.5 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative The proposed Major Amendment would not result in a significant impact to biological resources within the Plan Area. The addition of the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan provides a more comprehensive and cohesive Plan that would provide benefits for the Covered Species and natural communities protected in the Plan Area. The Plan also incorporates required Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures; Land Use Adjacency guidelines; and a comprehensive Monitoring and Management Program designed to mitigate potential adverse effects to the greatest extent practicable. Because the Plan has been designed to adequately conserve the Covered Species and natural communities, and has already incorporated all feasible measures to mitigate Plan impacts as part of the design of the Plan, no additional mitigation measures are either necessary or feasible for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. Public Lands Alternative Overall conservation lands would decrease under this alternative and would thus result in a greater impact to Covered Species and natural communities. No feasible mitigation measures were identified in the approved EIR/EIS. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative This Alternative would result in less conservation than the Preferred Alternative, and thus would have greater impact on Covered Species and natural communities. No feasible mitigation measures were identified in the approved EIR/EIS. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Enhanced Conservation Alternative This Alternative would result in the acquisition and management of more land than the Preferred Alternative. All other provisions of the Preferred Alternative would apply. Therefore, impacts from this Alternative would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required in the approved EIR/EIS. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-22 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Action/No Project Alternative Similar to the conclusion in the approved EIR/EIS, the No Project Alternative under this scenario would mean that some areas of the City and the MSWD boundaries would not receive full protection for Covered and non -Covered Species as provided by the Plan. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to biological resources could occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified should the proposed Major Amendment not be approved. 4.1.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative The proposed Major Amendment is to include the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees to the CVMSHCP, allowing for continuity of the previously established Conservation Areas. Conservation Areas within MSWD boundaries outside City limits will remain unchanged as no additional lands would be added or disturbed. Adding the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan and adding land to the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area would result in an overall benefit to the Covered Species and natural communities. Since approval of the Project would result in a beneficial impact to biological resources, no mitigation measures are required. Public Lands Alternative Conservation lands would decrease under this alternative and would thus result in a greater impact to Covered Species and natural communities. However, no feasible mitigation measures were identified in the approved EIR/EIS. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and no mitigation measures are required. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative This Alternative would result in less conservation than the Preferred Alternative, and thus would have greater impacts on Covered Species and natural communities. No Feasible mitigation measures were identified in the approved EIR/EIS. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and impacts of this alternative would remain significant. Enhanced Conservation Alternative This Alternative would result in the acquisition and management of more land than the Preferred Alternative. All other provisions of the Preferred Alternative would apply. Therefore, impacts Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.1-23 March 2014 SECTION 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES from this Alternative would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required in the approved EIR/EIS. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and no mitigation measures are required. No Action/No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative under this scenario would mean that some areas of the City and the MSWD boundaries would not receive full protection for Covered and non -Covered Species as provided by the Plan. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to biological resources could occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. Since no feasible mitigation measures have been identified should the preferred project not be approved, the impact of this Alternative remains significant. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.1-24 March 2014 SECTION 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.2.1 Introduction and Methodology The following section will focus on those land use changes that would occur due to implementation of the proposed Major Amendment to add the City of Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) to the currently permitted CVMSHCP. The analysis supplements the Land Use section in the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS. 4.2.2 Existing and Surrounding Land Use/Affected Environment Existing Land Use City of Desert Hot Springs The City of Desert Hot Springs is located in the northwestern portion of the Coachella Valley in Riverside County. The City is generally bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains west of Highway 62, the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north, Long Canyon Road on the east and Interstate 10 on the south (refer to Figure 1-2). The incorporated City limits, which are subject to analysis in this SEIR/SEIS, encompass approximately 23 square miles that will be integrated into the existing CVMSHCP. As discussed in Section 3.1, the City of Desert Hot Springs has recently (September 12, 2010) annexed approximately 4,000 acres of unincorporated territory previously under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside into the City's municipal service boundaries. This involved two separate annexations (Annexation 36 and Annexation 37) together known as the I-10 Community Annexation, which was processed and approved by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This annexation increased the size of the City from approximately 23 square miles to approximately 29.3 square miles. However, the approximate 6.3 square mile I-10 Community Annexation area is not included in the land use analysis or other environmental analysis sections of this document (except the Fiscal Impact Analysis discussed in Section 4.3 that included data on the land use designations applicable to these lands, and whether the land was vacant or developed). This is because portions of the I-10 Community Annexation area that were previously in a Conservation Area under the County have been annexed by the City and no changes to the Plan will occur in that area. Therefore, the LAFCO action essentially served to transfer existing conservation lands from the County to the City and no new Conservation Area or addition to the overall Plan Area were created as a result of the annexation. The City of Desert Hot Springs did become a CVMSHCP Permittee for the annexed lands only. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.2-1 March 2014 ,SECTION 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING Additionally, County of Riverside General Plan policies have been retained, so the pre - annexation rules governing land uses, circulation, open space, etc. did not change. Since the County's current zoning district standards for this area were not in conformance with the County's land use designations, the City has re -zoned this land with its own zoning district standards that correspond most directly with the County's land use policies for this area. Existing land uses within the City consists primarily of a mix of low, medium, and high density residential development with retail and hotel commercial development located mostly in the eastern portion of the City. The majority of land area within the City remains undeveloped with scattered residential and some industrial development, including wind energy, in the western portion of the City. The remainder of developed land includes public and quasi -public uses such as schools, police and fire departments, and parks. Mission Springs Water District Mission Springs Water District provides water and sewer service to an area of approximately 135 square miles and a population of approximately 30,000. It is located in the northwestern portion of the Coachella Valley and encompasses the entire incorporated city limits of Desert Hot Springs, unincorporated areas of Riverside County, and a small area of the northern portion of Palm Springs. The northern boundary extends to the Riverside/San Bernardino County line; the western boundary is located generally east of the limits of the Morongo Indian Reservation and the community of Cabazon; the southern boundary extends to Highway 11 I and Interstate 10 and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) boundaries; and the eastern boundaries are flanked by the Coachella Valley cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral City (refer to Figure 1-2). Surrounding Land Use Land uses surrounding the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD boundaries include the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains to the west and north, respectively; the Whitewater River and unincorporated County lands to the west; and unincorporated County lands to the south which includes several residential communities. The northern portion of the City of Palm Springs is within the southerly portion of the MSWD service area with the more populated area of Palm Springs located approximately two miles to the south. Land use changes resulting from the Major Amendment are discussed in Section 4.2.4. Revised Conservation Area Boundaries The Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area comprises approximately 29,440 acres in its current configuration as adopted in the Final CVMSHCP permitted in October 2008. Approval of the Major Amendment would add an additional 770 acres into the Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.2-2 March 2014 SECTION 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING Conservation Area, mostly in the western portion of the City and another area in the Central part of the City to the west of Indian Avenue and Mission Creek (refer to Figure 1-2). Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations Riverside County General Plan: The County General Plan includes four Area Plans, which encompass major portions of the CVMSHCP Area. The CVMSHCP area proposed for revision is located in the Western Coachella Valley Plan, which extends from the eastern portion of the San Gorgonio Pass to Indio and La Quinta. The County General Plan applies to the area of the MSWD boundaries that are outside of the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs. No County land use designations or Conservation Areas within the County will be altered as a result of the proposed Major Amendment. Desert Hot Springs General Plan: The City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan that last underwent a comprehensive update in September 2000. The existing General Plan designations include a mix of low, medium, and high density residential uses, with 40 percent of total acreage dedicated to Residential -Low density housing which allows 0-5 dwellings per acre. The majority of land use is dedicated to residential uses with nearly 60 percent of the total acreage in the Planning Area. Other designations include various commercial uses (approximately 3 percent of total land area); industrial (approximately 12 percent of total land area); and public/institutional (approximately 23 percent of total land area). 4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance The following thresholds are taken from the certified EIR/EIS dated September 2007 and reflect both NEPA and CEQA thresholds agreed to by all the Parties for analysis of Land Use impacts. Because CEQA has more stringent and detailed thresholds related to biological resources, over those for NEPA, the following thresholds will be used. The revised CVMSHCP would have a significant effect on land use and planning if it would: a. Physically divide an established community. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.2-3 March 2014 ,SECTION 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.2.4 Land -Use -Related Project Impacts Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative Community Separation As indicated in the Initial Study/NOP (Appendix A), the revised CVMSHCP would not result in the physical separation of a community. In the western portion of Desert Hot Springs, that portion of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area proposed to be included in the CVMSHCP is located well away from the main developed portion of the City. Although that part of the Conservation Area that would be sited in the central section of the City is located adjacent to the urbanized portion of Desert Hot Springs, the drainages within this area already serve as a natural separation between the eastern and western parts of the City. Desert Hot Springs has identified the potential for future open space trails along the Mission Creek or Morongo Wash drainages. Furthermore, if the City were to remain a non -participant in the Plan, this part of the Conservation Area would continue to be designated a Special Provisions Area to ensure conservation of these lands and support future development of County Flood Control's planned Morongo Wash flood control facility. MSWD has also opted to become a Permittee of the Plan; however, no Conservation Area boundaries will change as a result. Therefore, the proposed revisions to the Plan will not result in physically dividing an established community. Applicable Plans, Policies and Regulations The proposed Plan Amendment does conflict with some of the land uses established in the existing City General Plan. However, when the City opted out of becoming a Permittee of the Plan, an agreement was made with CVAG to establish most of the previously proposed Conservation Area adjacent to the Morongo Wash floodplain area as a Special Provisions Area, which allows for the purchase and preservation of that area. The General Plan is currently being updated and when complete will have land use designations that are compatible with the proposed Conservation Areas within the City limits and Sphere of Influence. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan The proposed Major Amendment will result in the City being included as a Permittee to the CVMSHCP that will allow for continuity of the previously established Conservation Areas. Conservation Areas within MSWD boundaries outside City limits will remain unchanged. The revised Plan will not conflict with any plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.24 March 2014 ,SECTION 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed Major Amendment would serve to strengthen the existing CVMSHCP by including the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan and thereby broadening the potential to achieve the land use control and conservation objectives of the Plan to protect Covered Species. The proposed Major Amendment will also establish the area within the City currently designated as the Morongo Wash Special Provisions Area as part of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area, and will facilitate the future development of County Flood Control's planned Morongo Wash Flood Control facility. These actions would serve to broaden and reinforce the Plan's goals and objectives aimed at protecting sensitive resources and facilitating logical development in a sustainable manner, and therefore, would not conflict with the adopted CVMSHCP. Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, the Public Lands Alternative would not include a broad acquisition plan as part of the Plan requirements. Management of the existing reserves would be increased, so that Covered Species within these reserves would receive greater protection. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. As with the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, there would be no direct impact on applicable plans because this Alternative does not propose additional conservation of lands. For the same reason, this Alternative would not result in the physical division of an established community. State and federal lands would be managed in a manner consistent with their respective management plans, and thus this Alternative would not conflict with such plans. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would have a lower level of conservation of private lands compared to the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, and thus would have even fewer potential conflicts with applicable land use plans. Based upon the coordinated and integrated nature of this Alternative, impacts to federal, state, regional, local, or tribal land use plans, policies, or controls are considered to be less than significant. This Alternative would not physically divide an established community for the reasons described under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would result in a substantial increase in lands in Conservation Areas compared to the other alternatives. The analysis determined this additional conservation could result in significant land use compatibility conflicts and physically divide established communities. The proposed Major Amendment would Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.2-5 March 2014 ,SECTION 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING not result in any changes to that conclusion. No Action/No Project Alternative Under the approved EIR/EIS, it was determined the No Action/No Project Alternative may have a significant long-term adverse impact on land use due to piecemeal habitat conservation that may lead to the fragmentation of human communities and stifle efficient economic development and activities. Since there is now an approved Plan in place, the No Project Alternative for the proposed Major Amendment would mean that both the City and MSWD would not become Permittees of the Plan. Without the Major Amendment, both agencies would have to comply with state and federal regulations for the Covered Species on a case by case basis. Furthermore, this alternative would not have the beneficial effect of strengthening the existing CVMSHCP by broadening the potential to achieve land use control and conservation objectives to protect Covered Species. 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative Based on the preceding analysis, it has been determined that no significant adverse impacts related to land use have been identified in association with the implementation of the proposed Major Amendment. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts related to land use issues would result from this Alternative for CEQA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts related to land use issues would result from this Alternative for CEQA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, the analysis determined that additional Conservation Areas could result in significant land use compatibility conflicts and Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.2-6 March 2014 ,SECTION 4.2 LAND USE AND PLANNING physically divide established communities. Therefore, a number of mitigation measures were provided on a Conservation Area basis to reduce such incompatibilities. No additional measures are proposed as a result of the Major Amendment since no further conservation is proposed beyond what was analyzed as part of the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. No Action/No Project Alternative Although the beneficial effect of strengthening the existing CVMSHCP by broadening the potential to achieve land use control and conservation objectives to protect Covered Species would not be realized, no significant adverse impacts were identified and no mitigation is proposed. 4.2.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative No significant adverse impacts on land use would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. Public Lands Alternative No significant adverse impacts on land use would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative No significant adverse impacts on land use would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. Enhanced Conservation Alternative Significant conflicts with local, county, state or federal land use plans, policies or controls would remain, despite additional mitigation measures. The alternative would have the residual effect of physically dividing established communities. No Action/No Project Alternative No significant adverse impacts on land use would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRUS 4.2-7 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS 4.3.1 Introduction and Methodology This section is based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis report prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. in July 2011 which is contained in Appendix B of this SEIR/SEIS. Background data on population, housing, and employment is also presented in Section 4.3.2 with potential impacts to population growth and displacement of housing or people presented in Section 4.3.4. In 2003, a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) was prepared to analyze the potential costs and revenues that would be lost by each jurisdiction participating in the Plan. The City of Desert Hot Springs was included in that analysis, but withdrew prior to completion of the CVMSHCP. The City of Desert Hot Springs reversed their decision to withdraw from the Plan through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in October 2007, stating their intent to enter into negotiations for the City to join the CVMSHCP as a Permittee after the Plan was officially adopted by CVAG and local Permittees but prior to approval by all state Permittees and receiving state permits from California Department of Fish and Game and federal permits from US Fish & Wildlife Service. The MOU was subsequently approved by the CVCC, CVAG, and the County of Riverside as of February 2008. Subsequent to that decision, the Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) has also proposed to become a Permittee of the Plan. Although the primary focus of this SEIR/SEIS is to evaluate amending the Plan to include both jurisdictions as Permittees, the FIA focuses on public costs and revenues that would result if vacant lands identified for conservation by the CVMSHCP were instead allowed to develop in Desert Hot Springs consistent with the current General Plan land use designation. This is because MSWD does not have decision -making authority over land use designations and no Conservation Area boundaries will change within the MSWD service area outside of Desert Hot Springs. As the proposed Conservation Area lands are currently available for urban development, in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan, development on these lands would be expected to result in both revenues for the City, in the form of increased property tax, sales tax, motor vehicle license fees, special assessments, and other revenues. Development would also generate additional costs associated with the provision of public services and facilities. As implementation of the proposed CVMSHCP would result in the conversion of these lands to conservation, revenues associated with future development would be lost. The conversion of vacant, potentially developable land to open space and conservation uses could have fiscal impacts on the City. The following analysis is provided to determine what the costs and revenues could be if these lands were to develop. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-1 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Since the City was included in the original CVMSHCP and associated 2003 FIA, and to maintain consistency, the following analysis is based on updated fiscal information since that time. The Fiscal Impact Model employed is consistent with the original model, but all land use data, cost factors, property values, and other assumptions have been updated to reflect 2011 dollars. As a result of an annexation undertaken by the City in 2010, which extended its boundaries to the Interstate 10 freeway, lands previously under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside are now within the City limits. The City agreed, as part of the annexation, to enforce the provisions of the CVMSHCP on those lands within the annexation area that are to be conserved. CVAG provided an analysis of the lands proposed for conservation in the City that included data on the land use designations applicable to these lands, and whether the land was vacant or developed. The Plan does allow very limited development of conservation lands under certain circumstances. However, to reflect the most conservative analysis, it is assumed that no development, and therefore no revenue, would be generated on any lands in a Conservation Area. Some development already exists in the Conservation Areas proposed in the City. This development is generating revenue and costs, and no change would be expected as a result of the implementation of the Plan, particularly since most of the development consists of energy -related development (wind farms). The existing developed lands are therefore not considered in this analysis, as they would be revenue and cost neutral for the City. 4.3.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Population/Housing/Employment According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City had an estimated population of 27,383 as of January 1, 2011. This represents an approximate 6% increase over the January 1, 2010 population of 25,852 and a 60% increase over the 2000 population of 16,582 (Department of Finance 2011). Also, based on DOF statistics, there were estimated to be 11,419 housing units as of January 1, 2011; most of those were single-family detached housing (approximately 68% according to 2010 Census data) with the remainder being multi -family and mobile home units. California Employment Development Department data indicate that in Desert Hot Springs approximately 7,500 were employed with a labor force of 9,400 and an unemployment rate of 20% based on June 2011 estimates (http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov). Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-2 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS EXISTING REVENUE SOURCES Property Tax Revenue The County of Riverside collects property taxes for lands in the City of Desert Hot Springs annually at a rate of 1% of assessed valuation. Property tax revenues are allocated between Riverside County, the City, and a variety of other public agencies. Riverside County not only receives property tax revenue from unincorporated lands under its jurisdiction, but also receives a portion of property tax revenue generated in incorporated cities. For Desert Hot Springs, the City receives 16.6% of the 1% collected, and the County 23.1 %. Other agencies receive the balance of 60.3%. This allocation has not changed since the preparation of the 2003 FIA. Property Transfer Tax Revenue Property transfer tax revenues will also be "lost" if developable lands are converted to conservation. The Property Transfer Tax is levied by Riverside County upon a change of ownership of property. The tax rate is $1.10 per $1,000 (or 0.11 %) of the unencumbered property value. Riverside County collects Property Transfer Taxes on all changes in ownership that occur within its boundaries, including those located in incorporated cities. If the transfer occurs within the City, the revenue is divided evenly between the County (50%) and the City (50%). Upon the sale of a new unit, 100% of the unit's market value is subject to the property transfer tax. Upon change of ownership of an existing unit, the unencumbered value (average 80%) of the property is subject to the property transfer tax. Change in ownership is assumed to begin in the fourth year of the first phase, and 10% of existing residential properties are assumed to change ownership per year. Property values are stated in year 2011 dollars, and the same property values used in the property tax revenue evaluation, above, are used in this analysis. A resale rate of 1% is assumed for multi -family and industrial development. For new industrial buildings, it is assumed that only 10% of the property value will change ownership after the structure is built. Sales and Use Tax Revenue Sales tax in Riverside County is collected at a rate of 8.75% by the state of California. The City receives 1% of the 8.75% for its General Fund, and 0.5% is allocated to Measure A, for purposes of regional roadway projects. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-3 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue Only one land use designation in the Desert Hot Springs General Plan would allow the construction of a hotel or motel, which could then generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). The location of the Estate Residential lands and the minimum acreage of 10 acres make it unlikely that a hotel could develop on these lands. As a result, no TOT revenues have been assumed in the analysis. This represents a reduction from the previous analysis, where Community Commercial lands were assumed to generate a single hotel. Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fees (also referred to as Motor Vehicle License Fees) are imposed on motorists in -lieu of a local property tax. These revenues are collected by the State of California, and a portion of the total revenue is allocated to each local jurisdiction on a monthly basis. Estimated apportionments payable to California cities and counties have been converted to annual per capita factors. For Fiscal Year 2010, the City was expected to receive $2.94 per capita. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Riverside County Ordinance 673 established a fee mitigation program for funding the engineering, construction, and purchase of right-of-way and other transportation improvements in the Coachella Valley. The program is better known as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), and its mitigation fee is paid by developers of new projects prior to the issuance of building permits. Fee amounts are based on the trips generated by the land use, gross square footage of the new building, number of units, number of rooms, or number of parking spaces. Mitigation fees are collected by Riverside County and disbursed to CVAG, which is responsible for the management and utilization of funds for regional transportation improvement projects. TUMF revenues are a one-time, non -recurrent payment, and do not represent an ongoing revenue source. It can also be argued that if the lands proposed for conservation do not develop, they will also not generate any vehicle trips, and will therefore not impact roadway capacity. Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Portions of the tax levied per gallon by the State of California on all gasoline purchases are allocated to counties and cities throughout the state. The anticipated per capita apportionment factor for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 for the City was $16.15. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.34 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Measure A Revenue Of the 8.75% sales tax collected in Riverside County, 0.50% (or .005 cent on the dollar) is contributed to the Measure A fund. Measure A revenues are managed and disbursed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Of all the Measure A revenues allocated to the Coachella Valley region, 65% is specifically designated for regional transportation projects, including highway and arterial improvements and public transit programs. The remaining 35% is allocated to local jurisdictions, based on a formula that accounts for the jurisdiction's population and total taxable sales. Measure A revenues are restricted for use in funding local street maintenance, traffic signal installation, and related improvements. The fiscal model prepared for the Major Amendment estimates potential Measure A losses by estimating anticipated sales tax revenues, using the same methodology used to project local sales tax revenues. It then extracts the 0.50% designated for Measure A. It further reduces this amount to reflect only that portion (26.9%) that is allocated to the Coachella Valley region. Of the 26.9% allocated to the region, only 35% is allocated to local jurisdictions via the Streets/Roads program. Desert Hot Springs receives 2.9% of the local allocation. County Service Area 152 Revenue County Service Area (CSA) 152 supports the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program that implements the federal Clean Water Act of 1990. The program requires the adoption and implementation of storm water management plans, which reduce the discharge of pollutants from storm water systems into waters of the United States. Desert Hot Springs participates in CSA 152. Under CSA 152, an annual assessment is levied on both developed and undeveloped lands. The amount assessed is based on a system of Benefit Assessment Units (BAUs). Each parcel is assigned a specific number of BAUs, based on land use, as shown in Table 4.3-1 below. Table 4.3-1 County Service Area 152 Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) Factors Land Use BAU Assignment Single -Family Residential 1 BAU/dwelling unit Multi -Family Residential 9 BAU/developed acre Commercial/Industrial 12 BAU/developed acre Golf Course/Private Park 0.10 BAU/developed acre Parcels w/miscellaneous structures 0.05 BAU/developed acre Agriculture, Dairies, Vacant and Undeveloped Parcels 0 BAU/acre Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-5 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Each city has established its own BAU dollar value. To calculate the assessment for a particular property, the fiscal model multiplies the number of dwelling units or developed acres, by the number of BAUs assigned to the property, and the city's established BAU dollar rate. The BAU rate for Desert Hot Springs is $1.56. Other City Specific Revenues In addition to those revenue sources applicable throughout the CVMSHCP area, Desert Hot Springs receives revenues from three additional sources: the Public Safety Tax, the Utility Users Tax, and Community Facilities District (CFD) 2010-01. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that both the Public Safety Tax and the Utility Users Tax will be maintained through the 20 year build -out period. These taxes do have sunsets, but have been renewed by the voters, and would be expected to be renewed again. The CFD has been assumed to be the vehicle that would replace the Landscaping and Lighting Districts previously used by the City. It has further been assumed that all future development on the lands proposed for conservation would be annexed to the CFD. Although the CFD includes a range of potential rates, this analysis assumes a cost of $400 per unit for maintenance costs, which would appear typical of a residential parcel. Single family residential units are assessed one Benefit Unit (BU) per unit; apartments are assessed 0.60 BU per unit, and industrial development is assessed 2 BU per acre. GOVERNMENT COSTS Investment Income If municipal revenues are "lost" to conservation, any investment income that could be generated by these revenues will also be lost. To project potential investment earnings on new revenues, the supporting fiscal model applied the historical average interest rate of the 90-Day Treasury Bill, an average interest rate of 5.03%, which is the standard prescribed in the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports." Costs of General Government General government costs represent the costs of providing a city's employee salaries and benefits, postage, printing, travel, equipment maintenance and repairs, contract services, computers, vehicles, and other items necessary for the day-to-day functioning of city government. These items are typically funded through the General Fund. The fiscal model translates total General Fund expenditures (minus expenditures for public safety and roadway maintenance, which are calculated separately and discussed below) into a per capita factor, and applies that amount to the anticipated build -out population. The result is the estimated cost of providing general government services to future residents. As there are considerable economies Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-6 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS of scale associated with providing general services, this analysis method, although consistent with the Guide, is extremely conservative, and overstates the likely costs to the City. Costs of Public Safety Services Public safety is defined for purposes of this analysis as police, fire, and ambulance services, as well as Code Compliance and Animal Control activities, which are conducted under this budget category as well. The costs of providing public safety services are calculated in the same manner as general government costs. The supporting fiscal model translates these expenditures into a per capita factor and applies this factor to the anticipated build -out population. Costs of Roadway Maintenance The costs associated with repairing and maintaining future paved public roads are calculated using a per road mile cost factor. The supporting fiscal model first determined the existing number of paved road miles per square mile of land area in the City. The model then identified the number of square miles of land area designated for conservation and estimates the number of potential paved road miles that could be constructed in the Conservation Area. The model then divided the City's total annual roadway maintenance costs by the number of paved road miles to determine an annual per road mile cost factor. Finally, the annual per road mile cost is applied to the number of potential paved road miles in the Conservation Area for that jurisdiction. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that new road development would occur as development would occur, and would be at the developers' expense. No cost would therefore result for the City. 4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance The following thresholds are taken from the certified EIR/EIS dated September 2007 and reflect both NEPA and CEQA thresholds agreed to by all the Parties for analysis of socioeconomic and fiscal impacts. The Major Amendment and the Alternatives would have a significant effect on socioeconomic and the City's fiscal resources if it would: a. Cause a significant adverse socioeconomic effect on communities located within the amended planning area. b. Create a substantial adverse fiscal effect on the City or local governments as a consequence of the loss of public revenues or in association with the provision of governmental infrastructure (staff and facilities) associated with implementation of the Major Amendment. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-7 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS c. Create a substantial adverse economic effect on an important sector of the planning area's economy. d. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure). e. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. f. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 4.3.4 Socioeconomic Project Impacts Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative Socioeconomic and Fiscal Effects The approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan considered the lands in Conservation Areas in each city and on unincorporated County lands, and calculated potential costs and revenues associated with build -out of those lands according to each jurisdiction's General Plan, in current dollars. Although not a Permittee of the Plan, Desert Hot Springs was included in the analysis because the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area encompasses the portions of the Mission Creek flood control channel and Morongo Wash within the City of Desert Hot Springs. The area was designated as a Special Provisions Area to address a potential Morongo Wash flood control facility and its associated mitigation, as well as conservation for a wildlife habitat corridor. As discussed in the introduction to this section, the overall purpose of the SEIR/SEIS is to evaluate amending the Plan to include both Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees. However, the supporting FIA focuses on public costs and revenues that would result if vacant lands identified for conservation by the CVMSHCP were instead allowed to develop in Desert Hot Springs consistent with the current General Plan land use designation. MSWD does not have decision -making authority over land use designations and no Conservation Area boundaries will change within the MSWD service area outside of Desert Hot Springs; therefore, the fiscal impact of adding MSWD as a Permittee is not considered in the following impact analysis. Within Desert Hot Springs, a total of 6,173+ acres are currently vacant and undeveloped in the proposed Conservation Areas. Of these, 2,933+ acres are designated as Open Space. This analysis assumes that Open Space lands would remain undeveloped, and would not have potential to generate revenues associated with development. Therefore, lands designated as Open Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-8 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Space are not analyzed in this fiscal analysis. The remaining 3,240+ acres are designated for residential and industrial uses in the City's General Plan, as shown in Table 4.3-2, and are the subject of the cost/revenue analyses that follow. Table 4.3-2 Desert Hot Springs Summary of Potentially Developable Vacant Lands' Land Use Description Acreage Type Potential Total Units or SF at Buildout2 RD Rural Desert (0-1 du//10 ac 936 DU 72 R-E-10 Residential Estates (0-1 du/10ac) 233 DU 16 RR Rural Residential (0-1 du/5ac) 465 DU 68 R-L Low Density Residential (0-5 du/ac) 259 DU 972 R-L/SP Low Density Residential, Specific Plan (0-5 du) 1,167 DU 4,376 Single -Family Residential Subtotals 3,060 DU 5,504 R-M Medium Density Residential 0-8 du/ac) 16 DU 96 R-H High Density Residential (0-14 du/ac) 47 DU 492 Multi -Family Residential Subtotals 63 DU 588 RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTALS2 3,123 DU 6,092 LI Light Industrial 89 SF 1,318,124 I-L Light Industrial 28 SF 414,692 INDUSTRIAL SUBTOTALS 117 SF 1,732,816 TOTAL 3,240 Source: Coachella Valley Association of Governments, December 10, 2010. 'Does not include lands designated for Open Space 2For residential development, assumes 75 percent of total du possible at maximum permitted density 3For industrial development, assumes 34 percent lot coverage at build -out. As shown in the preceding table, development of lands designated for residential uses would result in construction of 6,092 single and multi -family dwelling units at buildout. In Desert Hot Springs, the average household size is 2.88 persons, as described by the California Department of Finance. Based on these data, and the previously stated assumption that 100% of these units would be occupied, the buildout population of the subject property would be 17,545. Property Tax Revenue As recommended by the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports," the supporting fiscal model assumes all properties are taxed at a rate of 1 percent of valuation, and the collection rate is 100 percent. All property values are stated in year 2011 dollars. The value of new single-family residential units is based on the 2nd quarter 2010 median new home prices Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-9 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS provided in the "Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report." As shown in that report, the median new home value for Desert Hot Springs is $207,000. The median value of new multi- family residences is assumed to be $98,490 per unit, which represents standard valuation of new multi -family residential development in Desert Hot Springs between July 2008 and March 2010. The value of new industrial development is assumed to be $60 per square foot. Desert Hot Springs, receives 16.6% of the 1 % allocation collected by the County. This allocation rate has been used to estimate potential property tax revenues that could be generated on proposed conservation lands within Desert Hot Springs. 23.1 % of the 1 % allocation goes to the Riverside County General Fund, and 60.3% goes to other agencies. Based on the development assumptions previously discussed, projected City property tax revenues have been estimated for the 20-year project build -out period. Potential Property Tax Revenues from Residential Development There are approximately 3,123 developable acres within Desert Hot Springs designated for residential uses. Of these, 3,060+ are designated for single-family development, with densities ranging from 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres to 5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 63+ acres are designated for medium and high density, multi -family development (maximum 14 dwelling units per acre). Based on a median home price of $207,000 for single-family homes, and $98,490 for multi- family residential development, potential annual property tax revenues to the City from residential development would be $1,987,418 at build -out. Table V-2, below, summarizes potential annual property tax revenues for residential development for each of the four build -out phases. Potential Property Tax Revenues from Industrial Development There are approximately 117+ acres within Desert Hot Springs with developable potential for industrial uses. Potential property tax revenues to the City from all developable industrial lands in Desert Hot Springs total $172,588 annually. Potential annual property tax revenues for all four build -out phases from potentially developable industrial lands in Desert Hot Springs are summarized in Table 4.3-3. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-10 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-3 Desert Hot Springs Pro erty Tax Revenue Summary Table Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Yrs 1-5 (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15)Yrs 16-20) Total property tax revenue from residential development $496,855 $993,709 $1,490,564 $1,987,418 Total property tax revenue from industrial development $43,147 $86,295 $129,441 $172,588 Total property tax revenue from all development $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 As the proceeding Table shows, it is estimated that Desert Hot Springs would lose a total of $2,160,006 over the next 20 years in property tax revenues if the vacant lands currently designated for urban uses are conserved. Property Transfer Tax Revenue The Property Transfer Tax is levied by Riverside County upon a change of ownership, at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 (or 0.11 percent) of the unencumbered property value. Riverside County collects Property Transfer Taxes on all changes in ownership that occur within its boundaries, including those located in incorporated cities. For transfers within an incorporated city, the revenue is divided evenly between the County (50 percent) and the city (50 percent) in which the property is located. Assumptions for estimated Property Transfer Tax revenues are calculated according to the instructions provided in the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports." In Desert Hot Springs, potential annual property transfer tax revenues have been calculated for approximately 3,240 acres of lands with potential for urban development. These include residential and industrial uses, discussed categorically below. Potential Revenues from Residential Property Transfer Tax In Desert Hot Springs, 3,123+ acres of developable land are designated for residential development. Based on build -out of these lands at 75 percent of maximum allowable densities, 6,092 new residential units would be constructed. Residential development on these lands would generate $355,544 annually in property transfer tax to the City at build -out. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-11 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Potential Revenues from Industrial Property Transfer Tax For the 117+ acres of potentially developable lands designated for industrial use in Desert Hot Springs, and based on the transfer rate assumptions, annual property transfer tax revenues resulting from development of these lands for industrial use would be $16,012 at build -out. Table 4.3-4, below, summarizes potential annual property transfer tax revenues to the City, which would be lost if these lands are placed in conservation. Table 4.3-4 Desert Hot Springs Propert. Transfer Tax Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total tax revenue from residential development $172,301 $236,855 $292,053 $355,544 Total tax revenue from industrial development $14,365 $14,874 $15,440 $16,012 Total property transfer tax revenue from all development $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 Sales and Use Tax Revenue For vacant residential lands being proposed for conservation, estimates of potential sales tax revenues are based on the discretionary income of future residents. Assumptions for determining discretionary income of future residents, including monthly single and multi -family housing costs, are discussed above in Section 4.3.2. Potential Sales Tax Revenues from Residential Development Of the 3,123+ developable acres in Desert Hot designated for residential development, approximately 3,076 acres would be developed for single-family residential dwellings, with densities ranging from one dwelling unit per 10 acres to 5 dwelling units per acre. Residential development in Desert Hot Springs would yield annual sales tax revenues to the City of $445,532 at build -out. Table 4.3-5 summarizes potential annual sales tax revenues for residential development, which would be lost if the potentially developable lands are placed in conservation. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-12 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-5 Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Revenue Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total sales tax revenue from single- family residential development $106,358 $212,715 $319,073 $425,430 Total sales tax revenue from multi- family residential development $5,025 $10,051 $15,076 $20,102 Total sales tax revenue from all development $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fees (also referred to as Motor Vehicle License Fees) are imposed on motorists in -lieu of a local property tax. These revenues are collected by the State of California, and a portion of the total revenue is allocated to each local jurisdiction on a monthly basis. Estimated apportionments payable to California cities and counties have been converted to annual per capita factors. For Fiscal Year 2009-2010, Desert Hot Springs was expected to receive $2.94 per capita. Approximately 3,123 acres of vacant land are currently designated for residential development and would be conserved. If these lands were allowed to develop as currently designated, 6,092 new single and multi -family residential units would be constructed. Based on an average household size of 2.88 persons, it is estimated that at build -out, these new residential units would result in a total of 17,545 new residents. Consequently, Desert Hot Springs would stand to annually receive motor vehicle in -lieu revenues of $51,582 under current General Plan build -out of the affected area. Table 4.3-6 summarizes potential annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu revenues to Desert Hot Springs for all four build -out phases. Table 4.3-6 Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue from all development $12,896 $25,791 $38,687 $51,582 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-13 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees As previously discussed, Desert Hot Springs participates in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. TUMF fees, which fund regional transportation improvement projects in the Coachella Valley, are paid by developers of new projects prior to the issuance of building permits. Because all TUMF fees are allocated to CVAG for regional transportation improvements, and none are retained by the jurisdiction in which they were collected, the TUMF fees are also identified as a cost in the Restricted Fund Costs section. The direct fiscal impacts on Desert Hot Springs of implementing the Major Amendment will therefore be less than significant. TUMF Fee Potential from Residential Development TUMF fees for residential development are calculated per dwelling unit. Fees for single-family dwelling units are $1,837.44 per unit, and $1,276.80 per multi -family dwelling unit. In Desert Hot Springs, the 3,123+ acres with residential development potential would result in construction of 5,504 single-family residences and 588 multi -family residences, for a total of 6,092 residential units. Based on these data, CVAG would collect a total of $2,729,462 in TUMF fees for residential development during each phase of residential development in Desert Hot Springs. This is not annual revenue, but a one-time revenue that would occur at the time each unit is built. Industrial Development TUMF Fee Potential For industrial development, TUMF fees are collected at a rate of $1,031.56 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for industrial. There are approximately 117 acres of vacant lands with potential for 433,204 square feet of industrial space per phase. CVAG would collect $446,876 in TUMF fees per phase. This is not annual revenue, but a one-time revenue that would occur at the time each building is built. Table 4.3-7 summarizes TUMF fees that would be lost if all vacant lands with development potential in Desert Hot Springs were placed in conservation. Table 4.3-7 Desert Hot Springs TUMF Revenue Summary Table Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total TUMF revenue from residential development $2,729,462 $2,729,462 $2,729,462 $2,729,462 Total TUMF revenue from industrial development $446,876 $446,876 $446,876 $446,876 Total TUMF revenue from all development $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-14 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Desert Hot Springs received a per capita apportionment factor for fiscal year 2009-2010 of $16.15. Based on a total potential population of 17,545, total annual gas tax revenue from all development in Desert Hot Springs would be $283,351 at build -out. Table 4.3-8 summarizes potential annual Highway User Gas Tax revenues for Desert Hot Springs. Table 4.3-8 Desert Hot Springs Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Gas Tax Revenue from all development $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 Measure ARevenue Of the 8.75% sales tax collected in Riverside County, 0.50% is contributed to the Measure A fund. These revenues are managed and dispersed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). For Measure A revenues allocated to the Coachella Valley region, 65% is specifically designated for regional transportation projects, including highway and arterial improvements and public transit programs. Of the remaining 35% allocated to local jurisdictions for use in funding local street maintenance, traffic signal installation, and related improvements, 24% is allocated to the Coachella Valley region. Of that 24%, Desert Hot Springs receives a 3% allocation, based on the City's population and total taxable sales. Potential Measure A Revenues from Residential Development This analysis projects that potential residential development in Desert Hot Springs would result in approximately 6,092 residential dwellings. Potential residential development in Desert Hot Springs would yield $561 in annual Measure A revenues at build -out. Table 4.3-9 summarizes potential annual Measure A revenues that would be lost should potentially developable vacant lands in Desert Hot Springs be converted to conservation. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-15 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-9 Desert Hot Springs Measure A Revenue Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Measure A revenue from single-family residential development $134 $268 $402 $536 Total Measure A revenue from multi -family residential development $6 $13 $19 $25 Total Measure A revenue from all development $140 $281 $421 $561 County Service Area (CSA) 152 Revenue Desert Hot Springs is one of four Coachella Valley cities that participate in CSA 152, to support the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program that implements the federal Clean Water Act of 1990. Riverside County collects, manages, and reimburses to the participating cities 100% of the CSA 152 assessments collected. Desert Hot Springs' BAU dollar rate is $1.56. The assessment for residential lands is based on the BAU dollar rate multiplied by the number of dwelling units on a parcel, and the number of BAUs assigned to the property. The same formula is used to determine the assessment for industrial lands, with the exception that the assessment is based on the number of developed acres on a parcel instead of dwelling units per parcel. CSA 152 revenue assessments are discussed for residential and industrial development, below. Potential CSA 152 Revenue from Residential Development There are approximately 3,123 vacant acres in Conservation Areas with potential for residential development. If allowed to develop under their current designations, these 3,123 acres would result in construction of 6,092 units at buildout. Therefore, potential annual CSA 152 revenues from residential development would be $9,504 at build -out. Potential CSA 152 Revenue from Industrial Development There are a total of 117+ undeveloped acres with potential for industrial development. Those 117+ acres of developed industrial lands would yield $2,190 in annual CSA 152 revenues at build -out. Table 4.3-10 summarizes potential annual CSA 152 revenues from all vacant lands with potential for urban development in Desert Hot Springs. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-16 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-10 Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Revenue Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total CSA 152 Revenue from Residential Development $2,376 $4,752 $7,128 $9,504 Total CSA 152 Revenue from Industrial ,Development $548 $1,095 $1,643 $2,190 Total CSA 152 Revenue from all Development 1 $2,9231 $5,8471 $8,7701 $11,694 Special Revenue Sources Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax The City of Desert Hot Springs levies a Utility Tax on all users of electricity, natural gas, cable and other utilities. The tax is equal to 7% of each utility bill. Utility Tax revenues for fiscal year 2009-2010 were $2,529,180. With approximately 9,223 occupied dwelling units in the City in 2010, this equates to approximately $274.23 per dwelling unit per year. To determine potential utility tax revenues, this analysis multiplies the annual per dwelling unit factor ($274.23) by the number of units that could be constructed on proposed conservation lands. The model does not project potential utility tax revenues generated by future industrial development, because the per dwelling unit factor shown above ($274.23) accounts for all utility users in the City, including industrial development. As previously stated, it is projected that a total of 6,092 residential units would be constructed in Desert Hot Springs at build -out, and it is assumed that 100 percent of these units would be occupied. Applying the $274.23 per dwelling unit factor, annual Utility Tax revenues would be $1,670,581 at build -out. Table 4.3-11, below, summarizes this information. Table 4.3-11 Desert Hot Springs Utili Tax Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Utility Tax Revenue from all residential development $417,645 $835,290 $1,252,936 $1,670,581 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-17 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax The City of Desert Hot Springs collects a Public Safety Tax, recently renewed by the voters. This tax is a restricted revenue source that provides for police, fire, code compliance, and animal control services and programs. Table 4.3-12 identifies applicable tax rates that are applied to future development that could occur on proposed conservation lands. Table 4.3-12 Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Rates Land Use Annual Public Safety Tax Rate Residential Single family $120.87/unit Duplexes/R-2 $67.60/unit Apartments $38.72/unit Vacant Acres (all densities) $8.57/acre Industrial Developed Acres (all categories) $521.91/acre Vacant Acres (all categories) $2.36/acre Source: City of Desert Hot Springs, Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Potential Public Safety Tax Revenues from Residential Development Lands proposed for conservation could yield 6,092 units, of which 5,504 would be single family homes, 96 medium density (duplex, R-2) units, and 492 apartments. The resulting calculations show that for all lands designated for residential development annual public safety tax revenues would be $690,815. Potential Public Safety Tax Revenues from Industrial Development There are 117 acres proposed for industrial development within the Conservation Areas. Based on the rates shown above (Table 4.3-12), the City would receive $20,762 at build -out from industrial development for its public safety tax. Table 4.3-13 summarizes potential public safety tax revenues for all vacant lands with potential for development. These revenues would be lost should these lands be converted to conservation. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-18 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-13 Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Revenue Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total tax revenue from residential development $211,861 $371,511 $531,163 $690,815 Total tax revenue from industrial development $5,398 $10,519 $15,641 $20,762 Total Public Safety tax revenue from all development $217,259 $382,030 $546,804 $711,577 Desert Hot Springs Community Facilities District The City previously relied on landscaping and lighting districts to fund parkway maintenance for new development. Since the preparation of the last Fiscal Impact Analysis, the City has established a Community Facilities District, to which all new development will be annexed. Therefore, lands proposed for conservation, should they be developed, would participate in the CFD when development occurred. The CFD includes a broad range of annual assessments, based on the maintenance category of each parcel. Since it impossible to estimate the maintenance category of the potential development on conservation lands, a mid -range value of $400.00 per parcel for residential development, and $950.00 for industrial development have been estimated. The CFD further prescribes that single family residential units are charged a Benefit Unit of 1, multi -family units are charged a Benefit Unit of 0.6, and industrial development is charged at 2 Benefit Units. These assumptions were used to calculate the potential revenues to the City resulting from development of the conservation lands. Potential CFD Revenues from Residential Development The 5,504 single family residential units would generate a total of $2,201,600 at build -out for the CFD, while multi -family units would generate $141,120, for a total residential contribution of $2,342,720 to the CFD at build -out. Potential CFD Revenues from Industrial Development There are 117+ acres with potential for development for industrial uses in Desert Hot Springs. Based on the assumptions shown above, total annual CFD revenues would be $95,043 at buildout. Table 4.3-14 summarizes CFD assessment revenues for lands with potential for development. CFD revenues would be lost if these lands are placed in conservation. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-19 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-14 Desert Hot Springs Community Facilities District Revenue Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total CFD Revenue from Single -Family Residential Development $550,400 $1,100,800 $1,651,200 $2,201,600 Total CFD Revenue from Multi -Family Residential Development $35,280 $70,560 $105,840 $141,120 Total CFD Revenue from Industrial Development $95,043 $95,043 $95,043 $95,043 Total Annual CFD Revenue from all development $680,723 $1,266,403 $1,852,083 $2,437,763 Investment Income Revenues lost to conservation will also result in loss of any investment income that could be generated by these revenues. Potential investment earnings on new revenues are projected using the historical average interest rate of the 90-Day Treasury Bill. During the 29-year period from 1982 through April 2011, the average interest earned on the 90-Day Treasury Bill was 5.03%. Potential annual investment income for each land use is shown below. Summary of Revenues Table 4.3-15 summarizes all general fund and restricted fund revenues that would be lost if vacant lands in Desert Hot Springs with development potential were placed in conservation under the proposed Major Amendment. This table also shows potential annual investment income that would be lost as a result of conservation of these lands. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-20 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-15 City of Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summar Build -out Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase H (Yrs 6-10) Phase III(yrs 11- 15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) ANNUAL REVENUES General Fund: Property Tax $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 Property Transfer Tax $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 Local Sales Tax $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Tax $417,6451 $835,2901 $1,252,9361 $1,670,581 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue 1 $12,8961 $25,7911 $38,6871 $51,582 Restricted Funds: TUMF Fees $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 Highway Users Gas Tax $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 Measure A $140 $281 $421 $561 CSA 152 (NPDES) $2,923 $5,847 $8,770 $11,694 Community Facilities District $680,723 $1,266,4031 $1,852,0831 $2,437,763 Public Safety Tax $217,2591 $382,030 $546,8041 $711,577 SUMMARY OF REVENUES: Revenues: Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,268,592 $2,415,581 $3,553,269 $4,699,257 Total Annual Restricted Fund Revenues $4,148,221 $4,972,575 $5,796,930 $6,621,284 Revenue Subtotal $5,416,814 $7,388,155 $9,350,199 $11,320,541 Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury Bills 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $272,466 $371,624 $470,315 $569,423 Total Annual Revenues at Phase Build -out $5,689,279 $7,759,780 $9,820,514 $11,889,964 Potential Costs to the City of Desert Hot Springs If lands being proposed for conservation are allowed to develop in the future, they will generate additional municipal costs. Expenditures will be required for general government services and the expansion and/or extension of infrastructure, roads, and other public services. The supporting fiscal model estimates the costs of providing general government services, public safety, and transportation/roadway maintenance to new development on lands identified for conservation under the proposed Major Amendment. The City will not incur these costs if these lands remain undeveloped and are placed in conservation. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-21 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Costs of General Government General government costs represent the costs of providing a city's employee salaries and benefits, postage, printing, travel, equipment maintenance and repairs, contract services, computers, vehicles, and other items necessary for the day-to-day functioning of city government. These items are typically funded through the General Fund. According to the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year Budget, General Fund Expenditures in Desert Hot Springs are proposed at $4,119,709.00. According to the California Department of Finance, Desert Hot Springs has a population of 26,811. Based on these data, the annual per capita cost of providing general government services is $153.66 per person. In Desert Hot Springs, development of the approximately 3,123 acres of vacant lands designated for residential uses would result in a total 6,092 new single and multi -family residential units, which would increase Desert Hot Springs' population by 17,545 persons at build -out. Based on the per capita figure cited above ($153.66), annual cost for the provision of general government services to the build -out population of potentially developable lands in Desert Hot Springs would be $2,695,913. Table 4.3-16 summarizes the annual general government costs for each build -out phase. Table 4.3-16 Desert Hot Springs Costs of General Government Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Annual Costs of General Gov. for all development $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Costs of Public Safety Services The costs of providing public safety to future residents are calculated in the same manner as general government costs. Public safety expenditures include those associated with the police and fire departments, as well as code compliance and animal control departments. Public safety expenditures for fiscal year 2010-2011 are proposed at $9,573,455, or $357.07 per capita. As previously stated, a build -out population of 17,545 would result from development of 6,092 new residential dwellings on the vacant lands proposed for conservation within the City. Therefore, annual costs for provision of public safety services to the build -out population would be $6,264,812. Table 4.3-17 summarizes annual public safety costs for each build -out phase. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-22 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-17 Desert Hot Springs Costs of Public Safety Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Annual Costs of Public Safety for all development $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 Costs of Roadway Maintenance A per mile road cost factor is used to determine costs associated with repair and maintenance of future paved public roads in the Conservation Area. In Desert Hot Springs, there are approximately 29.3 square miles of land and 134.96 paved road miles within the incorporated City limits, which equates to 4.6 road miles per square mile of land area. A total of approximately 10.1 square miles are designated for conservation, including both developed and vacant lands. Using the average of 4.6 road miles per square mile of land area, the potentially developable area proposed for conservation in Desert Hot Springs is estimated to include 46.5 miles of paved roadways at build -out. In Desert Hot Springs, an estimated annual expenditure of $88,777 is required to maintain the 135 existing miles of paved roadway annually. This equates to an annual maintenance cost of approximately $658 per road mile. In Desert Hot Springs, the potential 46.5 road miles in the Conservation Area would require maintenance expenditures of approximately $30,602 per year at build -out. Table 4.3-18 summarizes projected annual roadway maintenance costs for Desert Hot Springs for each phase. Should lands identified for conservation under the Major Amendment be conserved, it is assumed no roadways will be required to serve those lands, and therefore, these costs will not be incurred. Table 4.3-18 Desert Hot Springs Costs of Roadway Maintenance Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Phase H Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance at Phase Build -out $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 Summary of Costs Table 4.3-19 summarizes all general fund and restricted fund costs associated with potentially developable lands in the proposed Major Amendment area in Desert Hot Springs. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-23 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-19 Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Costs Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary Build -out Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III (Yrs 11-15 Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) ANNUAL COSTS General Fund. General Government Costs $673,9781 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Restricted Funds: Public Safety Costs $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 Roadway Maintenance Costs $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 TUMF Allocation to CVAG $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 SUMMARY OF COSTS: Costs: Total Annual General Fund Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Total Annual Restricted Fund Costs $4,750,192 $6,324,046 $7,897,900 $9,471,753 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AT PHASE BUILD -OUT $5,424,171 $7,672,002 $9,919,834 $12,167,666 Cost/Revenue Summary Table 4.3-20 summarizes all potential revenues and costs the City will realize if all of the 3,240+ acres of potentially developable conservation lands within Desert Hot Springs are allowed to develop. The table also summarizes costs that will be incurred if these lands are developed. Table 4.3-20 Total Potential Costs/Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary Table - City of Desert Hot Springs Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) ANNUAL REVENUES General Fund: Property Tax $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 Property Transfer Tax $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 Local Sales Tax $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-24 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Table 4.3-20 Total Potential Costs/Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary Table - City of Desert Hot Springs Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Utility Tax $417,645 $835,290 $1,252,936 $1,670,581 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue $12,896 $25,791 $38,687 $51,582 Restricted Funds: TUMF Fees $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 Highway Users Gas Tax $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 Measure A $140 $281 $421 $561 CSA 152 (NPDES) $2,923 $5,847 $8,770 $11,694 Community Facilities District $680,723 $1,266,403 $1,852,083 $2,437,763 Public Safety Tax $217,259 $382,030 $546,804 $711,577 ANNUAL COSTS General Fund: General Government Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Restricted Funds: Public Safety Costs $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 Roadway Maintenance Costs $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 TUMF Allocation to CVAG $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 SUMMARY OF REVENUES/COSTS: Revenues: Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,268,592 $2,415,581 $3,553,269 $4,699,257 Total Annual Restricted Fund Revenues $4,148,221 $4,972,575 $5,796,930 $6,621,284 Revenue Subtotal $5,416,814 $7,388,155 $9,350,199 $11,320,541 Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury Bills 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $272,466 $371,624 $470,315 $569,423 Total Annual Revenues at Phase Build -out $5,689,279 $7,759,780 $9,820,514 $11,889,964 Costs: Total Annual General Fund Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Total Annual Restricted Fund Costs $4,750,192 $6,324,046 $7,897,900 $9,471,753 Total Annual Costs at Phase Build -out $5,424,171 $7,672,002 $9,919,834 $12,167,666 Annual Cash Flow at Phase Build -out $265,109 $87,777 -$99,320 -$277,702 Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-25 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Based on the summary table, currently vacant lands with potential for urban development in Desert Hot Springs would, if developed, result in a negative cash flow for the City over the long term. This is attributable to the fact that residential development does not generate sufficient municipal revenues to cover associated costs, particularly in areas such as Desert Hot Springs, where housing is affordable. Therefore, conservation of these potentially developable lands under the proposed Major Amendment will benefit Desert Hot Springs over the long term. Population Growth The proposed Major Amendment would not directly induce population growth in the Plan Area as it would simply result in establishing Conservation Areas within the City and granting Permittee status to the City and MSWD. Housing Displacement The proposed Major Amendment would establish Conservation Areas within City limits and would not displace any existing housing or persons that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The inclusion of MSWD as a Permittee of the Plan would not result in displacement of any existing housing. Displacement of People The project would not displace any existing housing or persons and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Public Lands Alternative This Alternative includes all lands managed for conservation under local, state, and federal agency ownership, and Private Conservation Lands, and could require additional management prescriptions to be implemented on certain BLM and other public lands. No new areas would be acquired for CVMSHCP purposes. Because this Alternative does not propose additional conservation of lands, no socioeconomic effects would result including displacement of housing or people. State and federal lands would be managed in a manner consistent with their respective management plans, and thus this Alternative would not conflict with such plans. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative This Alternative would have a lower level of conservation of private lands compared to the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative. Although the jurisdictions would be able to develop lands that would otherwise be conserved, the increased land mass in each jurisdiction would not be significant for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes, and would not impact any jurisdiction's ability to provide adequate lands for development. Affordable housing could be permitted on Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-26 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS lands that would otherwise be conserved. It would not directly induce substantial population growth in the CVMSHCP Area, as the Plan does not propose any new construction. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to these conclusions. Enhanced Conservation Alternative This Alternative would result in slight increases in lands included in Conservation Areas in the City of Desert Hot Springs. The overall percentage increase, however, would not significantly increase the lands lost by the City. Impacts to the fiscal health of the City would be expected to be similar to those described above under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. Impacts to the development potential within Desert Hot Springs would be expected to be similar to those described above under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. This Alternative would not directly induce substantial population growth in the Plan Area, as the Plan does not propose any new construction. This Alternative would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This Alternative also does not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to these conclusions. No Action/No Project Alternative Under the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, it was determined the No Action/No Project Alternative would result in all lands proposed for inclusion in Conservation Areas under the Preferred Alternative potentially being available for development. Since there is now an approved Plan in place, the No Action/No Project Alternative for the proposed Major Amendment would mean that both the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD would not become Permittees of the Plan. It was concluded that vacant lands with potential for urban development in Desert Hot Springs would, if developed, result in a negative cash flow for the City over the long term and conservation of some lands as recommended under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative will benefit Desert Hot Springs over the long term. Therefore, the beneficial fiscal impact for the City would not be realized under the No Action/No Project Alternative. 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative Based on the preceding analysis, it has been determined that no significant adverse impacts related to socioeconomic conditions have been identified in association with the implementation of the proposed Major Amendment. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-27 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts related to socioeconomic issues would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts related to socioeconomic issues would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, this Alternative would result in similar impacts as those described for the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative for CEQA analysis purposes. Impacts to the fiscal health of the City would be similar to those described above under the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to the development potential within the City would also be identical to those described above under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. No Action/No Project Alternative This Alternative would result in lands proposed for inclusion in Conservation Areas under the Preferred Alternative potentially being available for development. Individual development, however, would be required to secure permits for any projects that would result in Take. The City of Desert Hot Springs would experience a financial loss at build -out, since the costs and revenues described above and in the Appendix would actually occur. Therefore, this alternative would result in negative cash flow for the City. 4.3.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative No significant impacts have been identified and therefore no mitigation is necessary. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-28 March 2014 SECTION 4.3 SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL EFFECTS Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts related to socioeconomic conditions would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts related to socioeconomic conditions would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved EIR/EIS Recirculated prepared for the Plan, this Alternative would result in similar impacts as those described for the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. No Action/No Project Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, this Alternative would result in potential build -out of the additional lands proposed for conservation in the City. According to the supporting Fiscal Impact Analysis, the City of Desert Hot Springs would experience a financial loss if these lands are developed consistent with current General Plan land uses. Therefore, this Alternative would result in a significant impact to the City's economic base. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.3-29 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION 4.4.1 Introduction and Methodology This section analyzes the potential impacts the proposed Major Amendment would have on transportation, traffic, and circulation. The existing circulation and transportation system serving the overall CVMSHCP Area is composed of a series of separate modes or types of passenger travel and relatively free -flowing movement. In each alternative, existing roadways are considered acceptable land uses and would not be removed. While the construction of planned roadways is a Covered Activity, the design, siting, and construction of these planned roadways would be subject to guidelines outlined in the Conservation Goals and Objectives in the existing CVMSHCP. Transportation impacts would generally occur where the use or improvement of existing roadways or construction of planned roadways would be constrained by the Plan, resulting in reduced levels of service, increased congestion, or reduced access. Similar to the approved 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, the SEIR/SEIS provides an analysis of these impact areas as they relate to the Major Amendment. 4.4.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment This section is based in part on the baseline conditions presented in the Draft Circulation Element of the Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update currently being prepared by the City. The roadway system in the Major Amendment Area is under the jurisdiction of state and local agencies, including: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • County of Riverside • City of Desert Hot Springs In addition, CVAG provides interagency coordination for jurisdictions in the Valley. Caltrans, the County, and local Permittees have all identified roadway improvement projects as Covered Activities in the approved CVMSHCP. The list of Covered Activities for Permittees in the approved CVMSHCP includes several classes of projects anticipated over the 75-year term and includes interchange improvements along I-10, Caltrans improvements to state highway corridors, local arterial improvements identified by cities, CVAG, and the County. The descriptions of all of these improvements are contained in Appendix K of the approved 2007 Final Recirculated EWEIS. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BIRDS 4.4-1 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION Roadways within the Major Amendment Area Regional Roadway Two regional roadways serve the City and MSWD territory, State Highway 62 and Interstate-10 (I-10). I-10 is a major east -west interstate roadway located adjacent to the southern boundary of the City of Desert Hot Springs (refer to Figure 1-2). At that location it is built as an eight -lane divided freeway accessed from diamond intersections spaced a minimum of one mile apart. It connects the Los Angeles region with San Bernardino and Riverside Counties and states east of the Colorado River. State Highway 62 is a north -south roadway that connects to I-10 and travels through the western portion of the City of Desert Hot Springs northward to Morongo Valley and Twentynine Palms areas. Within the Major Amendment Area, this roadway is constructed as a four -lane divided highway. Highway 62 provides important regional access to Joshua Tree National Park and the Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, as well as the Colorado River and the Mojave Desert wilderness and recreation areas. Local Roadways In addition to Highway 62, interchanges are located at I-10 for Palm Drive and Indian Avenue, providing north -south access to the City and the proposed Major Amendment Area. Palm Drive varies from Major Arterial (six -lanes, divided) to Major Collector (four -lanes, divided). Indian Avenue varies from Minor Arterial (two -lanes, divided) to Major Arterial (six -lanes, divided). Major east -west roadways in the Major Amendment Area include Pierson Boulevard, which ranges between four to six lanes divided; Two Bunch Palms Trail, four -lanes undivided to four - lanes divided; Little Morongo Road, four to -six lanes divided; Mission Lakes Boulevard, four - lanes divided; and Hacienda Boulevard, four -lanes divided and undivided. Airports within the Major Amendment Area The nearest commercial airport to the Major Amendment Area is the Palm Springs International Airport located approximately three miles south of the City limits, within the City of Palm Springs. Non-commercial general aviation airports within the overall CVMSHCP Area include Bermuda Dunes airport approximately 16 miles southeast of the proposed Major Amendment Area and the Jacqueline Cochrane Regional Airport in Thermal, approximately 27 miles southeast of the proposed Major Amendment Area. There are no public or private airports within the proposed Major Amendment Area. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.4-2 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION Public Transportation within the Major Amendment Area The Sunline Transit Agency is the provider of public transit service within the City of Desert Hot Springs and the rest of the Coachella Valley. Sunline has made a concerted effort to reduce local and regional air pollutant emissions and to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Its fleet of buses is powered by compressed natural gas (CNG), and each fixed route bus has been outfitted with two bicycle racks. There are currently two routes serving the City of Desert Hot Springs: Sunbus Line 14 provides service along Palm Drive, Mission Lakes Boulevard, West Drive and Pierson Boulevard. Sunbus Line 15 provides service along Palm Drive, Hacienda Avenue, Pierson Boulevard, West Drive, and Two Bunch Palms Trail. Sunline also provides the "Sun Dial" service, consisting of a fleet of small buses providing curb -to -curb service from home to destination. The Sun Dial service is wheelchair accessible, and must be requested at least 72 hours in advance. 4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance/Criteria for Determining Significance The following thresholds are taken from the certified EIR/EIS dated September 2007 and reflect both NEPA and CEQA thresholds agreed to by all the Parties for analysis of transportation impacts. Because CEQA has more stringent and detailed thresholds related to biological resources, over those for NEPA, the following thresholds are based on the criteria identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Major Amendment would have a significant effect on transportation, traffic, and circulation, if it would: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) e. Result in inadequate emergency access Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 4.4-3 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities The above thresholds have changed slightly from the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS but are consistent with the current CEQA Guidelines and the Initial Study/NOP issued for the Supplemental EIR/EIS. 4.4.4 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation Impacts Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative Applicable Plans and Policies As shown in Table 2-1, Section 2.4, the City has included a number of roadway projects as Covered Activities under the proposed Major Amendment. Although the affected roadway segments will become Covered Activities under the Major Amendment, they also represent planned improvements per the City's existing General Plan Circulation Element and have been programmatically reviewed under the General Plan EIR. The City has selected key roadway segments from their Circulation Element as Covered Projects under the Major Amendment to ensure efficient levels of service on existing and planned roadways as the City continues to build out in accordance with its General Plan. This is consistent with the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, which specifies that approval of the Plan would result in a significant impact to circulation and transportation systems only if it precluded the ability of the various roadway agencies to make necessary improvements or develop planned key arterials and roadway segments. The currently approved CVMSHCP already includes a number of regional roads within the City as Covered Activities and the impacts of these projects have been evaluated and addressed in the 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS. These roadways would thus be constructed regardless of whether the City becomes a Plan Permittee. The approved Plan incorporates design and impact avoidance/minimization and mitigation measures that address development, improvement, and operation and maintenance of Covered Activities, including roadways. Implementation of these required measures will be made a condition of project approval for all Covered Activities within the City. Congestion Management The agencies with jurisdiction over transportation in the Major Amendment Area (i.e., City of Desert Hot Springs, CVAG, Riverside County) all have adopted performance criteria for roadway planning and operating procedures. However, only the City of Desert Hot Springs is proposing to add transportation projects to the list of Covered Activities as part of the proposed Major Amendment. The City of Desert Hot Springs utilizes "Level of Service" (LOS) criteria to assess performance of roadway links and intersections. LOS includes a range of alphabetical Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BIRDS 4.44 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION connotations "A" through "F", used to characterize roadway operating conditions. LOS A represents the best/free flow conditions and LOS F indicates the worst/system failure. LOS D is considered the generally acceptable service level at intersections and roadways throughout the City, similar to other jurisdictions in the Plan Area, although anything better is desirable. For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact to transportation caused by the Major Amendment would be one that caused a roadway link or intersection to operate below LOS D. Such a deficiency must be "caused" by implementation of the Major Amendment for it to be considered an impact. Deficiencies that exist without implementation of the Major Amendment are not a result of the "Project" and therefore, would not be considered a significant impact. Significant impacts are also considered based upon substantial conflicts with other transportation systems, including railroads and airports, or the creation of inadequate emergency access as a result of the Major Amendment. Adding the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan and establishing Conservation Areas within the City will not conflict with the County's Congestion Management Program, as it will not result in the generation of any new vehicle trips. Per the approved September 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, a LOS deficiency must be caused by implementation of the Plan for it to be considered an impact. Therefore, existing deficiencies in LOS or traffic control systems are not considered a significant impact if they would remain regardless of whether the Major Amendment is approved. The establishment of Conservation Areas within the City and implementation of the stated Conservation Goals and Objectives of the Plan would not conflict with a congestion management program, existing LOS standards, or other standards established by the County for designated roads or highways. Air Traffic As noted above, there are no public or private airports within the Major Amendment Area. Therefore, the proposed Major Amendment would not impede existing air traffic navigational patterns or cause a change in the location of existing airport facilities in the region. No significant impacts related to air traffic would occur as a result of project implementation. Hazards The proposed Major Amendment would not result in new roadways or other physical improvements that could increase roadway hazards. The City proposed Covered Activities (roadway improvements) would result in improvements to existing roadways and would employ standard construction safety measures per City requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts related to roadway hazards would occur as a result of project implementation. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 4.4-5 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION Emergency Access The CVMSHCP allows Take Authorization for emergency access and emergency response within the Plan Area. The Major Amendment will not result in any revisions to this policy and therefore, no impacts related to emergency access would occur. Piihlin Trnneit Implementation of the proposed Major Amendment would not conflict with adopted policies or involve elimination of facilities supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. Access to bus stops will be maintained to the extent feasible during construction of proposed roadway improvements that are to be included by the City as Covered Activities. Therefore, no significant impacts related to public transit or alternative transportation would occur as a result of implementing the proposed Major Amendment. Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, this Alternative would result in significant impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The impacts of this Alternative to local, regional, state and federal roadways cannot be effectively mitigated. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. No Action/No Project Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse direct impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative; however, significant adverse indirect impacts could result from the absence of a Plan for Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BIRDS 4.4-6 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. Since there is an approved Plan in place, the proposed Major Amendment would serve to enhance the Plan and avoid indirect transportation impacts that may result due to the City not being a Permittee. 4.4.5 Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation -Related Mitigation Measures Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative The proposed Major Amendment would not result in a significant impact to existing or planned transportation networks in the Plan Area. No mitigation measures are required. Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and no mitigation measures would be required. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and no mitigation measures would be required. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, this Alternative would result in significant impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The impacts of this Alternative to local, regional, state, and federal roadways cannot be effectively mitigated. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and no new mitigation measures have been proposed. No Action/No Project Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse direct impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative; however, for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes significant adverse indirect impacts could result from the absence of the proposed Major Amendment. Since there is an approved Plan in place, the proposed Major Amendment would further the goals and objectives of the Plan, by Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BIRDS 4.4-7 March 2014 SECTION 4.4 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND CIRCULATION increasing conservation within the Plan boundaries and facilitating planned roadway improvements for local and regional roadways within the City's jurisdiction. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified should the Preferred Alternative not be approved. 4.4.6 Levels of Significance after Mitigation Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative No significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from the proposed Major Amendment for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. Public Lands Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. Enhanced Conservation Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, this Alternative would result in significant impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The impacts of this Alternative to local, regional, state and federal roadways cannot be effectively mitigated. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. No Action/No Project Alternative As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse direct impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative; however, for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes, significant adverse indirect impacts could result due to rejecting the proposed Major Amendment. Since there is an approved Plan in place, the proposed Major Amendment would further the goals and objectives of the Plan, by increasing conservation within the Plan boundaries and facilitating planned roadway improvements for local and regional roadways within the City's jurisdiction. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BIRDS 4.4-8 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS This chapter provides an analysis of environmental effects required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that are not discussed elsewhere in this SEIR/SEIS. These topics include significant effects of the Proposed Project that cannot be avoided, commitment of nonrenewable resources, and effects found not to be significant. In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a discussion of the relation between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the project if it is implemented, per 40 CFR 1502.16. These topics are also discussed in this section. Similar to the NEPA requirement, CEQA also requires a discussion of significant irreversible changes caused by the project. 5.1 Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires discussion of significant environmental effects of the proposed project. Potential environmental effects of the proposed project are discussed in Section 4.0 of this SEIR/SEIS. There will be no significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Major Amendment is approved as it will result in additional conservation to mitigate these effects, and would not in itself increase or decrease the amount of development that would occur. The Major Amendment, consistent with the permitted CVMSHCP, would provide Take Authorization for Covered Activities provided such activities comply with required Avoidance/Minimization Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines as specified in Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the CVMSHCP. The required measures are designed to assure future development within and adjacent to established Conservation Areas would result in less than significant impacts to Covered Species, habitats, and important ecological processes. Therefore, potential impacts of the Major Amendment will be avoided or minimized to less than significant levels by requirements of the Plan. Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires identification of any significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level below significant. NEPA also requires a discussion of "adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided" (NEPA Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 1502.15), through project redesign, mitigation measures, or the selection of environmentally superior alternatives. As indicated above, the approved Plan incorporates Avoidance/Minimization Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines that address development, improvement, and operation and maintenance of Covered Activities included as part of this Major Amendment. Implementation of these required measures will be made a Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 5-1 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS condition of project approval for all Covered Activities. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.1.4 of this SEIR/SEIS, MSWD has agreed to certain monetary obligations to enhance and manage mesquite hummock habitat as well as provide data on water levels in those areas. These obligations, along with the required measures referenced above, will ensure the persistence of mesquite hummocks in the affected Conservation Areas of the Mission Creek Subbasin. 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Caused By the Proposed Project Should It Be Implemented Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project when a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non -removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. NEPA regulations also require an EIS analysis to include a discussion of the potential irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmental resources as a consequence of the approval and implementation of the Proposed Project (40 CFR 1502.16). The Proposed Project is a Major Amendment to the approved September 2007 CVMSHCP to add the City of Desert Hot Springs and the Mission Springs Water District as Permittees. The current Plan would be amended to include all of the private lands within the City limits of Desert Hot Springs and restore the original boundaries of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon Conservation Areas within City limits. Covered Activities that include certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees are also included in the Major Amendment as described in Section 2.0 of this SEIR/SEIS. The proposed Major Amendment would not in itself increase or decrease the amount of development that is anticipated to occur, and thus does not directly result in development that would involve the irretrievable and irreversible use of land, water, and building materials. Development impacts would occur regardless of whether the CVMSHCP is amended to include Desert Hot Springs and MSWD. As Permittees of the Plan, both agencies will be required to conform to the Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines outlined in Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the Plan, in order to implement their Covered Activities. This would potentially result in fewer environmental impacts in the Conservation Areas within City and MSWD boundaries and is expected to result in more efficient land use patterns outside of Conservation Areas. Establishment of the original boundaries of Conservation Areas within City limits will further preserve sensitive species, their habitat, and other natural resources within the City boundaries. Development outside of Conservation Areas would occur as anticipated in the proposed City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update that is being prepared concurrently with this SEWSEIS. Development within those areas of the MSWD Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 5-2 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS boundaries outside of the City limits will occur as specified in either the Palm Springs or County of Riverside General Plans. 5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of how the potential growth - inducing impacts of the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Induced growth is distinguished from the direct employment, population, or housing growth of a project. If a project has characteristics that "may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively," then these aspects of the project must be discussed as well. Induced growth is any growth that exceeds planned growth and results from new development that would not have taken place in the absence of the Proposed Project. For example, a project could induce growth by lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating or allowing a use such as an industrial facility that attracts new population or economic activity. CEQA Guidelines also indicate that the topic of growth should not be assumed to be either beneficial or detrimental (Section 15126.2[d]). The proposed Major Amendment to include the City of Desert Hot Spring and MSWD as Permittees would not directly induce population growth in the CVMSHCP Area and would not displace any existing housing or persons that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Major Amendment would result in establishing Conservation Areas within the City and granting Permittee status to the City and MSWD. The City will be responsible for exercising land use authority to implement the CVMSHCP. Consequently, approval of the proposed Major Amendment would not result in significant growth -inducing impacts. 5.4 Effects Not Found To Be Significant CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires an EIR to contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons why various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Such a statement may be contained in an attached Initial Study. An Initial Study Checklist/Notice of Preparation was prepared for the project and circulated for a 30-day public review period between March 30 and May 2, 2011. As indicated in that document (Appendix A), none of the CEQA environmental topics were expected to be potentially significant or to require mitigation beyond what is outlined in Section 4.4 of the Plan (avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements for Covered Activities within the Conservation Areas). However, in consideration of comments received during the NOP review period, MSWD has agreed to certain monetary obligations to enhance Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 5-3 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS and manage mesquite hummock habitat as well as provide data on water levels in those areas. Further details regarding the obligations that MSWD will commit to as a Permittee can be found in Section 4.1.4 of this SEIR/SEIS. Although no aspect of the Major Amendment is expected to result in significant impacts, to comply with the Plan amendment requirements outlined in Section 6.12.4 of the Plan, the same environmental review and approval process that was conducted under the original MSHCP approval must be followed. Consequently, this SEIR/SEIS has been prepared to address changes to the September 2007 Final Recirculated Coachella Valley MSHCP EIR/EIS, which did not include Desert Hot Springs or MSWD as Permittees of the Plan. Those environmental topics that may be affected by the Major Amendment have been analyzed in Section 4.0 of this SEIR/SEIS. These topics include Biological Resources, Land Use and Planning, Socioeconomic Resources, and Transportation/Traffic. None of those topics were found to have significant impacts requiring mitigation beyond what is already provided in the CVMSHCP or being included for the City of Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District through this Major Amendment. The rationale for not including the remaining CEQA environmental checklist topics are briefly discussed below. Aesthetics The project would not result in any changes to scenic vistas as a result of the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD being added as Permittees of the CVMSHCP and would not result in damage to any scenic resources within the City or MSWD boundaries. Consistent with the analysis conducted in the 2007 recirculated EWEIS, approval of the Major Amendment would result in the conservation of additional areas within the Plan boundary, which would protect an array of scenic resources, thereby having a positive or beneficial impact on aesthetics. Agricultural and Forestry Resources According to the Riverside County Important Farmland 2006 map prepared by the California Department of Conservation, no prime, statewide important, unique, or local important farmlands are located in the City of Desert Hot Springs or within MSWD boundaries that would be affected by the Major Amendment. There are no lands zoned for agricultural use within the City or MSWD boundaries and therefore, no lands under a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, there are no lands designated as forest or woodland within the Major Amendment area (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2003), and there are no lands identified as Timberland Production Zones in Riverside County (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2002). Consequently, the Major Amendment would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 5-4 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS Air Quality The proposed Major Amendment would not obstruct implementation of the regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Adding the City as a Permittee would result in the conservation of additional lands for conservation, which could otherwise be developed under the current land use designations and contribute a new source of air pollution emissions. Consequently, the Major Amendment would have an overall beneficial impact to local and regional air quality by reducing the amount of developable land within the Plan boundaries. Therefore, the Major Amendment would not result in any significant emissions, violate any applicable air quality standard, contribute to existing or future air quality violations, or result in a cumulatively considerable increase in any air quality criteria pollutants. Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns As indicated in the approved 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, cultural resources and Native American concerns have been represented in, and are integral to the composition of the CVMSHCP. Representatives of the three primary Native American tribes, with traditional use and Reservation lands in the Plan Area, were invited to participate in the CVMSHCP planning process. The proposed Major Amendment will reestablish Conservation Areas within the City that were originally included through consultation with the tribes during the 2007 Plan approval process. Similar to species preservation, the dedication of developable lands to conservation would generally enhance the conservation of cultural resources by limiting development that might otherwise impact the affected lands and any potential unknown archaeological resources. None of the CVMSHCP alternatives would have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources in the Plan Area for CEQA analysis purposes. Similar to the 2007 recirculated EIR/EIS, this SEIR/SEIS does not analyze the potential impacts of Covered Activities on cultural resources, nor does it supplant other requirements that Covered Activities might be subject to regarding environmental analysis, including cultural resource surveys, through their environmental review and approval process. Any required mitigation would be determined through that process. Therefore, while Covered Activities would be provided Take Authorization with approval of the proposed Major Amendment, they would remain subject to existing applicable regulations for the assessment of potential impacts to cultural and other environmental resources under CEQA's purview. As such, potential impacts to cultural resources due to implementation of the proposed Major Amendment would have a less than significant effect on cultural resources and Native American concerns. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 5-5 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS Geology and Soils The proposed Major Amendment does not promote or in any way allow development that would otherwise not be permitted in areas where geologic hazards occur. Existing General Plan, zoning ordinance, building code, and environmental review policies, standards, and requirements would remain in effect under the proposed Major Amendment to ensure that any future development or land use within Conservation Areas would address potential geologic hazards and unstable soil conditions and enforce relevant building codes and standards. Therefore, any potential impacts to geology and soils are considered less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Approval of the Major Amendment and establishment of Conservation Areas within the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD boundaries would serve to reduce the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that might otherwise occur through build -out of allowable land uses within the reestablished Conservation Areas under the City's existing General Plan. Therefore, adoption and implementation of the Major Amendment would not significantly effect GHG emissions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed Major Amendment would not directly involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of the Major Amendment would not result in any impacts related to such hazards. In addition, the Major Amendment would not result in the location of any building or structure on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, therefore, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Hydrology and Water Quality Approval of the proposed Major Amendment would not substantially alter any existing drainage pattern, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, nor in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off - site. The Major Amendment would result in adding conservation lands to the overall MSHCP reserve system. Since the Conservation Areas would have very limited development, approval of the Major Amendment is not expected to result in violations to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 5-6 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS Mineral Resources Mineral extraction in the Coachella Valley is primarily limited to sand and gravel production. Establishment of the Conservation Areas within the Plan was coordinated to avoid active mining areas, and there are none present within the proposed Major Amendment areas; therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. Noise The proposed Major Amendment would result in setting aside additional land within the City of Desert Hot Springs for conservation; thereby limiting development in those areas compared with what otherwise may be developed under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. Therefore, no substantial noise increases would occur over what already has been anticipated prior to the Major Amendment. Any activities covered by the Major Amendment are subject to the same noise standards established in the City or County General Plan and Noise Ordinances. Therefore, no significant noise impacts would occur with implementation of the Major Amendment. Public Services The proposed Major Amendment in itself would not result in the need for new or expanded public facilities. The CVMSHCP provides Take Authorization for public facilities operated by Riverside County (fire protection), City of Desert Hot Springs (police), Palm Springs Unified School District (public schools), and the Community Development Department/City Parks Commission (public parks). The CVMSHCP provides the basis for the issuance of Take Authorization for emergency access and emergency response within the CVMSHCP Reserve System. The CVMSHCP also allows limited development in the Conservation Areas, so that new public facilities are not precluded in the Conservation Areas. However, it is anticipated that any new fire, police or school facilities could be provided in the more urbanized portions of the City without the need for expansion within the proposed Conservation Areas. Recreation The Major Amendment would not result in any substantial increase in the use of recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of such facilities. The CVMSHCP provides guidelines for public access and recreation that would be implemented over time within the Conservation Areas including those portions of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon Conservation Areas that will be reestablished within City limits. The guidelines and the review and approval process for siting trails and other public access facilities Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 5-7 March 2014 ,SECTION 5.0 OTHER NEPA AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS in the CVMSHCP Reserve System are set forth in the Plan to provide for these future facilities and ensure that no significant impacts occur. The potential for expanded hiking, equestrian, and other passive recreation within the City is considered a benefit; therefore, no significant recreation impacts would occur with implementation of the Major Amendment. Utilities and Service Systems The Major Amendment, as with the entire Plan, would provide Take Authorization for activities that support the future development of public utilities and service systems, as long as such activities comply with applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and associated land use adjacency guidelines. The Major Amendment would not result in new generation of wastewater or use of water supplies and would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Implementation of the Major Amendment would not require new or expanded drainage facilities but would allow Take of Covered Species and Natural Communities, if necessary, for planned drainage facilities as specified by the CVMSHCP. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIRIEIS 5-8 March 2014 ,SECTION 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 6.1 Introduction Both NEPA and CEQA require the analysis of cumulative, direct, and indirect impacts that may be associated with a Proposed Action. An analysis of potential cumulative effects must examine the full range of impacting environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action. The potential for cumulative impacts has been analyzed for each alternative in the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS. Background Since CEQA is more specific than NEPA in regards to the robustness of the cumulative analysis, cumulative impacts have been analyzed in accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, which require that an EIR include a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts. While the SEIR/SEIS focuses on the potentially significant direct impacts of the Major Amendment, cumulative impacts may be individually minor but collectively significant, taking place over a period of time. Cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the development when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable or probable future developments. Relevant portions of CEQA Section 15130 are cited below: (a) An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(c). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not "cumulatively considerable," a lead agency need not consider that effect significant but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable. (1) As defined in Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. An EIR should not discuss impacts that do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR. (2) When the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, the EIR shall briefly indicate why the cumulative Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 6-1 March 2014 ,SECTION 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS impact is not significant and is not discussed in further detail in the EIR. A lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting the lead agency's conclusion that the cumulative impact is less than significant. (3) An EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable. (b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the other identified projects that contribute to cumulative impacts rather than the attributes of other projects that do not contribute to cumulative impacts. The following elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts, including either: (1) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (2) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency. The adopted September 2007 EIR/EIS performed an assessment of the long-term land use impacts the implementation of the CVMSHCP would have within the Plan Area. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 b(l) allows the use of a summary of land use projections set forth in adopted General Plans (and associated EIRs) and the buildout of these plans. Rates of growth Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BROS 6-2 March 2014 ,SECTION 6.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS were assumed based upon recent trends in land conversion. The intent in determining the significance of those cumulative impacts evaluated in the approved EIR/EIS was an assessment of the aggregated effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions, regardless of who undertakes them. The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) define cumulative impacts (40 CFR 1508.7): "Cumulative impact" is the impact on the environment which that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non - Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." "Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity. 40 CFR 1508.27(b) clarifies how considerations of intensity relate to cumulative impacts and includes the following: "Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts." A cumulative impacts analysis is largely qualitative in nature but builds upon an extensive quantitative analysis of land use patterns and designations, regulatory and environmental constraints and opportunities affecting development, and socio-economic trends. The potential cumulative impacts of the overall Plan have been evaluated to determine the degree to which they degrade a resource to unacceptable levels and the incremental contribution made by the CVMSHCP to the overall cumulative effect. The cumulative impacts analysis described in the 2007 recirculated EIR/EIS provides sufficient analysis of the Plan as a whole and approval of the Major Amendment would not change the scope of the cumulative analysis in that EWEIS, therefore, no further cumulative impact analysis is considered in this SEWSEIS. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental BROS 6-3 March 2014 SECTION 7.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 7.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Introduction To fully evaluate proposed projects, both CEQA and NEPA require that alternatives be discussed. Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the discussion of "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The alternatives discussion is intended to focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. NEPA Guidelines (40 CFR 1502.14), require an EIS to present the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and all reasonable alternatives in comparative form, defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice by decision -makers and the public. NEPA generally requires that the analysis of alternatives occur at a substantially similar level of detail to that devoted to the proposed action. The approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS discusses a wide range of alternatives to the project that considered approving the Plan without the City of Desert Hot Springs or MSWD as Permittees. In addition to the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, alternatives evaluated included a Public Lands Alternative, Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative, Enhanced Conservation Alternative and the No Action/No Project Alternative (see Summary of Alternatives below). Since this document supplements the previous approved EIR/EIS for the CVMSHCP, those alternatives referenced above provide sufficient analysis of the Plan as a whole and no further alternatives other than an updated No Action/No Project Alternative are considered in this SEIR/SEIS. The reasons for not providing alternative locations for the project as well as the environmentally preferred alternative are discussed below. 7.2 Summary of Alternatives Public Lands Alternative Under this Alternative, substantial areas would be protected in the mountainous portions of the Plan Area. Because this Alternative entails no land acquisition, only Core Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, and Biological Corridors and Linkages that happen to be on existing public conservation lands or private conservation lands would be protected. As a result, sand transport, Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 7-1 March 2014 SECTION 7.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES watershed, and other ecological processes would not be protected, Biological Corridors and Linkages would not be conserved, and Core Habitat areas would likely be fragmented in many instances. As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would not include a broad acquisition plan as part of the Plan requirements. Management of the existing reserves would be increased, so that Covered Species within these reserves would receive greater protection. Overall conservation lands would decrease under this Alternative and would thus result in a greater impact to Covered Species and natural communities. In addition, it was found to have potentially significant impacts to groundwater recharge. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. Adoption of the Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative This Alternative would establish Conservation Areas intended to protect Core Habitat for the Covered Species and natural communities included in the Plan, Essential Ecological Processes necessary to sustain these habitats, and some Biological Corridors. The Conservation Areas include most of the Public Lands Alternative lands as well as the acquisition of additional private lands particularly in the mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley as necessary to: avoid habitat fragmentation of Core Habitat, protect Essential Ecological Processes, and maintain Biological Corridors. As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would result in less conservation than the Preferred Alternative, and thus would have greater impact on Covered Species and natural communities. No Feasible mitigation measures were identified. Adoption of the Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Enhanced Conservation Alternative This Alternative expands upon the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative and includes the same Covered Activities as the Preferred Alternative. It would result in less Take than the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative and additional Conservation Lands would be added. As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would not result in any significant impacts. However, it would result in highly fragmented Conservation Areas in some locations interspersed with urban land uses and major transportation links, undermining the effectiveness of Conservation in these areas. Adoption of the Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 7-2 March 2014 SECTION 7.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 7.3 Alternative Locations In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), the project is required to consider alternative locations to the project. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), the key question and first step in analysis of the offsite location is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by placing the project in another location. However, since the proposed action consists of adding two jurisdictional entities as Permittees to the CVMSHCP, and re-establishing the same Conservation Areas within the City as originally prescribed in the 2006 version of the Plan, alternative locations would not meet the objectives of the Major Amendment. In addition, since this SEIR/SEIS has not identified any significant effects of implementing the proposed Major Amendment, there is no compelling cause to consider alternate locations. Consequently, offsite locations are considered infeasible and no offsite location alternatives were carried forward in this analysis. 7.4 No Action/ No Project Alternative Under the approved EIR/EIS, it was determined this Alternative may result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources for CEQA analysis purposes due to the lack of protection for both Covered and non -Covered Species. Since there is now an approved Plan in place, the No Action/No Project Alternative for the proposed Major Amendment would mean that neither the City nor MSWD would become Permittees of the Plan. Similar to the conclusion in the approved EIR/EIS, the No Action/No Project Alternative under this scenario would mean that some areas of the City and the MSWD boundaries would not receive full protection for Covered and non - Covered Species as provided by the Plan. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to biological resources could occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. The No Action/No Project Alternative would result in Desert Hot Springs and MSWD not being added as Permittees of the Plan and no Take Authorization would be issued for their proposed Covered Activities. The City and MSWD would not be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the CVMSHCP, including acquisition, monitoring and management within their jurisdictions. The City and MSWD would be responsible for obtaining their own permits through the USFWS and CDFW for any project approvals that may affect sensitive species or core habitat areas. This Alternative would not serve to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth in the planning area. 7.5 NEPA/CEQA Environmentally Preferred/Superior Alternative After the environmental analysis is completed, NEPA requires that in addition to the agency's Preferred Alternative, the environmentally preferable alternative be identified. According to Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 7-3 March 2014 SECTION 7.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Section 1505.2(b) of Title 40, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, in cases where an EIS has been prepared, the Record of Decision (ROD) must identify all alternatives that were considered, ".. . specifying the alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable." The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. It is assumed the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative would be chosen as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative as this was the only alternative analyzed for further consideration other than the No Action/No Project Alternative that was found to have potentially significant impacts. However, the ROD will identify all the alternatives analyzed in this SEIR/SEIS and specify the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Action/No Project Alternative, be identified in an EIR, after comparing the potentially significant impacts of each alternative as compared to the Proposed Project. The alternative that causes the least damage to biological resources and physical environment and best preserves natural resources is the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. The addition of the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan provides a more comprehensive and cohesive Plan that would provide beneficial impacts for the Covered Species and natural communities protected within the Plan Area. The Plan also incorporates required avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures; land use adjacency guidelines; and a comprehensive Monitoring and Management Program designed to mitigate potential adverse effects to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 7-4 March 2014 ,SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES 8.0 LIST OF REFERENCES AND APPENDICES REFERENCES A. Ackerly, David D. 2012. Future Climate Scenarios for California: Freezing Isoclines, Novel Climates, and Climatic Resilience of California's Protected Areas. California I Commission. Publication number: CEC-500-2012-022. B. Barrows, C.W., J.T. Rotenberry, M.F. Allen. 2010. Assessing sensitivity to climate change and drought variability of a sand dune endemic lizard. Biological Conservation 143-731-743_ C. California Department of Finance. 2011. Demographic Research Unit. Report E-5. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2011- 2013, with 2010 Benchmark. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2010, California Department of Finance. hqp://www.dof.ca. gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.12hp. D. California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Preparation (NOP) of March 30, 2011 and Responses to NOR E. California Natural Resources Agency. 2009.2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS). www.climatechange.ca. _og v/adaptation. F. Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 2007. Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (SCH No. 2000061079) for the Final Recirculated Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan. Prepared by Dudek (Recirculated) and Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. September 2007. G. Dominguez, F., J. Canon, and J. Valdes. 2010. IPCC-AR4 climate simulations for the Southwestern US: The importance of future ENSO projections. Climatic Change 99: 499- 514 H. Halpin, P.N. 1997. Global Climate Change and Natural -Area Protection: Management Responses and Research Directions. Ecological Applications 7:828-843. Hulme, P.E. 2005. Adapting to Climate Change: Is there Scope for Ecological Management in the Face of a Global Threat? Journal of Applied Ecology 42:784-794. Inkley, D. B., M. G. Anderson, A. R. Blaustein, V. R. Burkett, B. Felzer, B. Griffith, J. Price, and T. L. Root. 2004. Global climate chanize and wildlife in North America. Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 26 pp. K. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 8-1 March 2014 ,SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES L. fIPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avenq, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. M. Lancaster N., J.R. Miller, and L. Zonge. 1993. Geomorphic Evolution and Sediment Transport Dynamics of Eolian Terrains in the Coachella Valley Preserve System, South- central California. Final report to the Coachella Valley Preserve System (The Nature Conservancy). December 29, 1993. 38 pp. N. Meek N., and T. Wasklewicz. 1993. Final Report on the Sand Sources of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat. Report to Coachella Valley Preserve System (Nature Conservancy), Thousand Palms, California. December 6, 1993. 69 pp. O. Mission Springs Water District (MSWD). 2008. Draft Environmental Program Impact Report for the Mission Springs Water District for its Comprehensive Water System Master Plan. MSWD. March. P. Mission Springs Water District (MSWD). 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, prepared by Psomas, Santa Ana, CA, June 2011. Q. Moser S., J. Ekstrom, G. Franco. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. R. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Notice of Intent (NOI) of March 30, 2011 and Responses to NOI. S. Nature Conservancy, The. 1985. Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Steering Committee chaired by The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California. June 1985. 155 pp. T. Noss, R.F. 2001. Beyondyoto: Forest Management in a Time of Rapid Climate Change. Conservation Biology 15:578-590. U. PRBO Conservation Science. 2011. Proiected Effects of Climate Chance in California: Ecoregional Summaries Emphasizing Consequences for Wildlife. Version 1.0. bgp:Hdata.prbo.org/gpps/bssc/climatechange (Accessed 2/14/2011). Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 8-2 March 2014 ,SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES V. Simons, Li and Associates, Inc. 1997. Sand Migration Impact Evaluation Report, Thousand Palms Area, Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California — Volume II: Baseline and Future Without Project Conditions (August 1997). W. fUSFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Rising to the Urgent Challenge: Strategic Plan for Responding to the Accelerating Climate Change. www.fws.jzov/home/climatechanj4e/strate%zy.html X. Weiss, J.L. and J.T. Overpeck. 2005. Is the Sonoran Desert losing its cool? Global Change Biology 11:2065-2077. APPENDICES I. Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Inclusion of the City of Desert Hot Springs In the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., July 2011. Major Amendment: Coachella Valley MSHCP Supplemental EIR/EIS 8-3 March 2014 Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Inclusion of the City of Desert Hot Springs In the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Prepared by I L -A Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.° 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 July 2011 TN/CV MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table of Contents Page No. I. INTRODUCTION 1-1 H. ASSUMPTIONS II-1 III. FORMAT III-1 IV. METHODOLOGY IV-1 A. Potential City Revenues IV-1 B. Potential City Costs IV-6 V. CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS V-1 A. Land Use in Areas Proposed for Conservation V-1 B. Property Tax Revenue V-2 C. Property Transfer Tax Revenue V-4 D. Sales and Use Tax Revenue V-5 E. Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue V-6 F. TUMF Fees V-6 G. Highway User Gas Tax Revenue V-8 H. Measure A Revenue V-8 I. County Service Area (CSA) 152 Revenue V-9 J. Special Revenue Sources V-10 K. Investment Income V-13 L. Summary of Revenues V-13 M. Potential Costs to the City of Desert Hot Springs V-15 N. Summary of Costs V-17 O. Cost/Revenue Summary V-17 P. Conclusion V-19 List of Tables IV-1 County Service Area 152 Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) Factors IV-5 V-1 Desert Hot Springs Summary of Potentially Developable Vacant Lands V-2 V-2 Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Revenue Summary Table V-3 V-3 Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Revenue Summary V-5 V-4 Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Revenue Summary V-6 V-5 Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Summary Table V-6 V-6 Desert Hot Springs TUMF Revenue Summary Table V-7 V-7 Desert Hot Springs Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Summary V-8 V-8 Desert Hot Springs Measure A Revenue Summary V-9 V-9 Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Revenue Summary V-10 V-10 Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Revenue Summary V-10 V-11 Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Rates V-11 V-12 Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Revenue Summary V-12 V-13 Desert Hot Springs Community Facilities District Revenue Summary V-13 V-14 Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary V-14 V-15 Desert Hot Springs Costs of General Government Summary V-15 V-16 Desert Hot Springs Costs of Public Safety Summary V-16 V-17 Desert Hot Springs Costs of Roadway Maintenance Summary V-16 V-18 Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Costs Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary V-17 V-19 Total Potential Costs/Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary Table - City of Desert Hot Springs V-18 11 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis for the City of Desert Hot Springs' Inclusion in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan I. INTRODUCTION This Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared in response to the proposed addition of the City of Desert Hot Springs to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan program. In 2003, a Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared to analyze the potential costs and revenues which could be lost by each jurisdiction participating in the Plan. The City of Desert Hot Springs was included in that analysis, but withdrew from the Plan prior to its completion. The Plan was subsequently adopted by CVAG and the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio and Coachella, and the County of Riverside. Federal and State permitting was completed in 2008, and the Plan has been implemented since that time. The City of Desert Hot Springs requested a Major Amendment be prepared to add lands within its corporate boundaries, triggering a need for an update of the Fiscal Impact Analysis specific to that City. The amendment will also add Mission Springs Water District to the MSHCP. As the City was included in the original analysis, and in order to maintain consistency, this report, and the analysis associated with it, have been completed as an update of the original document. The Fiscal Impact Model is consistent with the original model, but all land use data, cost factors, property values and other assumptions have been updated to reflect 2011 dollars. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) provided an analysis of the lands proposed for conservation in the City. As a result of an annexation undertaken by the City in 2010, which extended its boundaries to the Interstate 10 freeway, lands previously under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside are now within the City limits. The City agreed, as part of the annexation, to enforce the provisions of the MSHCP on those lands within the annexation area which are to be conserved. The analysis provided by CVAG included data on the land use designations applicable to these lands, and whether the land was vacant or developed. As lands within the City are currently available for urban development, in a manner consistent with the City's General Plan, development on these lands would be expected to potentially result in both revenues for the City, in the form of increased property tax, sales tax, motor vehicle license fees, special assessments, and other revenues. Development would also generate additional costs associated with the provision of public services and facilities. As implementation TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis of the MSHCP would result in the conversion of these lands to conservation, revenues associated with future development would be lost. The conversion of vacant, potentially developable land to open space and conservation uses could have fiscal impacts on the City. The purpose of this updated Fiscal Impact Analysis is to determine what the costs and revenues could be if these lands were to develop. The Plan does allow very limited development of conservation lands under certain circumstances. However, in order to reflect the most conservative analysis in this report, it has been assumed that no development, and therefore no revenue, would be generated on any lands in a conservation area. Some development already exists in the conservation areas proposed in the City. This development is generating revenue and costs, and no change would be expected as a result of the implementation of the Plan, particularly since most of the development consists of energy -related development (wind farms). The existing developed lands are therefore not considered in this report, as they would be revenue and cost neutral for the City. I-2 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis for the City of Desert Hot Springs' Inclusion in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan II. ASSUMPTIONS The purpose of the fiscal analysis is to estimate the direct public costs and revenues that would result if vacant lands identified for conservation by the MSHCP were instead allowed to develop consistent with the current General Plan land use designation. With annexation of the lands described above, the City agreed to maintain the land use designations consistent with those applicable under the County prior to annexation. The development potential has been analyzed based on those densities for those lands. If the vacant acreage identified in the MSHCP is conserved, and development does not occur on these lands, potential revenues identified in this fiscal analysis will be lost. Conversely, if these lands are conserved, they will also not generate any costs to the City, as maintenance, public safety and other responsibilities will be eliminated. Density Assumptions Consistent with the previously prepared Fiscal Impact Analysis, this report assumes that residential development will occur at a rate of 75% of the maximum density permitted. For example, if 100 acres of Low Density Residential land are available for development, and the maximum density permitted is 4 dwelling units per acre, a maximum of 400 units could potentially be developed. However, to provide a more realistic analysis of development in the City (and region), this report assumes that only 300 units (75% of the maximum permitted) would be developed. Also consistent with the previous analysis, this report assumes that at buildout, industrial development will result in 34% building coverage (14,810.4 square feet of building space per acre). These estimates were developed on the basis of standard single -story development typical of the Coachella Valley.' These assumptions are also consistent with the City's floor area ratio (FAR) limitations, and the realities of development for industrial projects, which require large areas of parking and/or loading in addition to the building coverage generated. ' "Project Reference File," Urban Land Institute, 1991. TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Construction Cost Assumptions As recommended by the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports," the model assumes all properties are taxed at a rate of 1 % of valuation, and the collection rate is 100%. All property values are stated in year 2011 dollars. The value of new residential units is based on the 2nd quarter, 2010 median new home price provided for the City in the "Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report." The value of new industrial development is assumed to be $60 per square foot, which represents standard industrial development in the Coachella Valley. H-2 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis for the City of Desert Hot Springs' Inclusion in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan III. FORMAT All analyses conducted in this report follow the format recommended in the "Riverside County Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports," which is widely used in the Coachella Valley when jurisdictions prepare annexation applications. The costs and revenues evaluated in the fiscal analysis represent major cost and revenue sources identified in the City's Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Budget. Major General Fund revenue sources associated with the development of land and/or associated population increases include property tax, property transfer tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and motor vehicle in -lieu revenues. Other taxes and fees levied on a city-wide basis, such as Utility Users and Public Safety Taxes, are also included in the analysis. Restricted revenue sources (also known as Special or Non -General Fund revenues), including TUMF fees, highway user gas taxes, Measure A, and special assessment districts are also included where applicable. For this report, it has been assumed that all properties, were they to develop, would be annexed to the City's existing Community Facilities District. The analysis also evaluates the potential costs of providing general government services, public safety services, and roadway maintenance to future development that could occur on lands being proposed for conservation if the City becomes a permittee under the MSHCP. The fiscal analysis does not include projections of application processing or permitting fees, such as development review fees, developer impact fees or building permit fees. These fees are largely based on project -specific development criteria that will not be determined until actual development projects are proposed and cannot be adequately estimated at this time. In addition, the following revenue sources are not evaluated: revenues not directly associated with the development of land, inter -governmental grants, capital improvement funds, and geographically limited assessments that are not levied on a city-wide basis. All projected costs and revenues are stated in Year 2011 dollars. The MSHCP is a long-range plan that is permitted to be in effect for 75 years; conservation lands are to be preserved in their natural condition in perpetuity. For analysis purposes, the buildout of the lands proposed for conservation has been assumed to occur in a 20-year period, divided into TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis four five-year buildout phases. It is assumed that future development will be evenly distributed over the four buildout phases, and that buildout will occur at the end of this period. This approach allows for an incremental analysis of potential fiscal impacts. Cost/revenue projections are cumulative and include the costs/revenues incurred during all previous phases. TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis for the City of Desert Hot Springs' Inclusion in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan IV. METHODOLOGY As with the original Fiscal Impact Analysis, this report utilizes two methodologies recommended by the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports": the Case Study Method and the Multiplier Method .2 The Case Study Method is used to calculate the following revenue sources: property tax, property transfer tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax, TUMF fees, and Measure A revenues. Each of these revenue sources is based on a unique series of mathematical computations and assumptions, which are discussed in more detail below. Other revenues and costs are projected using the Multiplier Method, which is based on a per unit or per capita cost or revenue factor. A. Potential City Revenues 1. Property Tax Revenue The County of Riverside collects property taxes for lands in the City of Desert Hot Springs annually at a rate of 1 % of assessed valuation. Property tax revenues are allocated between Riverside County, the City, and a variety of other public agencies. It is important to note that Riverside County not only receives property tax revenue from unincorporated lands under its jurisdiction, but also receives a portion of property tax revenue generated in incorporated cities. For Desert Hot Springs, the City receives 16.6% of the 1% collected, and the County 23.1%. Other agencies receive the balance of 60.3%. This allocation has not changed since the preparation of the original Fiscal Impact Analysis. Approximately 6,448 acres currently designated for urban uses in the City's General Plan are proposed for conservation within City limits. Of this total, 6,233 acres are vacant, and 2,993 acres are designated for Open Space. Open Space lands are assumed to remain undeveloped, and therefore are not studied in this report. When Open Space lands are deducted, a net remaining 3,240 acres of land could be developed in areas proposed for conservation in the MSHCP. To provide the most conservative analysis, the fiscal model assumes that implementation of the 2 "County of Riverside Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports," prepared by County Administrative Office, January 1995. IV-1 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis MSHCP will prohibit any development from occurring on these lands. The MSHCP does allow for some development within conservation areas. Therefore, the analysis contained in this document is considered conservative. The development potential of these lands and any property tax revenue increases generated by future development is assumed to be "lost." To determine potential property tax revenue losses associated with implementation of the MSHCP in the City, the fiscal model projects potential property tax revenues that would be generated if vacant lands being proposed for conservation were allowed to develop in the future. Potential property tax revenues are estimated for lands currently designated for residential and industrial land uses. The fiscal model assumes that these parcels will develop at the densities described in the General Plan, less the reductions described in Section II of this document. Potential property tax revenues generated by future development on these lands will be "lost" if they are placed into conservation under the MSHCP. The fiscal model calculates potential revenue losses for the City, as well as Riverside County, which retains a portion of property tax generated within each city. 2. Property Transfer Tax Revenue Property transfer tax revenues will also be "lost" if developable lands are converted to conservation. The Property Transfer Tax is levied by Riverside County upon a change of ownership of property. The tax rate is $1.10 per $1,000 (or 0.11 %) of the unencumbered property value.3 Riverside County collects Property Transfer Taxes on all changes in ownership that occur within its boundaries, including those located in incorporated cities. If the transfer occurs within the City, the revenue is divided evenly between the County (50%) and the City (50%).4 Upon implementation of the MSHCP, therefore, both Riverside County and the City will lose potential revenue from lands placed into conservation. For analysis purposes, estimated Property Transfer Tax revenues are calculated according to the instructions provided in the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports." Upon the sale of a new unit, 100% of the unit's market value is subject to the property transfer tax. Upon change of ownership of an existing unit, the unencumbered value (average 80%) of the property is subject to the property transfer tax. Change in ownership is assumed to begin in the fourth year of the first phase, and 10% of existing residential properties are assumed to change ownership per year. Property values are stated in year 2011 dollars, and the same property values used in the property tax revenue evaluation, above, are used in this analysis. A resale rate of 1% is assumed for multi -family and industrial development. For new industrial buildings, it is assumed that only 10% of the property value will change ownership after the structure is built. 3. Sales and Use Tax Revenue If potentially developable land in the MSHCP planning area is converted to conservation, its ability to generate taxable sales and sales tax revenue will be lost. Sales tax in Riverside County is collected at a rate of 8.75% by the state of California. The table below describes how sales tax revenues are allocated among public agencies. The City receives 1% of the 8.75% for its General 3 Alicia Gonzales, Riverside County Recorder's Office, personal communication, January 21, 2011. 4 Ibid. IV-2 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Fund, and 0.5% is allocated to Measure A, for purposes of regional roadway projects (see discussion below). The fiscal model projects sales tax revenues for proposed conservation lands that are currently designated for residential development. Taxable sales from industrial development in the Coachella Valley are generally very limited, and the fiscal model assumes that no taxable sales are generated by industrial development. For vacant residential lands being proposed for conservation, estimates of potential sales tax revenues are based on the discretionary income of future residents. As described in the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports," discretionary income calculations are based on the assumption that total monthly housing costs are equal to 30% of household income, and 19% of net household income is available for spending on taxable goods. Monthly housing costs for single-family homes are based on the 2010 median new housing value provided in the "Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report." This analysis assumes conventional financing with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage. An average mortgage lending rate of 5.06% has been used. When applicable, monthly housing costs for multi -family development are based on the average rental rate for a one or two -bedroom apartments or duplexes in early 2011. Residents do not typically spend their entire expendable incomes within the boundaries of their own city, and often travel to other jurisdictions to shop. When this "retail leakage" occurs, the home city "loses" its sales tax revenue to another jurisdiction. The fiscal impact model assumes that 70% of expendable income is spent in Desert Hot Springs, and 30% is spent elsewhere. Therefore, the City derives sales tax revenue from only 70% of the resident's expendable income. 4. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Revenue Only one land use designation in the Desert Hot Springs General Plan would allow the construction of a hotel or motel, which could then generate Transient Occupancy Tax. The location of the Estate Residential lands and the minimum acreage of 10 acres make it unlikely that a hotel could develop on these lands. As a result, no Transient Occupancy tax revenues have been assumed for this report. This represents a reduction from the previous analysis, where Community Commercial lands were assumed to generate a single hotel. 5. Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fees (also referred to as Motor Vehicle License Fees) are imposed on motorists in -lieu of a local property tax. These revenues are collected by the State of California, and a portion of the total revenue is allocated to each local jurisdiction on a monthly basis. Estimated apportionments payable to California cities and counties have been converted to annual per capita factors. For Fiscal Year 2010, the City was expected to receive $2.94 per capita.5 5 "State of California, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office. IV-3 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis 6. TUMF Fees Riverside County Ordinance 673 established a fee mitigation program for funding the engineering, construction, and purchase of right-of-way and other transportation improvements in the Coachella Valley. The program is better known as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), and its mitigation fee is paid by developers of new projects prior to the issuance of building permits. Fee amounts are based on the trips generated by the land use, gross square footage of the new building, number of units, number of rooms, or number of parking spaces. Mitigation fees are collected by Riverside County and disbursed to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), which is responsible for the management and utilization of funds for regional transportation improvement projects. TUMF revenues are a one-time, non - recurrent payment, and do not represent an ongoing revenue source. It can also be argued that if the lands proposed for conservation do not develop, they will also not generate any vehicle trips, and will therefore not impact roadway capacity. In order to provide an accurate representation of potential revenue losses associated with implementation of the MSHCP, however, this report projects potential TUMF revenues that could be lost to conservation. On the cost/revenue summary sheet for each jurisdiction that participates in the TUMF program (provided at the back of this document), TUMF fees collected are listed as a revenue source in the Restricted Fund Revenue section. However, because all TUMF fees are allocated to CVAG for regional transportation improvements, and none are retained by the jurisdiction in which they were collected, the TUMF fees are also identified as a cost in the Restricted Fund Costs section. The direct fiscal impacts of MSHCP implementation on the City, therefore, will be zero. 7. Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Portions of the tax levied per gallon by the State of California on all gasoline purchases are allocated to counties and cities throughout the state. The anticipated per capita apportionment factors for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 for the City was $16.15. If vacant residential lands are allowed to develop as currently designated, new dwelling units would be constructed, and new residents would move in. The City would receive gas tax revenues, on a per capita basis, for each new resident. Implementation of the MSHCP, however, will remove the development potential from these residential lands, and gas tax revenues will be lost. 8. Measure A Revenue Of the 8.75% sales tax collected in Riverside County, 0.50% (or .005 cent on the dollar) is contributed to the Measure A fund. Measure A revenues are managed and disbursed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Of all the Measure A revenues allocated to the Coachella Valley region, 65% is specifically designated for regional transportation projects, including highway and arterial improvements and public transit programs. The remaining 35% is allocated to local jurisdictions, based on a formula that accounts for the jurisdiction's population and total taxable sales. Measure A revenues are restricted for use in funding local street maintenance, traffic signal installation, and related improvements. IV-4 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis The fiscal model estimates potential Measure A losses by estimating anticipated sales tax revenues, using the same methodology used to project local sales tax revenues. It then extracts the 0.50% designated for Measure A. It further reduces this amount to reflect only that portion (26.9%) which is allocated to the Coachella Valley region. Of the 26.9% allocated to the region, only 35% is allocated to local jurisdictions via the Streets/Roads program. Desert Hot Springs receives 2.9% of the local allocation. 9. County Service Area (CSA)152 Revenue County Service Area 152 supports the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program that implements the federal Clean Water Act of 1990. The program requires the adoption and implementation of storm water management plans, which reduce the discharge of pollutants from storm water systems into waters of the United States. Desert Hot Springs participates in the CSA. Under CSA 152, an annual assessment is levied on both developed and undeveloped lands. The amount assessed is based on a system of Benefit Assessment Units (BAUs). Each parcel is assigned a specific number of BAUs, based on land use, as shown in the table below. Table IV-1 County Service Area 152 Benefit Assessment Unit (BAU) Factors Land Use BAU Assignment Residential 1 BAU/dwelling unit —Single-Family Residential 9 BAU/developed acre —Multi-Family Commercial/Industrial 12 BAU/developed acre Golf Course/Private Park 0.10 BAU/developed acre Parcels w/miscellaneous structures 0.05 BUA/develo ed acre Agriculture, Dairies, Vacant and —Undeveloped Parcels 0 BAU/acre Each city has established its own BAU dollar value. To calculate the assessment for a particular property, the fiscal model multiplies the number of dwelling units or developed acres, by the number of BAUs assigned to the property, and the city's established BAU dollar rate. The BAU rates for Desert Hot Springs is $1.56. 10. Other City Specific Revenues In addition to those revenue sources applicable throughout the MSHCP area, Desert Hot Springs receives revenues from three additional sources: The Public Safety Tax, the Utility Users Tax, and Community Facilities District 2010-01 (CFD). For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that both the Public Safety Tax and the Utility Users Tax will be maintained through the 20 year buildout period. These taxes do have sunsets, but have been renewed by the voters, and would be expected to be renewed again. The CFD has been assumed to be the vehicle which would replace the Landscaping and Lighting Districts previously used by the City. It has further been assumed that all future development on the lands proposed for conservation would be annexed to the CFD. Although the CFD includes a range of potential rates, this report assumes a cost of $400 per unit for maintenance costs, which would appear typical of a residential parcel. IV-5 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Single family residential units are assessed one Benefit Unit (BU) per unit; apartments are assessed 0.60 BU per unit, and industrial development is assessed 2 BU per acre. 11. Investment Income If municipal revenues are "lost" to conservation, any investment income that could be generated by these revenues will also be lost. In order to project potential investment earnings on new revenues, the fiscal model applies the historical average interest rate of the 90-Day Treasury Bill, an average interest rate of 5.03%, which is the standard prescribed in the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports". B. Potential City Costs If lands being proposed for conservation are instead allowed to develop, they will also generate costs to the City for general government services, public safety, and roadway maintenance. Costs of General Government General government costs represent the costs of providing a city's employee salaries and benefits, postage, printing, travel, equipment maintenance and repairs, contract services, computers, vehicles and other items necessary for the day-to-day functioning of city government. These items are typically funded through the General Fund. The fiscal model translates total General Fund expenditures (minus expenditures for public safety and roadway maintenance, which are calculated separately and discussed below) into a per capita factor, and applies that amount to the anticipated buildout population. The result is the estimated cost of providing general government services to future residents. As there are considerable economies of scale associated with providing general services, this analysis method, although consistent with the Guide, is extremely conservative, and overstates the likely costs to the City. Costs of Public Safety Services Public safety is defined for purposes of this analysis as police, fire and ambulance services, as well as Code Compliance and Animal Control activities, which are conducted under this budget category as well. The costs of providing public safety services are calculated in the same manner as general government costs. The fiscal model translates these expenditures into a per capita factor and applies this factor to the anticipated buildout population. Costs of Roadway Maintenance The costs associated with repairing and maintaining future paved public roads are calculated using a per road mile cost factor. The fiscal model first determines the existing number of paved road miles per square mile of land area in the City. The model then identifies the number of square miles of land area designated for conservation and projects the number of potential paved road miles that could be constructed in the conservation area. The model then divides the City's total annual roadway maintenance costs by the number of paved road miles to determine an annual per road mile cost factor. Finally, the annual per road mile cost is applied to the number of potential paved road miles in the conservation area for that jurisdiction. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that new road development would occur as development would occur, and would be at the developers' expense. No cost would therefore result for the City. IV-6 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis for the City of Desert Hot Springs' Inclusion in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan V. CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS A. Land Use in Areas Proposed for Conservation This chapter discusses potential revenues that the City of Desert Hot Springs would be expected to receive if all currently vacant lands within conservation areas within the City were allowed to develop for urban uses according to their land use designations. Within Desert Hot Springs, a total of 6,233+ acres are currently vacant and undeveloped in the proposed conservation areas. Of these, 2,933+ acres are designated as Open Space. This analysis assumes that Open Space lands would remain undeveloped, and do not have potential to generate revenues associated with development. Therefore, lands designated as Open Space are not analyzed in this fiscal analysis. The remaining 3,240+ acres are designated for residential and industrial uses in the City's General Plan, as shown in Table V-1, and are the subject of the cost/revenue analyses that follow. V-1 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-1 Desert Hot Springs Summary of Potentially Developable Vacant Landsl Land Use Description Acreage UnitS Potential Total Units or SF at Buildout2 RD Rural Desert (0-1 du//10 ac 936 DU 72 R-E-10 Residential Estates 0-1 du/10ac 233 DU 16 RR Rural Residential (0-1 du/5ac) 465 DU 68 R-L Low Density Residential (0-5 du/ac) 259 DU 972 R-L/SP Low Density Residential, Specific Plan (0-5 du) 1,167 DU 4,376 Single -Family Residential Subtotals 3,060 DU 5,504 R-M Medium Density Residential (0-8 du/ac) 16 DU 96 R-H Density Residential (0-14 du/ac) 47 DU 492 _High Multi -Family Residential Subtotals 63 DU 588 RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTALS2 3,123 DU 6,092 LI Light Industrial 89 SF 1,318,124 I-L Light Industrial 28 SF 414,692 INDUSTRIAL SUBTOTALS 117 SF 1,732,816 TOTAL 3,240 Source: Coachella Valley Association of Governments, December 10, 2010. 1Does not include lands designated for Open Space 2For residential development, assumes 75 percent of total du possible at maximum permitted density 3For industrial development, assumes 34 percent lot coverage at buildout. As shown in the table, development of lands designated for residential uses would result in construction of 6,092 single and multi -family dwelling units at buildout. In Desert Hot Springs, the average household size is 2.88 persons, as described by the California Department of Finance.b Based on these data, and the previously stated assumption that 100% of these units would be occupied, the buildout population of the subject lands would be 17,545. B. Property Tax Revenue As recommended by the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports," the model assumes all properties are taxed at a rate of 1 percent of valuation, and the collection rate is 100 percent. All property values are stated in year 2011 dollars. The value of new single- family residential units is based on the 2nd quarter 2010 median new home prices provided in the "Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report." As shown in that report, the median new home value for Desert Hot Springs is $207,000. The median value of new multi -family residences is assumed to be $98,490 per unit, which represents standard valuation of new multi -family residential development in Desert Hot Springs between July 2008 and March 2010.7 The value of new industrial development is assumed to be $60 per square foot.$ 6 Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2010, California Department of Finance. 7 Permit Data July 2008 thru March 2010, provided by Martin Magana, City of Desert Hot Springs. 8 As reported in Fiscal Analysis for Annexation 29 into the City of Desert Hot Springs, prepared by Roger Rostvold, Real Property Consultant, January 2011. kWJ TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Desert Hot Springs, receives 16.6% of the 1% allocation collected by the County.9 This allocation rate has been used in the fiscal analysis to estimate potential property tax revenues that could be generated on proposed conservation lands within Desert Hot Springs. 23.1 % of the 1 % allocation goes to the Riverside County General Fund, and 60.3% goes to other agencies. Based on the development assumptions previously discussed, projected City property tax revenues have been estimated for the 20-year project buildout period. Potential Property Tax Revenues from Residential Development There are approximately 3,123 developable acres within Desert Hot Springs designated for residential uses. Of these, 3,060+ are designated for single-family development, with densities ranging from 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres to 5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 63+ acres are designated for medium and high density, multi -family development (maximum 14 dwelling units per acre). Based on a median home price of $207,000 for single-family homes, and $98,490 for multi- family residential development, potential annual property tax revenues to the City from residential development would be $1,987,418 at buildout. Table V-2, below, summarizes potential annual property tax revenues for residential development for each of the four buildout phases. Potential Property Tax Revenues from Industrial Development There are approximately 117± acres within Desert Hot Springs with developable potential for Industrial uses. Potential property tax revenues to the City from all developable industrial lands in Desert Hot Springs total $172,588 annually. Potential annual property tax revenues for all four buildout phases from potentially developable industrial lands in Desert Hot Springs are summarized in Table V-2. Summary Potential annual residential and industrial property tax revenues from vacant developable lands in Desert Hot Springs are summarized in the following table: Table V-2 Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total property tax revenue from residential development $496,855 $993,709 $1,490,564 $1,987,418 Total property tax revenue from industrial development $43,147 $86,295 $129,441 $172,588 Total property tax revenue from all development $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 9 Personal communication with Justina Loeun, Riverside County Auditor -Controller's Office. V-3 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis As Table V-2 shows, it is estimated that Desert Hot Springs would lose a total of $2,160,006 over the next 20 years in property tax revenues if the vacant lands currently designated for urban uses are conserved. C. Property Transfer Tax Revenue The Property Transfer Tax is levied by Riverside County upon a change of ownership, at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 (or 0.11 percent) of the unencumbered property value.10 Riverside County collects Property Transfer Taxes on all changes in ownership that occur within its boundaries, including those located in incorporated cities. For transfers within an incorporated city, the revenue is divided evenly between the County (50 percent) and the city (50 percent) in which the property is located." Assumptions for estimated Property Transfer Tax revenues are calculated according to the instructions provided in the Riverside County "Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports." In Desert Hot Springs, potential annual property transfer tax revenues have been calculated for approximately 3,240 acres of lands with potential for urban development. These include residential and industrial uses, discussed categorically below. Potential Revenues from Residential Property Transfer Tax In Desert Hot Springs, 3,123+ acres of developable land are designated for residential development. Based on buildout of these lands at 75 percent of maximum allowable densities, 6,092 new residential units would be constructed. Residential development on these lands would generate $355,544 annually in property transfer tax to the City at buildout. Potential Revenues from Industrial Property Transfer Tax For the 117+ acres of potentially developable lands designated for industrial use in Desert Hot Springs, and based on the transfer rate assumptions, annual property transfer tax revenues resulting from development of these lands for industrial use would be $16,012 at buildout. Summary Table V-3, below, summarizes potential annual property transfer tax revenues to the City, which would be lost if these lands are placed in conservation. 10 Personal communication, Alicia Gonzales, Riverside County Clerk and Recorder's Office, Jan 21, 2011. " Ibid. V-4 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-3 Desert Hot Springs PropertyTransfer Tax Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total tax revenue from residential development $172,301 $236,855 $292,053 $355,544 Total tax revenue from industrial development $14,365 $14,874 $15,440 $16,012 Total property transfer tax revenue from all development $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 D. Sales and Use Tax Revenue Sales tax in Riverside County is collected at a rate of 8.75% by the State of California. Of that 8.75%, the State retains 7.25%. Local jurisdictions, including the City of Desert Hot Springs, receive 1.0% of the sales tax for sales that occur within that jurisdiction. 0.25% is allocated towards County transportation funds, 0.75% goes to city and county operations. The remaining 0.50% is allocated to the County for Measure A funds. Measure A fund revenues are discussed separately below. For vacant residential lands being proposed for conservation, estimates of potential sales tax revenues are based on the discretionary income of future residents. Assumptions for determining discretionary income of future residents, including monthly single and multi -family housing costs, are discussed in Chapter IV. Potential Sales Tax Revenues from Residential Development Of the 3,123+ developable acres in Desert Hot designated for residential development, approximately 3,076 acres would be developed for single-family residential dwellings, with densities ranging from one dwelling unit per 10 acres to 5 dwelling units per acre. Residential development in Desert Hot Springs would yield annual sales tax revenues to the City of $445,532 at buildout. Summary The following table summarizes potential annual sales tax revenues for residential development, which would be lost if the potentially developable lands are placed in conservation. V-5 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-4 Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total sales tax revenue from single-family residential development $106,358 $212,715 $319,073 $425,430 Total sales tax revenue from multi -family residential development $5,025 $10,051 $15176 $201102 Total sales tax revenue from all development $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 E. Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fees (also referred to as Motor Vehicle License Fees) are imposed on motorists in -lieu of a local property tax. These revenues are collected by the State of California, and a portion of the total revenue is allocated to each local jurisdiction on a monthly basis. Estimated apportionments payable to California cities and counties have been converted to annual per capita factors. For Fiscal Year 2009-2010, Desert Hot Springs was expected to receive $2.94 per capita.12 Approximately 3,123 acres of vacant land are currently designated for residential development and would be conserved. If these lands were allowed to develop as currently designated, 6,092 new single and multi -family residential units would be constructed. Based on an average household size of 2.88 persons,13 it is estimated that at buildout, these new residential units would result in a total of 17,545 new residents. Desert Hot Springs would annually receive motor vehicle in -lieu revenues of $51,582 at buildout. The following table summarizes potential annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu revenues to Desert Hot Springs for all four buildout phases. Table V-5 Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue from all development $12,896 $25,791 $38,687 $51,582 F. TUMF Fees As previously discussed, Desert Hot Springs participates in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program. TUMF fees, which fund regional transportation improvement 12 Per Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Motor Vehicle License Fees, as reported on http://www.sco.ca. og v/ard payments mvlf fV0910.html ," prepared by State Controller's Office. ]s Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2010, California Department of Finance. V-6 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis projects in the Coachella Valley, are paid by developers of new projects prior to the issuance of building permits. Because all TUMF fees are allocated to CVAG for regional transportation improvements, and none are retained by the jurisdiction in which they were collected, the TUMF fees are also identified as a cost in the Restricted Fund Costs section. The direct fiscal impacts of MSHCP implementation on Desert Hot Springs will therefore be zero. TUMF Fee Potential from Residential Development TUMF fees for residential development are calculated per dwelling unit. Fees for single-family dwelling units are $1,837.44 per unit, and $1,276.80 per multi -family dwelling unit. In Desert Hot Springs, the 3,123+ acres with residential development potential would result in construction of 5,504 single-family residences and 588 multi -family residences, for a total of 6,092 residential units. Based on these data, CVAG would collect a total of $2,729,462 in TUMF fees for residential development during each phase of residential development in Desert Hot Springs. This is not annual revenue, but a one-time revenue which would occur at the time each unit is built. Industrial Development TUMF Fee Potential For industrial development, TUMF fees are collected at a rate of $1,031.56 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for industrial. There are approximately 117 acres of vacant lands with potential for 433,204 square feet of industrial space per phase. CVAG would collect $446,876 in TUMF fees per phase. This is not annual revenue, but a one-time revenue which would occur at the time each building is built. Summary The following table summarizes TUMF fees that would be lost if all vacant lands with development potential in Desert Hot Springs were placed in conservation. Table V-6 Desert Hot Springs TUMF Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total TUMF revenue from residential development $2,729,462 $2,729,462 $2,729,462 $2,729,462 Total TUMF revenue from industrial development $446,876 $446,876 $446,876 $446,876 Total TUMF revenue from all development $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 V-7 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis G. Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Desert Hot Springs received a per capita apportionment factor for fiscal year 2009-2010 of $16.15.14 Based on a total potential population of 17,545, total annual gas tax revenue from all development in Desert Hot Springs would be $283,351 at buildout. The following table summarizes potential annual Highway User Gas Tax revenues for Desert Hot Springs. Table V-7 Desert Hot Springs Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Gas Tax Revenue from all development $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 H. Measure A Revenue Of the 8.75% sales tax collected in Riverside County, 0.50% is contributed to the Measure A fund. These revenues are managed and dispersed by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). For Measure A revenues allocated to the Coachella Valley region, 65% is specifically designated for regional transportation projects, including highway and arterial improvements and public transit programs. Of the remaining 35% allocated to local jurisdictions for use in funding local street maintenance, traffic signal installation, and related improvements, 24% is allocated to the Coachella Valley region. Of that 24%, Desert Hot Springs receives a 3% allocation, based on the City's population and total taxable sales. 15 Potential Measure A Revenues from Residential Development This analysis projects that potential residential development in Desert Hot Springs would result in approximately 6,092 residential dwellings. Potential residential development in Desert Hot Springs would yield $561 in annual Measure A Revenues at buildout. Summary The following table summarizes potential annual Measure A Revenues that would be lost should potentially developable vacant lands in Desert Hot Springs be converted to conservation. 14 Source: Monthly Highway Users Tax, Fiscal Year 2009-2010, prepared by State Controller's Office, http://www.sco.ca. og v/ard payments highway fy09IO.html, accessed Jan. 20,2011. 15 Source: "Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Budget", Riverside County Transportation Commission, June 9,2010. V-8 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-8 Desert Hot Springs Measure A Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Measure A revenue from single-family resid. development $134 $268 $402 $536 Total Measure A revenue from multi -family resid. development $6 $13 $19 $25 Total Measure A revenue from all development $140 $281 $421 $561 I. County Service Area (CSA) 152 Revenue As discussed in Chapter IV, Desert Hot Springs is one of four Coachella Valley cities that participate in CSA 152, to support the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program that implements the federal Clean Water Act of 1990. Riverside County collects, manages, and reimburses to the participating cities 100% of the CSA 152 assessments collected. Desert Hot Springs' BAU dollar rate is $1.56.16 The assessment for residential lands is based on the BAU dollar rate multiplied by the number of dwelling units on a parcel, and the number of BAUs assigned to the property. The same formula is used to determine the assessment for industrial lands, with the exception that the assessment is based on the number of developed acres on a parcel instead of dwelling units per parcel. CSA 152 revenue assessments are discussed for residential and industrial development, below. Potential CSA 152 Revenue from Residential Development There are approximately 3,123 vacant acres in conservation areas with potential for residential development. If allowed to develop under their current designations, these 3,123 acres would result in construction of 6,092 units at buildout. Potential annual CSA 152 revenues from residential development would be $9,504 at buildout. Potential CSA 152 Revenue from Industrial Development There are a total of 117+ undeveloped acres with potential for industrial development. Those 117+ acres of developed industrial lands would yield $2,190 in annual CSA 152 revenues at buildout. The following table summarizes potential annual CSA 152 revenues from all vacant lands with potential for urban development in Desert Hot Springs. 16 Personal communication, Michael Franklin at Riverside County EDA, February 15, 2011. V-9 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-9 Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Total CSA 152 Revenue from Residential Development $2,376 $4,752 $7,128 $9,504 Total CSA 152 Revenue from Industrial Development $548 $1,095 $1,643 $2,190 Total CSA 152 Revenue from all Development $2,9231 $5,847 $8,7701 $11,694 J. Special Revenue Sources Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax As discussed in Chapter IV, the City of Desert Hot Springs levies a Utility Tax on all users of electricity, natural gas, cable and other utilities. The tax is equal to 7% of each utility bill.17 Utility Tax revenues for fiscal year 2009-2010 were $2,529,180.18 With approximately 9,223 occupied dwelling units in the City in 2010, this equates to approximately $274.23 per dwelling unit per year. To determine potential utility tax revenues, this analysis multiplies the annual per dwelling unit factor ($274.23) by the number of units that could be constructed on proposed conservation lands. The model does not project potential utility tax revenues generated by future industrial development, because the per dwelling unit factor shown above ($274.23) accounts for all utility users in the City, including industrial development. As has been stated, it is projected that a total of 6,092 residential units would be constructed in Desert Hot Springs at buildout. As previously stated, it is assumed that 100 percent these units would be occupied. Applying the $274.23 per dwelling unit factor, annual Utility Tax revenues would be $1,670,581 at buildout. Table V-10, below, summarizes this information. Table V-10 Desert Hot Springs UtilityTax Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Utility Tax Revenue from all residential development $417,645 $835,290 $1,252,936 $1,670,581 17 Jason Simpson, City of Desert Hot Springs, March 31,201 L 18 Jason Simpson, City of Desert Hot Springs, March 31,201 L V-10 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis 2. Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax The City of Desert Hot Springs collects a Public Safety Tax, recently renewed by the voters. This tax is a restricted revenue source which provides for police, fire, code compliance and animal control services and programs. The following tax rates are applied to future development that could occur on proposed conservation lands. Table V-11 Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Rates Land Use Annual Public Safety Tax Rate Residential Single family $120.87/unit Duplexes/R-2 $67.60/unit Apartments $38.72/unit Vacant Acres all densities $8.57/acre Industrial Developed Acres (all categories) $521.91/acre Vacant Acres (all categories) $2.36/acre Source: City of Desert Hot Springs, Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Potential Public Safety Tax Revenues from Residential Development Lands proposed for conservation could yield 6,092 units, of which 5,504 would be single family homes, 96 medium density (duplex, R-2) units, and 492 apartments. The resulting calculations show that for all lands designated for residential development annual public safety tax revenues would be $690,815. Potential Public Safety Tax Revenues from Industrial Development There are 117 acres proposed for industrial development within the conservation areas. Based on the rates shown above, the City would receive $20,762 at buildout from industrial development for its public safety tax. Summary The following table summarizes potential public safety tax revenues for all vacant lands with potential for development. These revenues would be lost should these lands be converted to conservation. V-11 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-12 Desert Hot Springs Public Sa ety Tax Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total tax revenue from residential development $211,861 $371,511 $531,163 $690,815 Total tax revenue from industrial development $5,398 $10,519 $15,641 $20,762 Total Public Safety tax revenue from all development $217,259 $382,030 $546,804 $711,577 3. Desert Hot Springs Community Facilities District The City previously relied on landscaping and lighting districts to fund parkway maintenance for new development. Since the preparation of the last Fiscal Impact Analysis, the City has established a Community Facilities District, to which all new development will be annexed. Therefore, lands proposed for conservation, should they be developed, would participate in the CFD when development occurred. The CFD includes a broad range of annual assessments, based on the maintenance category of each parcel. Since it impossible to estimate the maintenance category of the potential development on conservation lands, a mid -range value of $400.00 per parcel for residential development, and $950.00 for industrial development have been estimated. The CFD further prescribes that single family residential units are charged a Benefit Unit of 1, multi -family units a Benefit Unit of 0.6, and industrial development is charged at 2 Benefit Units. These assumptions were used to calculate the potential revenues to the City resulting from development of the conservation lands. Potential LLD Revenues from Residential Development The 5,504 single family residential units would generate a total of $2,201,600 at buildout for the CFD, while multi -family units would generate $141,120, for a total residential contribution of $2,342,720 to the CFD at buildout. Potential LLD Revenues from Industrial Development There are 117+ acres with potential for development for industrial uses in Desert Hot Springs. Based on the assumptions shown above, total annual CFD revenues would be $95,043 at buildout. Summary The following table summarizes CFD assessment revenues for lands with potential for development. CFD revenues would be lost if these lands are placed in conservation. V-12 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-13 Desert Hot Springs Community Facilities District Revenue Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total CFD Revenue from Single -Family Resid. Development $550,400 $1,100,800 $1,651,200 $2,201,600 Total CFD Revenue from Multi -Family Resid. Development $35,280 $70,560 $105,840 $141,120 Total CFD Revenue from Industrial Development $95,043 $95,043 $95,043 $95,043 Total Annual CFD Revenue from all development $680,723 $1,266,403 $1,852,083 $2,437,763 K. Investment Income Revenues lost to conservation will also result in loss of any investment income that could be generated by these revenues. Potential investment earnings on new revenues are projected using the historical average interest rate of the 90-Day Treasury Bill. During the 29-year period from 1982 through April 2011, the average interest earned on the 90-Day Treasury Bill was 5.03%.19 Potential annual investment income for each land use is shown below. L. Summary of Revenues The following table summarizes all general fund and restricted fund revenues that would be lost if vacant lands in Desert Hot Springs with development potential were placed in conservation under the proposed MSHCP. This table also shows potential annual investment income that would be lost as a result of conservation of these lands. 19 "3-Month Treasury Constant Maturity Rate", Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as reported on http://www.forecasts.org/data/data/GS3M.htm, accessed June 23, 2011. V-13 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-14 City of Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summar Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III(Yrs 11- 15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) ANNUAL REVENUES General Fund: Property Tax $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 Property Transfer Tax $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 Local Sales Tax $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Tax $417,6451 $835,2901 $1,252,9361 $1,670,581 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue $12,8961 $25,7911 $38,6871 $51,582 Restricted Funds: TUMF Fees $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 Highway Users Gas Tax $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 Measure A $140 $281 $421 $561 CSA 152 (NPDES) $2,923 $5,847 $8,770 $11,694 Community Facilities District $680,7231 $1,266,4031 $1,852,0831 $2,437,763 Public Safety Tax $217,2591 $382,0301 $546,8041 $711,577 SUMMARY OF REVENUES: Revenues: Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,268,592 $2,415,581 $3,553,269 $4,699,257 Total Annual Restricted Fund Revenues $4,148,221 $4,972,575 $5,796,930 $6,621,284 Revenue Subtotal $5,416,814 $7,388,155 $9,350,199 $11,320,541 Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury Bills 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $272,466 $371,624 $470,315 $569,423 Total Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $5,689,279 $7,759,780 $9,820,514 $11,889,964 V-14 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis M. Potential Costs to the City of Desert Hot Springs If lands being proposed for conservation are allowed to develop in the future, they will generate additional municipal costs. Expenditures will be required for general government services and the expansion and/or extension of infrastructure, roads and other public services. The fiscal model projects the costs of providing general government services, public safety, and transportation/roadway maintenance to new development on lands identified for conservation under the proposed MSHCP. The City will not incur these costs if these lands remain undeveloped and are placed in conservation. 1. Costs of General Government General government costs represent the costs of providing a city's employee salaries and benefits, postage, printing, travel, equipment maintenance and repairs, contract services, computers, vehicles and other items necessary for the day-to-day functioning of city government. These items are typically funded through the General Fund. According to the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year Budget, General Fund Expenditures in Desert Hot Springs are proposed at $4,119,709.00.20 The California Department of Finance, Desert Hot Springs had a population of 26,811. Based on these data, the annual per capita cost of providing general government services is $153.66 per person. In Desert Hot Springs, development of the approximately 3,123 acres of vacant lands designated for residential uses would result in a total 6,092 new single and multi -family residential units, which would increase Desert Hot Springs' population by 17,545 persons at buildout. Based on the per capita figure cited above ($153.66), annual cost for the provision of general government services to the buildout population of potentially developable lands in Desert Hot Springs would be $2,695,913. Annual general government costs for each buildout phase are summarized in the following table. Table V-15 Desert Hot Springs Costs of General Government Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Annual Costs of General Gov. for all development $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 2. Costs of Public Safety Services The costs of providing public safety to future residents are calculated in the same manner as general government costs. Public safety expenditures include those associated with the police and fire departments, as well as code compliance and animal control departments. Public safety expenditures for fiscal year 2010-2011 are proposed at $9,573,455, or $357.07 per capita. As 20 City of Desert Hot Springs Two Year Operating Budget, Proposed Fiscal Year 2010-2011. V-15 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis previously stated, a buildout population of 17,545 would result from development of 6,092 new residential dwellings on the vacant lands proposed for conservation. Therefore, annual costs for provision of public safety services to the buildout population would be $6,264,812. Annual public safety costs for each buildout phase are summarized in Table V-16, below. Table V-16 Desert Hot Springs Costs of Public Safety Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase H Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Annual Costs of Public Safety for all development $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 3. Costs of Roadway Maintenance A per mile road cost factor is used to determine costs associated with repair and maintenance of future paved public roads in the conservation area. In Desert Hot Springs, there are approximately 29.3 square miles of land and 134.96 paved road miles within the incorporated City limits, which equates to 4.6 road miles per square mile of land area. A total of approximately 10.1 square miles are designated for conservation, including both developed and vacant lands. Using the average of 4.6 road miles per square mile of land area, the potentially developable area proposed for conservation in Desert Hot Springs are estimated to include 46.45 miles of paved roadways at buildout. In Desert Hot Springs, an estimated annual expenditure of $88,777 is required to maintain the 135 existing miles of paved roadway annually. 21 This equates to an annual maintenance cost of approximately $658 per road mile. In Desert Hot Springs, the potential 46.5 road miles in the conservation area would require maintenance expenditures of approximately $30,602 per year at buildout. The following table summarizes projected annual roadway maintenance costs for Desert Hot Springs for each phase. Should lands identified for conservation under the MSCHP be conserved, it is assumed no roadways will be required to serve those lands, and these costs will not be incurred. Table V-17 Desert Hot Springs Costs of RoadwayMaintenance Summary Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance at Phase Buildout $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 21 Provided by Martin Magana, Community Development Director at City of Desert Hot Springs, May 4, 2011. V-16 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis N. Summary of Costs The following table summarizes all general fund and restricted fund costs associated with potentially developable lands in the proposed MSHCP conservation area in Desert Hot Springs. Table V-18 Desert Hot Springs Total Potential Costs Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase 11 (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) ANNUAL COSTS General Fund. General Government Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Restricted Funds: Public Safety Costs $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 Roadway Maintenance Costs $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 TUMF Allocation to CVAG $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 SUMMARY OF COSTS: Costs: Total Annual General Fund Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Total Annual Restricted Fund Costs $4,750,192 $6,324,046 $7,897,900 $9,471,753 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS AT PHASE BUILDOUT $5,424,171 $7,672,002 $9,919,834 $12,167,666 O. Cost/Revenue Summary The following table summarizes all potential revenues and costs the City will realize if all of the 3,240+ acres of potentially developable conservation lands within Desert Hot Springs are allowed to develop. The table also summarizes costs that will be expended if these lands are developed. V-17 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Table V-19 Total Potential Costs/Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary Table - City of Desert Hot Springs Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) ANNUAL REVENUES General Fund: Property Tax $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 Property Transfer Tax $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 Local Sales Tax $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Tax $417,645 $835,290 $1,252,936 $1,670,581 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue $12,89 5 $25,791 $38,687 $51,582 Restricted Funds: TUMF Fees $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 Highway Users Gas Tax $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 Measure A $140 $281 $421 $561 CSA 152 (NPDES) $2,923 $5,847 $8,770 $11,694 Community Facilities District $680,723 $1,266,403 $1,852,083 $2,437,763 Public Safety Tax $217,259 $382,030 $546,804 $711,577 ANNUAL COSTS General Fund: General Government Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Restricted Funds: Public Safety Costs $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 Roadway Maintenance Costs $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 TUMF Allocation to CVAG $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 SUMMARY OF REVENUES/COSTS: Revenues: Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,268,592 $2,415,581 $3,553,269 $4,699,257 Total Annual Restricted Fund Revenues $4,148,221 $4,972,575 $5,796,930 $6,621,284 Revenue Subtotal $5,416,814 $7,388,155 $9,350,199 $11,320,541 Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury Bills 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% 5.03% Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $272,466 $371,624 $470,315 $569,423 Total Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $5,689,279 1 $7,759,780 $9,820,514 $11,889,964 Costs: Total Annual General Fund Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Total Annual Restricted Fund Costs $4,750,192 $6,324,046 $7,897,900 $9,471,753 Total Annual Costs at Phase Buildout $5,424,171 $7,672,002 $9,919,834 $12,167,666 Annual Cashflow at Phase Buildout $265,109 $87,777 -$99,320 -$277,702 V-18 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis P. Conclusion Based on the summary table, currently vacant lands with potential for urban development in Desert Hot Springs would, if developed, result in a negative cash now for the City over the long term. This is attributable to the fact that residential development does not generate sufficient municipal revenues to cover associated costs, particularly in areas such as Desert Hot Springs, where housing is affordable. Therefore, conservation of these potentially developable lands under the proposed MSHCP will benefit Desert Hot Springs over the long term. V-19 TN/MSHCP City of Desert Hot Springs Fiscal Impact Analysis Appendix A Detailed Cost and Revenue Tables A-1 Property Tax Revenue from Residential Development Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 du/10 ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 acres No. of PotentialBuildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 234 234 234 234 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 18 18 18 18 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 18 36 54 72 Average value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Total Value of acres lost to conservation $3,726,000 $7,452,000 $11,178,000 $14,904,000 Property Tax Rate I % 1 % I % I % Total Property Tax Collected at phase buildout $37,260 $74,520 $111,780 $149,040 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this city 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at phase buildout $6,185 $12,370 $18,555 $24,741 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at phase buildout $8,607 $17,214 $25,821 $34,428 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density. * =variable data to be determined and entered into table TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 1 of 98 Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 du/10 ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase lI (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 4 4 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 4 8 12 16 Average value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Total Value of acres lost to conservation $828,000 $1,656,000 $2,484,000 $3,312,000 Property Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% I% Total Property Tax Collected at phase buildout $8,280 $16,560 $24,840 $33,120 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this city 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at phase buildout $1,374 $2,749 $4,123 $5,498 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at phase buildout $1,913 $3,825 $5,738 $7,651 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density. TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 2 of 98 Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 dul5ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 17 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 17 34 51 68 Average value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Total Value of all acres lost to conservation $3,519,000 $7,038,000 $10,557,000 $14,076,000 Property Tax Rate 1 % 1 % I % 1 % Total Property Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $35,190 $70,380 $105,570 $140,760 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this City 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at Phase Buildout $5,842 $11,683 $17,525 $23,366 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1% 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at Phase Buildout $8,129 $16,258 $24,387 $32,516 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density. TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 3 of 98 Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 dalac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs. 1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 243 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 243 486 729 972 Average value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Total Value of all acres lost to conservation $50,301,000 $100,602,000 $150,903,000 $201,204,000 Property Tax Rate I % 1 % 1 % I % Total Property Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $503,010 $1,006,020 $1,509,030 $2,012,040 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this City 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at Phase Buildout $83,500 $166,999 $250,499 $333,999 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at Phase Buildout $116,195 $232,391 $348,586 $464,781 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density. TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 4 of 98 Land Use Designation: Law Density, Specific Plan (0-5 dalac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 4376 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs. 1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Average value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Total Value of all acres lost to conservation $226,458,000 $452,916,000 $679,374,000 $905,832,000 Property Tax Rate 1 % 1 % I % I % Total Property Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $2,264,580 $4,529,160 $6,793,740 $9,058,320 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this city 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at Phase Buildout $375,920 $751,841 $1,127,761 $1,503,681 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at Phase Buildout $523,118 $1,046,236 $1,569,354 $2,092,472 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density. TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 5 of 98 Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 4 4 4 4 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 8 8 8 8 Maximum potential units constructed during ties phase' 24 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Average value per unit $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 Total Value of acres lost to conservation $2,363,760 $4,727,520 $7,091,280 $9,455,040 Property Tax Rate 1 % 1 % 1 % I % Total Property Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $23,638 $47,275 $70,913 $94,550 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this city 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at Phase Buildout $3,924 $7,848 $11,772 $15,695 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at Phase Buildout $5,460 $10,921 $16,381 $21 ,841 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density. TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 6 of 98 Land Use Designation: High Density, Specific Plan (0-14 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 14 14 14 14 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 123 123 123 123 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 123 246 369 492 Average value per unit $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 Total Value of acres lost to conservation $12,114,220 $24,228,439 $36,342,659 $48,456,878 Property Tax Rate 1 % 1 % I % 1 % Total Property Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $121,142 $242,284 $363,427 $484,569 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this city 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at Phase Buildout $20,110 $40,219 $60,329 $80,438 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at Phase Buildout $27,984 $55,968 $83,952 $ l 11,935 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density. TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 7 of 98 Property Tax Revenue from Industrial Development Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (LI) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 89 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout:1,318,124 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 22.25 22.25 22.25 22.25 Number of square feet constructed during this phase' 329531 329531 329531 329,531 Total square feet constructed at phase buildout 329,531 659,062 988,593 1,318,124 Average value per square foot $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Total average value of all property lost to conservation $19,771,860 $39,543,720 $59,315,580 $79,087,440 Property Tax Rate 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% Total Property Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $197,719 $395,437 $593,156 $790,874 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this city 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% 16.6% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at Phase Buildout $32,821 $65,643 $98,464 $131,285 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % 23.1 % Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at Phase Buildout $45,673 $91,346 $137,019 $182,692 I assumes 34% building coverage. TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Page 8 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 28 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout: 414,692 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 7 7 7 7 Number of square feet constructed during this phase' 103673 103673 103673 103673 Total square feet constructed at phase buildout t03673 207346 311019 414692 Average value per square foot 60 60 60 60 Total average value of all property lost to conservation $6,220,380 $12,440,760 $18,661,140 $24,881,520 Property Tax Rate 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% Total Property Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $62,204 $124,408 $186,611 $248,815 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to this city 16.60% 16.60% 16.60% 16.60% Total Property Tax Allocated to this city at Phase Buildout $10,326 $20,652 $30,977 $41,303 Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund 23.10% 23.10% 23.10% 23.10% Total Amount Allocated to Riverside Co. General Fund at Phase Buildout $14,369 $28,738 $43,t07 $57,476 1 assumes 34% building coverage Page 9 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Tax CITY Property Tax Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1.5) Phase II (Yrs 6.10) Phase III (Yrs 11.15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Total property tax revenue from residential development $496,855 $993,709 $1,490,564 $1,987,418 Total property tax revenue from industrial development $43,147 $86,295 $129,441 $172,588 Total property tax revenue From all development $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Property Tax Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Total property tax revenue from residential development $691,406 $1,382,812 $2,074,218 $2,765,624 Total property tax revenue from industrial development $60,042 $120,084 $180,126 $240,168 Total property tax revenue From all development $751,448 $1,502,896 $2,254,344 $3,005,792 Page 10 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Property Transfer Tax from Residential Development Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dul10 ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 234 234 234 234 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Number of new units during this phase' 18 18 18 18 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $3,726,000 $3,726,000 $3,726,000 $3,726,000 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of units constructed in 1st year of this phase 4 4 4 4 Number of existing units changing ownership in Ist year of this phase 0 1 3 5 Number of units constructed in 2nd year of this phase 4 4 4 4 Number of existing units changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase 0 2 4 6 Number of units constructed in 3rd year of this phase 4 4 4 4 Number of existing units changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 2 4 6 Number of units constructed in 4th year of this phase 4 4 4 4 Number of existing units changing ownership in 4th year of this phase 0 2 4 6 Number of units constructed in 5th year of this phase 3 4 4 4 Number of existing units changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 1 3 5 7 Total number of units constructed during this phase 19 20 20 20 Total number of existing units changing ownership during this phase 1 10 20 1 30 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase $165,600 $1,656,000 $3,312,000 $4,968,000 1=Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum pernitted density *= Variable data to be determined and entered into table New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existing units changing ownership) $3,891,600 $5,382,000 $7,038,000 $8,694,000 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at phase buildout $4,281 $5,920 $7,742 $9,563 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at phase buildout $2,140 $2,960 $3,871 $4,782 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $2,140 $2,960 $3,871 $4,782 Page 11 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 dullO ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Number of new units during this phase' 4 4 4 4 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $828,000 $207,000 $828,000 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $828,000 $828,000 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of units constructed in 1st year of this phase 1 1 1 1 Number of existing units changing ownership in 1st year of this phase 0 0 1 1 Number of units constructed in 2nd year of this phase 1 I 1 1 Number of existing units changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase 0 0 1 1 Number of units constructed in 3rd year of this phase 1 1 1 1 Number of existing units changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 0 1 1 Number of units constructed in 4th year of this phase 1 1 I 1 Number of existing units changing ownership in 4th year of this phase 0 1 1 2 Number of units constructed in 5th year of this phase 0 1 1 1 Number of existing units changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 0 1 1 2 Total number of units constructed during this phase 4 5 5 5 Total number of existing units changing ownership during this phase 0 2 5 7 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase $0 $331,200 $828,000 $1,159,200 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existingunits changing ownership) $828,000 $1,159,200 $1,656,000 $1,987,200 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at phase buildout $911 $1,275 $1,822 $2,186 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at phase buildout $455 $638 $911 $1,093 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50%o 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $455 $638 $911 $1,093 Page 12 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 dul5ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum Density permitted (units/acre) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Number of new units during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $3,519,000 $3,519,000 $3,519,000 $3,519,000 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of units constructed in 1 st year of this phase 3 3 3 3 Number of existing units changing ownership in 1st year of this phase 0 1 3 4 Number of units constructed in 2nd year of this phase 3 3 3 3 Number of existing units changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase 0 5 3 5 Number of units constructed in 3rd year of this phase 3 3 3 3 Number of existing units changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 5 3 5 Number of units constructed in 4th year of this phase 4 4 4 4 Number of existing units changing ownership in 4th year of this phase 0 2 4 6 Number of units constructed in 5th year of this phase 4 4 4 4 Number of existing units changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 1 2 4 6 Total number of units constructed during this phase 17 17 17 17 Total number of existing units changing ownership during this phase 1 15 17 26 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase $165,600 $2,484,000 $2,815,200 $4,305,600 1=Assumes 75%o of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existing units changing ownership) $3,684,600 $6,003,000 $6,334,200 $7,824,600 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $4,053 $6,603 $6,968 $8,607 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at Phase Buildout $2,027 $3,302 $3,484 $4,304 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $2,027 $3,302 $3,484 $4,304 Page 13 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum Density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Number of new units during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $50,301,000 $50,301,000 $50,301,000 $50,301,000 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of units constructed in 1 st year of this phase 49 49 49 49 Number of existing units changing ownership in 1st year of this phase 0 15 39 64 Number of units constructed in 2nd year of this phase 49 49 49 49 Number of existing units changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase 0 64 44 68 Number of units constructed in 3rd year of this phase 49 49 49 49 Number of existing units changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 69 49 73 Number of units constructed in 4th year of this phase 49 49 49 49 Number of existing units changing ownership in 4th year of this phase 5 29 54 78 Number of units constructed in 5th year of this phase 49 49 49 49 Number of existing units changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 10 34 59 83 Total number of units constructed during this phase 245 245 245 245 Total number of existing units changing ownership during this phase 15 211 245 366 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase $2,484,000 $34,941,600 $40,572,000 $60,609,600 1=Assumes 75%o of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existing units changing ownership) $52,785,000 $85,242,600 $90,873,000 $110,910,600 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $58,064 $93,767 $99,960 $122,002 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at Phase Buildout $29,032 $46,883 $49,980 $61,001 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $29,032 $46,883 $49,980 $61,001 Page 14 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density, Specific Plan (0-5 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum Density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Number of new units during thisphase' 1094 1094 1094 1094 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $226,458,000 $226,458,000 $226,458,000 $226,458,000 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of units constructed in 1 st year of this phase 219 219 219 219 Number of existing units changing ownership in 1st year of this phase �ji 66 175 285 Number of units constructed in 2nd year of this phase 219 219 219 219 Number of existing units changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase 0 88 197 307 Number of units constructed in 3rd year of this phase 219 219 219 219 Number of existing units changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 109 219 328 Number of units constructed in 4th year of this phase 219 219 219 219 Number of existing units changing ownership in 4th year of this phase 22 131 241 350 Number of units constructed in 5th year of this phase 219 219 219 219 Number of existing units changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 44 153 263 372 Total number of units constructed during this phase 1095 1095 1095 1095 Total number of existing units changing ownership during this phase 66 547 1,095 1,642 Market Value per unit $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 $165,600 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase $10,913,040 $90,583,200 $181,332,000 $271,915,200 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existiniz units changiniz ownership) $237,371,040 $317,041,200 $407,790,000 $498,373,200 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $261,108 $348,745 $448,569 $548,211 Percent Tax allocated to City* 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at phase buildout $130,554 $174,373 $224,285 $274,105 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50%o 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $130,554 $174,373 $224,285 $274,105 Page 15 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum Density permitted (units/acre) 8 8 8 8 Number of new units during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Market Value per unit $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $2,363,760 $2,363,760 $2,363,760 $2,363,760 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of units constructed in 1st year of this phase 5 5 5 5 Number of existing units changing ownership in Ist year of this phase 0 1 4 6 Number of units constructed in 2nd year of this phase 5 5 5 5 Number of existing units changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase 0 2 4 7 Number of units constructed in 3rd year of this phase 5 5 5 5 Number of existing units changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 2 5 7 Number of units constructed in 4th year of this phase 5 5 5 5 Number of existing units changing ownership in 4th year of this phase 1 3 5 8 Number of units constructed in 5th year of this phase 5 5 5 5 Number of existing units changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 1 3 6 8 Total number of units constructed during this phase 25 25 25 25 Total number of existing units changing ownership during this phase 2 11 24 36 Market Value per unit $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) $78,792 $78,792 $78,792 $78,792 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase $157,584 $866,712 $1,891,008 $2,836,512 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existing units changing ownership) $2,521,344 $3,230,472 $4,254,768 $5,200,272 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $2,773 $3,554 $4,680 $5,720 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at Phase Buildout $1,387 $1,777 $2,340 $2,860 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $1,387 $1,777 $2,340 $2,860 Page 16 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Land Use Designation: High Density, Specific Plan (0-14 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum Density permitted (units/acre) 14 14 14 14 Number of new units during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Market Value per unit $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $12,114220 $12,114,220 $12,114,220 $12,114,220 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of units constructed in 1 st year of this phase 25 25 25 25 Number of existing units changing ownership in 1 st year of this phase 0 1 2 3 Number of units constructed in 2nd year of this phase 25 25 25 25 Number of existing units changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase 0 1 2 3 Number of units constructed in 3rd year of this phase 25 25 25 25 Number of existing units changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 1 2 3 Number of units constructed in 4th year of this phase 25 25 25 25 Number of existing units changing ownership in 4th year of this phase 0 1 3 4 Number of units constructed in 5th year of this phase 17 17 17 17 Number of existing units changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 1 2 3 4 Total number of units constructed during this phase 117 117 117 117 Total number of existing units changing ownership during this phase 1 6 12 17 Market Value per unit $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) $78,792 $78,792 $78,792 $78,792 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase $78,792 $472,750 $945,500 $1,339,458 1=Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existing units changing ownership) $12,193,012 $12,586,970 $13,059,720 $13,453,678 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $13,412 $13,846 $14,366 $14,799 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at phase buildout $6,706 1 $6,923 1 $7,183 1 $7,400 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $6,706 $6,923 $7,183 $7,400 Page 17 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Property Transfer Tax from Industrial Development Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (LI) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 89 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout:1,318,124 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase 11 (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 22.25 22.25 22.25 22.25 Number of square feet constructed at phase buildout' 329,531 329,531 329,531 329,531 Average value per square foot $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new development $19,771,860 $19,771,860 $19,771,860 $19,771,860 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of square feet developed in 1st year of this phase 65,906 65,906 65,906 65,906 Number of square feet changing ownership in 1st year of this phase 0 1,977 5,272 8,568 Number of square feet developed in 2nd year of this phase 65,906 65,906 65,906 65,906 Number of square feet changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase Number of square feet developed in 3rd year of this phase 0 65,906 2,636 5,932 9,227 65,906 65,906 65,906 Number of square feet changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 3,295 6,591 9,886 Number of square feet developed in 4th year of this phase 65,906 65,906 65,906 65,906 Number of square feet changing ownership in 4th year of this phase Number of square feet developed in 5th year of this phase 659 65,907 3,954 7,250 10,545 65,907 65,907 65,907 Number of square feet changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 1318 4,613 7,909 11,204 Total number of square feet developed during this phase 329,531 329,531 329,531 329,531 Total number of square feet changing ownership during this phase Average value per square foot 1977 16,475 32,954 49,430 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) 48 48 48 48 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during this phase 94,896 790,800 1,581,792 2,372,640 1= Assumes 34% building coverage New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existing units changing ownership) $19,866,756 $20,562,660 $21,353,652 $22,144,500 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $21,853 $22,619 $23,489 $24,359 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at Phase Buildout $10,927 $11,310 $11,745 $12,180 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $10,927 $11,310 $11,745 $12,180 Page 18 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 28 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout: 414,692 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II 1 (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) New Units (100% of market value is subject to tax) Number of acres developed during phase 7 7 7 7 Number of square feet constructed at phase buildout' 103,673 103,673 103,673 103,673 Average value per square foot $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $6,220,380 $6,220,380 $6,220,380 $6,220,380 Existing Units(80% of market value is subject to tax) Number of square feet developed in 1st year of this phase 20,734 20,734 20,734 20,734 Number of square feet changing ownership in 1st year of this phase 0 622 1,659 2,696 Number of square feet developed in 2nd year of this phase 20,735 20,735 20,735 20,735 Number of square feet changing ownership in 2nd year of this phase Number of square feet developed in 3rd year of this phase 0 20,735 829 1,866 2,903 20,735 20,735 20,735 Number of square feet changing ownership in 3rd year of this phase 0 1,037 2,073 3,110 Number of square feet developed in 4th year of this phase 20,735 20,735 20,735 20,735 Number of square feet changing ownership in 4th year of this phase Number of square feet developed in 5th year of this phase 207 20,735 1,451 2,281 3,318 20,735 20,735 20,735 Number of square feet changing ownership in 5th year of this phase 415 1,451 2,488 3,525 Total number of square feet developed during this phase 1.03,674 103,674 103,674 103,674 Total number of square feet changing ownership during this phase 622 5,390 10,367 15,552 Average value per square foot $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 $60.00 Unencumbered Value per unit (80% of market value) 48 48 48 48 Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax for all existing units changing ownership during 29,856 258,720 497,616 746,496 1= Assumes 34% building coverage New Units & Existing Units Combined Total amount subject to Property Transfer Tax (includes all new units sold & all existing units changing ownership) $6,250,236 $6,479,100 $6,717,996 $6,966,876 Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % 0.11 % Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $6,875 $7,127 $7,390 $7,664 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to City at Phase Buildout $3,438 $3,564 $3,695 $3,832 Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Riverside County 50% 50% 50% 50% Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Riverside Co. at phase buildout $3,438 $3,564 $3,695 $3,832 Page 19 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Property Transfer Tax CITY Property Transfer Tax Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Total tax revenue from residential development $172,301 $236,855 $292,053 $355,544 Total tax revenue from industrial development $14,365 $14,874 $15,440 $16,012 Total property transfer tax revenue from all development $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 RIVERSIDE COUNTY Property Transfer Tax Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Total tax revenue from residential development $172,301 $236,855 $292,053 $355,544 Total tax revenue from industrial development $14,364 $14,873 $15,440 $16,012 Total property transfer tax revenue from all development $186,665 $251,728 $307,493 $371,556 Page 20 of 98 Public Safety Tax Revenue from Residential Development Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-I du/l0 ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 234 234 234 234 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase ' 18 18 18 18 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 18 36 54 72 Safety Tax Rate (per unit) $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $2,176 $4,351 $6,527 $8,703 Balance of vacant units at phase buildout 54.00 36.00 18.00 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (per vacant acre) $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant lands $463 $309 $154 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $2,639 $4,660 $6,681 $8,703 1= Assumes 75% of total number o funits possible at maximum permitted density Page 21 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 du/10 ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase H (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase* 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre)* 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase ' 4 4 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 4 8 12 16 Safety Tax Rate (per unit) $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $483 $967 $1,450 $1,934 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 12.00 8.00 4.00 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (per vacant acre) $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant lands $103 $69 $34 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $586 $1,036 $1,484 $1,934 1= Assumes 75% of total number o funits possible at maximum permitted density Page 22 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-I dul5ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Number of acres developed during phase* Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre)* 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 17 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 17 34 51 68 Safety Tax Rate (per unit) $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $2,055 $4,110 $6,164 $8,219 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 51.00 34.00 17.00 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (per vacant acre) $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant lands $437 $291 $146 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $2,492 $4,401 $6,310 $8,219 1= Assumes 75% of total number of units possible at maximum permitted density Page 23 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Number of acres developed during phase Phase I (Yrs. 1-5) Phase H (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 243 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 243 486 729 972 Safety Tax Rate (per unit) $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $29,372 $58,743 $88,115 $117487 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 729.00 486.00 243.00 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (per vacant acre) $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant (ands $6,248 $4,165 $2,083 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $35,620 $62,908 $90,198 $117,487 1= Assumes 75% of total number of units possible at maximum permitted density Page 24 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density, Specific Plan (0-5 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Number of acres developed during phase Phase I (Yrs. 1-5) Phase II (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase ' 1094 1094 1094 1094 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 1094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Safety Tax Rate (per unit) $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 $120.87 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $132,233 $264,466 $396,699 $528,932 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 3,282.00 2,188.00 1 1,094.00 1 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (per vacant acre) $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant lands $28,127 $18,751 $9,376 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $160,360 $283,217 $406,075 $528,932 1= Assumes 75% of total number of units possible at maximum Page 25 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres f Potential Buildout Units: 96 Number of acres developed during phase Buildout Phase Phase I Phase H Phase III Phase IV Yrs.1-5) (Yrs.6-10) 1 (Yrs.11-15) 1 (Yrs.16-21 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 8 8 8 8 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 24 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 24 48 72 96 Safety Tax Rate (per unit) 67.60 $67.60 $67.60 $67.60 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $1,622 $3,245 $4,867 6,490 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 72.00 48.00 24.00 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (oer vacant acre) 1 $8.57 1 $8.57 1 $8.57 1 $8.57 Tax revenue from vacant lands Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout 1= Assumes 75% of total number of units possible at maximum permitted density Page 26 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax end Use Designation: High Density, 7ecific Plan (0-14 dulac) )tal No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres o. of Potential Buildout Units: 492 Number of acres developed durine phase TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Buildout Phase Phase I Phase H Phase III Phase IV Yrs.1-5) (Yrs.6-10) 1 (Yrs.11-15) 1 (Yrs.16-2( 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 14 14 14 14 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 123 246 369 492 Safety Tax Rate (per unit) $38.72 $38.72 $38.72 $38.72 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $4,763 $9,525 $14,288 $19,050 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 369.00 246.00 123.00 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (per vacant acre) $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 $8.57 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant lands $3,162 $2,108 $1,054 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $7,925 $11,633 $15,342 $19,050 1=Assumes 75% of total number of units possible at maximum permitted density Page 27 of 98 Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 28 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout: 414,692 Buildout Phase Number of develo able acres Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total number of acres constructed at Phase buildout ' 2.38 4.76 7.14 9.52 Safety Tax Rate (per developed acre) $521.91 $521.97 $521.91 $521.91 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $1,242 $2,484 $3,726 $4,969 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 21.00 14.00 7.00 0.00 .Safety Tax Rate (per vacant acre) $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant lands $50 $33 $17 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $1,292 $2,517 $3,743, 69 1= Assumes 34% building coverage Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (LI) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 89 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout:1,318,124 Buildout Phase Number of developable acres Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase H (Yrs.6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) 22.25 22.25 22.25 22.25 Total number of acres constructed at phase buildout' 7.57 15.13 22.70 30.26 Safety Tax Rate (per developed acre) $521.91 $521.91 $521.91 $521.91 Public Safety Tax revenue from developed lands $3,948 $7,897 $11,845 15,793 Balance of vacant acreage at phase buildout 66.75 44.50 22.25 0.00 Safety Tax Rate (per acre) $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 $2.36 Public Safety Tax revenue from vacant lands $158 $105 $53 $0 Total revenue from safety tax at phase buildout $4,106 $8,002 $11,898 1=Assume 34% building coverage Page 28 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Tax Public Safety Tax Revenue Summary Table (Desert Hot Springs Only) Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase H (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Total tax revenue from residential development $211,861 $371,511 $531,163 $690,815 Total tax revenue from industrial development $5,398 $10,519 $15,641 $20,762 Total Public Safety tax revenue from all development $217,259 $382,030 $546,804 711,577 Page 29 of 98 TUMF Revenue from Residential Development Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 du110 ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 234 234 234 234 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase ' 18 18 18 18 TUMF fee rate (per dwelling unit) $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 TUMF fee collected $33,074 $33,074 $33,074 $33,074 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 du110 ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 4 4 4 4 TUMF fee rate (per dwelling unit) $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 TUMF fee collected $7,350 $7,350 $7,350 $7,350 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 30 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 dul5ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 17 17 17 17 TUMF fee rate (per dwelling unit) $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 TUMF fee collected $31,236 $31,236 $31,236 $31,236 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 31 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs. 1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase ' 243 1 243 1 243 243 TUMF fee rate (per dwelling unit) $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 TUMF fee collected $446,498 $446,498 $446,498 $446,498 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Land Use Designation: Low Density, Specific Plan (0-5 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs. 1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase ' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 TUMF fee rate (per dwelling unit) $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 TUMF fee collected $2,010,159 $2,010,159 $2,010,159 $2,010,159 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 32 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 4 4 4 4 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 8 8 8 8 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 24 24 24 24 TUMF fee rate (per dwelling unit) $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 $1,837 TUMF fee collected $44,099 $44,099 $44,099 $44,099 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 33 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF Land Use Designation: High Density, Specific Plan (0-14 dulac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 14 14 14 14 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 123 123 1 123 1 123 TUMF fee rate (per dwelling unit) $1,277 $1,277 $1,277 $1,277 TUMF fee collected $157,046 $157,046 $157,046 $157,046 1= Assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 34 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF TUMF Revenue from Industrial Development Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (LI) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 89 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout:1,318,124 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 22.25 22.25 22.25 22.25 Totalsquare feet constructed at phase buildout' 329,531 329,531 329,531 329,531 TUMF fee rate (per 1,000 square feet) $1,031.56 $1,031.56 $1,031.56 $1,031.56 TUMF fee collected $339,931 $339,931 $339,931 $339,931 1= Assumes 34% building coverage Page 35 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 28 acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout. 414,692 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs.1-5) Phase II (Yrs. 6-10) Phase III (Yrs.11-15) Phase IV (Yrs.16-20) Number of acres developed during phase 7 7 7 7 Total square feet constructed at phase buildout 103,673 103,673 103,673 103,673 TUMF fee rate (per 1,000 square feet) $1,032 $1,032 $1,032 $1,032 TUMF fee collected $106,945 $106,945 $106,945 $106,945 1= Assumes 34% building coverage Page 36 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs TUMF TUMF Revenue Summary Table Buildout Phase (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total TUMF revenue from residential development $2,729,462 $2,729,462 $2,729,462 $2,729,462 Total TUMF revenue from industrial development $446,876 $446,876 $446,876 $446,876 Total TUMF revenue from all development $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 Page 37 of 98 Sales Tax & Measure A Revenue from Single -Family Residential Development Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 du/10 ac) Buildout Phase Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV No.o Potential Buildout Units: 72 Yrs 1-5 rs 6-10) rs 11-15) Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 234.001 234.001 234.001 234.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1 181 181 181 18 Number of total potential units constructed at phase Buildout 1 181 361 541 72 Calculation of Total Expendable Income at Phase Buildout Median housing value $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Historic average mortgage lending rate 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% Average interest paid annually $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 Interest paid on 30- r. mortgage $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 Total value of dwelling unit median value + interest over 30 ears $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 Average monthly mortgage payment $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 Average monthly household income assumes monthly mortgage payment is 30% of monthly income $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 Average annual household income $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 Average annual expendable income per household assumes expendable income is 19% of net household income $10,951 $10,951 $10,951 $10,951 Annual expendable income for all dwelling units at phase buildout $197,122 $394,2441 $591,3661 $788,488 Allocation of Income Spent Within City vs. Outside City Percent expendable income to be spent within City 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent expendable income to be spent outside City 30% 30% 30% 30% Amountspent within City annually $137,9851 $275,9711 $413,9561 $551,941 Amountspent outside City annually $59,1371 $118,2731 $177,4101 $236,546 Calculation of Sales Tax Revenues Cit 's sales tax rate 1% 1% 1% 1% Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase Buildout 1 $1,3801 $2,7601 $4,1401 $5,519 Calculation of Measure A Revenues Measure A tax rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Annual Measure A revenue collected in City at phase buildout $690 $1,380 $2,070 $2,760 Percent allocated to Coachella Valley 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Annual amount allocated to Coachella Valle $166 $331 $497 $662 Percent allocated to Streets/Roads Program 35% 35% 35% 35% Annual amount allocated to Streets/Roads Program $58 $116 $174 $232 Percent allocated to this jurisdiction 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0% 3.0% Annual amount allocated to this jurisdiction $1.741 $3.481 $5.221 $6.95 = assumes iD io or rite total number or units possmte, at maximum permntea aensity Page 38 of 98 TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 du/10 ac) Buildout Phase Total No. ofAcres Lost to Conservation: 233 Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV No.o Potential Buildout Units: 16 (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10 rs 11-15 rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 58.251 58.251 58.251 58.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 41 41 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 41 81 121 16 Calculation of Total Expendable Income at Phase Buildout Median housing value $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Historic average mortgage lending rate 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% Average interest paid annually $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 Interest paid on 30- r. mortgage $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 Total value of dwelling unit median value + interest over 30 ears $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 Average monthlmortgage payment $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 Average monthly household income assumes monthly mortgage payment is 30% of monthly income $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 Average annual household income $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 Average annual expendable income per household assumes expendable income is 19% of net household income $10,951 $10,951 $10,951 $10,951 Annual expendable income for all dwelling units at phase buildout $43,8051 $87,6101 $131,4151 $175,220 Allocation of Income Spent Within City vs. Outside City Percent expendable income to be spent within City 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent expendable income to be spent outside City 30% 30% 30% 30% Amountspent within City annually $30,663 $61,327 $91,990 $122,654 Amountspent outside City annually $13,141 $26,283 $39,424 $52,566 Calculation of Sales Tax Revenues Ci 's sales tax rate 1% 1% 1% 1% Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $307 $613 $9201 $1,227 Calculation of Measure A Revenues Measure A tax rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Annual Measure A revenue collected in City at phase buildout $153 $307 $460 $613 Percent allocated to Coachella Valley 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Annual amount allocated to Coachella Valle $37 $74 $110 $147 Percent allocated to Streets/Roads Program 35% 35% 35% 35% Annual amount allocated to Streets/Roads Program $13 $26 $39 $52 *Percent allocated to this jurisdiction 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.00/0 Annual amount allocated to this jurisdiction $0.39 $0.77 $1.16 $1.55 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 39 of 98 TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 du/5ac) Total No. ofAcres Lost to Conservation: 465 No.o PotentialBuildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-I5 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 17 34 51 68 Calculation of Total Expendable Income at Phase Buildout Median housing value $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Historic average mortgage lending rate 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% Average interest paid annually $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 Interest paid on 30- r. mortgage $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 Total value of dwelling unit median value + interest over 30 ears $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 Average monthly mortgage payment $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 Average monthly household income assumes monthly mortgage payment is 30% of monthly income $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 Average annual household income $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 Average annual expendable income per household assumes expendable income is 19% of net household income)$10,951 $10,951 $10,951 $10951 Annual expendable income for all dwelling units at phase buildout $186,171 $372,341 $558,512 $744,683 Allocation of Income Spent Within City vs. Outside City Percent expendable income to be spent within City 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent expendable income to be spent outside City 30% 30% 30% 30% Amountspent within City annually $130,3201 $260,6391 $390,9591 $521,278 Amountspent outside City annually $55,8511 $111,7021 $167,5541 $223,405 Calculation of Sales Tax Revenues Ci 's sales tax rate 1% 1% 1% 1% Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $1,3031 $2,6061 $3,9101 $5,213 Calculation of Measure A Revenues Measure A tax rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Annual Measure A Revenue Collected in City at phase buildout $652 $1,303 $1,955 $2,606 Percent allocated to Coachella Valley 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Annual amount allocated to Coachella Valle $156 $313 $469 $626 Percent allocated to Streets/Roads Program 35% 35% 35% 35% Annual amount allocated to Streets/Roads Program 551 109 $164 $219 Percent allocated to this jurisdiction 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Annual amount allocated to this jurisdiction 1 $1.641 $3.281 $4.93 $6.57 - dSbW11CJ / J %0 U1 L11C WWI 11UI11UC1 U1 U111LJ 11UNSWIC, dL 111dAMIU111 t1C1ll11LLCU UUMILy Page 40 of 98 TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. ofAcres Lost to Conservation: 259 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 243 486 729 972 Calculation of Total Expendable Income at Phase Buildout Median housing value $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Historic average mortgage lending rate 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% Average interest paid annually $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 Interest paid on 30- r. mortgage $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 Total value of dwelling unit median value + interest over 30 ears $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 Average monthly mortgage payment $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 Average monthly household income assumes monthly mortgage payment is 30% of monthly income $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 Average annual household income $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 Average annual expendable income per household assumes expendable income is 19% of net household income)$10,951 $10,951 $10,951 $10951 Annual expendable income for all dwelling units at phase buildout $2,661,146 $5,322,293 $7,983,439 $10,644,586 Allocation of Income Spent Within City vs. Outside City Percent expendable income to be spent within City 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent expendable income to be spent outside City 30% 30% 30% 30% Amountspent within City annually $1862,8031 $3,725,6051 $5,588,4081 $7 451,210 Amountspent outside City annually $798,3441 $1,596,6881 $2,395,0321 $3 193,376 Calculation of Sales Tax Revenues Ci 's sales tax rate 1% 1% 1% 1% Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $18,6281 $37,2561 $55,8841 $74,512 Calculation of Measure A Revenues Measure A tax rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Annual Measure A Revenue Collected in City at phase buildout $9 314 $18,628 $27,942 $37,256 Percent allocated to Coachella Valley 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Annual amount allocated to Coachella Valley $2 235 $4,471 $6,706 $8,941 Percent allocated to Streets/Roads Program 35% 35% 35% 35% Annual amount allocated to Streets/Roads Program $7821 1,5651 2,3471 $3,130 *Percent allocated to this jurisdiction 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0% Annual amount allocated to this jurisdiction 1 $23.471 $46.941 $70.411 $93.89 - dSbW11CJ /J %0 U1 UIC WWI 11UI11UC1 U1 WRLJ 11UNSWIC, dL 111dAMIU111 t/C1ll11LLCU UUMILy Page 41 of 98 TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Calculation of Total Expendable Income at Phase Buildout Median housing value $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Historic average mortgage lending rate 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% Average interest paid annually $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 $10,391 Interest paid on 30- r. mortgage $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 $311,742 Total value of dwelling unit median value + interest over 30 ears $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 $518,742 Average monthlmortgage payment $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 $1,441 Average monthly household income assumes monthly mortgage payment is 30% of monthly income $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 $4,803 Average annual household income $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 $57,638 Average annual expendable income per household assumes expendable income is 19% of net household income $10,951 $10,9511 $10,9511 $10,951 Annual expendable income for all dwelling units at phase buildout $11,980,6351 $23,961,2691 $35,941,9041 $47,922,539 Allocation of Income Spent Within City vs. Outside City Percent expendable income to be spent within City 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent expendable income to be spent outside City 30% 30% 30% 30% Amountspent within City annually $8,386,444 $16,772,889 $25,159,333 $33,545,777 Amounts ent outside City annually $3,594,190 $7,188,381 $10,782,571 $14,376,762 Calculation of Sales Tax Revenues Ci 's sales tax rate 1% 1% 1% 1% Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $83,8641 $167,7291 $251,5931 $335,458 Calculation of Measure A Revenues Measure A Tax Rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Annual Measure A Revenue Collected in City at Phase Buildout $41,932 $83,864 $125,797 $167,729 Percent allocated to Coachella Valley 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Annual amount allocated to Coachella Valley $10,064 $20,127 $30,191 $40,255 Percent allocated to Streets/Roads Program 35% 35% 35% 35% Annual amount allocated to Streets/Roads Program $3,522 $7,045 $10,567 $14,089 Percent allocated to this jurisdiction 3.0% 3.0% 3.00/( 3.0% Annual amount allocated to this jurisdiction 1 $105.671 $211.34 $31771 $422.69 i � io vi uic wLai uwiiuci vi wuw pvobwic, aL ma. -um Yciuuucu UV11WLy Page 42 of 98 TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 dulac) Total No. ofAcres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No.o Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-I5 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 8 8 8 8 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Calculation of Total Expendable Income at Phase Buildout Median housing value $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 $98,490 Historic average mortgage lending rate 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% 5.02% Average interest paid annually $4,944 $4,944 $4,944 $4,944 Interest paid on 30- r. mortgage $148,326 $148,326 $148,326 $148,326 Total value of dwelling unit median value + interest over 30 ears $246,816 $246,816 $246,816 $246,816 Average monthly mortgage payment $686 $686 $686 $686 Average monthly household income assumes monthly mortgage payment is 30% of monthly income $2,285 $2,285 $2,285 $2,285 Average annual household income $27,424 $27,424 $27,424 $27,424 Average annual expendable income per household $5,211 $5,211 $5,211 $5,211 Annual expendable income for all dwelling units at phase buildout $125,053 $250,107 $375,160 $500,214 Allocation of Income Spent Within City vs. Outside City Percent expendable income to be spent within City 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent expendable income to be spent outside City 30% 30% 30% 30% Amountspent within City annually $87,5371 $175,0751 $262,6121 $350,150 Amountspent outside City annually $37,5161 $75,0321 $112,5481 $150,064 Calculation of Sales Tax Revenues Ci 's sales tax rate 1% 1%1 1% 1% Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $8751 $1,7511 $2,6261 $3,501 Calculation of Measure A Revenues Measure A Tax Rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Annual Measure A Revenue Collected in City at Phase Buildout $438 $875 $1,313 $1,751 Percent allocated to Coachella Valley 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Annual amount allocated to Coachella Valle $105 $210 $315 $420 Percent allocated to Streets/Roads Program 35% 35% 35% 35% Annual amount allocated to Streets/Roads Program $37 $74 $110 $147 Percent allocated to this jurisdiction 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0% Annual amount allocated to this jurisdiction $1.101 $2.211 $3.31 $4.41 ' = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 43 of 98 TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15) Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 11.751 11.751 11.751 11.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 141 141 141 14 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1231 1231 1231 123 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 1231 2461 3691 492 Calculation of Total Expendable Income at Phase Buildout Average monthly apartment rental rate $768 $768 $768 $768 Average monthly household income assumes monthly rental payment is 30% of monthly income $2,560 $2,560 $2,560 $2,560 Average annual household income $30,720 $30,720 $30,720 $30,720 Average annual expendable income per household assumes expendable income is 19% of net household income $5,837 $5,837 $5,837 $5,837 Annual expendable income for all dwelling units at phase buildout 1 $717,9261 $1,435,8531 $2,153,7791 $2,871,706 Allocation of Income Spent Within City vs. Outside City Percent expendable income to be spent within City 70% 70% 70% 70% Percent expendable income to be spent outside City 30% 30% 30% 30% Amountspent within City annually $502,548 $1,005,097 $1,507,645 $2,010,194 Amountspent outside City annually $215,378 $430,756 $646,134 $861,512 Calculation of Sales Tax Revenues Ci 's sales tax rate 1% 1% 1% 1% Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $5,0251 $10,0511 $15,0761 $20,102 Calculation of Measure A Revenues Measure A Tax Rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% Annual Measure A Revenue Collected in City at Phase Buildout $2,513 $5,025 $7,538 $10,051 Percent allocated to Coachella Valley 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% Annual amount allocated to Coachella Valle $603 $1,206 $1,809 $2,412 Percent allocated to Streets/Roads Program 35% 35% 35% 35% Annual amount allocated to Streets/Roads Program $211 $422 $633 $844 Percent allocated to this jurisdiction 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0%1 3.0% Annual amount allocated to this jurisdiction 1 $6.331 $12.661 $19.001 $25.33 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 44 of 98 TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A TN/MSHCP FiscalAnalysis Desert Hot Springs Sales Tax Measure A Summary Table Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase H rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-I5 Phase IV rs 16-20 Total sales tax revenue from single-family residential development $106,358 $212,715 $319,073 $425,430 Total sales tax revenue from multi -family residential development $5,025 $10,051 $15,076 $20,102 Total sales tax revenue from all development $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 Measure A Revenue Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-I5 Phase IV Yrs 16-20) Total Measure A revenue from single-family resid. development $134 $268 $402 S536 Total Measure A revenue from multi -family resid. development $6 $13 $19 $25 Total Measure A revenue from all development $140 $281 $421 $561 Page 45 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Utility Tax Revenue (Desert Hot Springs only) Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 No.ofPotentialBuildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 234.00 234.00 234.00 234.00 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 18 18 18 18 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 18 36 54 72 Calculation of Utility Tax Revenue City's total annual Utility Tax revenue (FY 09-10) $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 Total no. of occupied dwelling units in City (2010 per CA DOF) 9,223 9,223 9,223 9,223 Annual utility tax per dwelling unit $274 $274 $274 $274 Annual Utility Tax revenue at phase buildout $4,936.06 $9,872 $14,808 $19,744 Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 dull ac) Buildout Phase Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV No.o Potential Buildout Units: 16 (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 58.251 58.251 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 4 4 4 4 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 4 8 12 16 Calculation of Utility Tax Revenue Ci 's total annual Utility Tax revenue (FY 09-10) $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 Total no. of occupied dwelling units in City 2010 per CA DOF) 9,223 9,223 9,223 91223 Annual utility tax per dwelling unit $274 $274 $274 $274 Annual Utility Tax revenue at phase buildout $1,097 $2,194 $3,291 $4,388 Page 46 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 du/5ac) Total No. ofAcres Lost to Conservation: 465 No. of Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 17 34 51 68 Calculation of Utility Tax Revenue City's total annual Utility Tax revenue (FY 09-10) $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 Total no. of occupied dwelling units in City 2010 per CA DOF) 9,223 9,223 9,223 9,223 Annual utility tax per dwelling unit $274 $274 $274 $274 Annual Utility Tax revenue at phase buildout $4,662 $9,324 $13,985 $18,647 Page 47 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. ofAcres Lost to Conservation: 259 No. of Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 243 486 729 972 Calculation of Utility Tax Revenue City's total annual Utility Tax revenue (FY 09-10) $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 Total no. of occupied dwelling units in City 2010 per CA DOF) 9,223 9,223 9,223 9,223 Annual utility tax per dwelling unit $274 $274 $274 $274 Annual Utility Tax revenue at phase buildout $66,637 $133,274 $199,910 $266,547 Page 48 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Calculation of Utility Tax Revenue Ci 's total annual Utility Tax revenue (FY 09-10) $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 Total no. of occupied dwelling units in City (2010 per CA DOF) 9,223 9,223 9,223 9,223 Annual utility tax per dwelling unit $274 $274 $274 $274 Annual Utility Tax revenue at phase buildout $300,003 $600,005 $900,008 $1,200,010 Page 49 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. of PotentialBuildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 8 8 8 8 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Calculation of Utility Tax Revenue Ci 's total annual Utility Tax revenue (FY 09-10) $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 Total no. of occupied dwelling units in City 2010 per CA DOF) 9,223 9,223 9,223 9,223 Annual utility tax per dwelling unit $274 $274 $274 $274 Annual Utility Tax revenue at phase buildout $6,581 $13,163 $19,744 $26,326 Page 50 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Utility Tax Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted (units/acre) 14 14 14 14 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Number of potential units constructed at phase buildout 123 246 369 492 Calculation of Utility Tax Revenue City's total annual Utility Tax revenue (FY 09-10) $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 $2,529,180 Total no. of occupied dwelling units in City (2010 per CA DOF) 9,223 9,223 9,223 9,223 Annual utility tax per dwelling unit $274 $274 $274 $274 Annual Utility Tax revenue at phase buildout $33,730 $67,459 $101,189 $134,919 Tax Revenue (Desert Hot Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15) (Yrs 16-20) Total Utilitv Tax Revenue from all development $417,6451 $835,2901 $1,252,936 1 $1,670,581 Page 51 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 234.001 234.00 234.00 234.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phaSe2 181 18 18 18 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 181 36 54 72 Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Average No. of Persons Per Household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential Population at Phase Buildout 52 104 156 207 Anticipated Annual Per Capita Revenue' $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $152 $305 $457 $610 ' = data from "State of California Shared Revenue Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office 2 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 52 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 58.251 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase2 41 4 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 41 8 12 16 Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Avera e No. of Persons Per Household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential Population at Phase Buildout 12 23 35 46 Antici ated Annual Per Capita Revenue' $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $34 $68 $102 $135 ' = data from "State of California Shared Revenue Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office 2 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 53 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 du/Sac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase 11 Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 116.251 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.21 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during this phaseZ 1 171 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 171 34 51 68 Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Avera e No. of Persons Per Household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential Population at Phase Buildout 49 98 147 196 Antici ated Annual Per Capita Revenue' $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $144 $288 $432 $576 ' = data from "State of California Shared Revenue Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office 2 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 54 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 64.751 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5.01 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1 2431 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 2431 486 729 972 Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Avera e No. of Persons Per Household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential Population at Phase Buildout 700 1,400 2,100 2,799 Antici ated Annual Per Capita Revenue' $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $2,058 $4,115 $6,173 $8,230 ' = data from "State of California Shared Revenue Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office 2 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 55 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 291.751 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during this phase2 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Avera e No. of Persons Per Household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential Population at Phase Buildout 3,151 6,301 9,452 12,603 Antici ated Annual Per Capita Revenue' $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $9,263 $18,526 $27,789 $37,052 ' = data from "State of California Shared Revenue Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office 2 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 56 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 4.001 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 8.01 8.0 8.0 8.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1 241 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 241 48 72 96 Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Avera e No. of Persons Per Household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential Population at Phase Buildout 69 138 207 276 Antici ated Annual Per Capita Revenue' $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $203 $406 $610 $813 ' = data from "State of California Shared Revenue Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office Z = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 11.751 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 14.01 14.0 14.0 14.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1231 123 123 123 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 1231 246 369 492 Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Average No. of Persons Per Household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential Population at Phase Buildout 354 708 1,063 1,417 Antici ated Annual Per Capita Revenue' $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 $2.94 Annual Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $1,041 $2,083 $3,124 $4,166 ' = data from "State of California Shared Revenue Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009-2010," prepared by State Controller's Office z = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Total Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue from all development $12,8961 $25,7911 $38,687 $51,582 Page 57 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Gas Tax Highway Users Gas Tax Revenue Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 72(Yrs Buildout Phase Phase I 1-5 Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15 Phase IV (Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 234.00 234.00 234.00 234.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 18 18 18 18 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 18 36 54 72 Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue Average no. persons per household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential population at phase buildout 52 104 156 207 Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $837 $1,674 $2,512 $3,349 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density 2 = data from Fiscal Year 2009-2010, California State Controller's Office Page 58 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Gas Tax Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 du/10 ac) Buildout Phase Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV No. o PotentialBuildout Units: 16(Yrs 1-5 (Yrs 6-10) (Yrs 11-15 (Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 4 4 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 4 8 12 16 Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue Average no. persons per household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential population at phase buildout 12 23 35 46 Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $186 $372 $558 $744 1 = assumes lb"/0 or the total number of units possible, at maximum permuted density 2 = data from Fiscal Year 2009-2010, California State Controller's Office" Page 59 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Gas Tax Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 du/Sac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 17 34 51 68 Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue Average no. persons per household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential population at phase buildout 49 98 147 196 Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $791 $1,581 $2,372 $3,163 1 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density 2 = data from Fiscal Year 2009-2010, California State Controller's Office" Page 60 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Gas Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase 1 Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 243 486 729 972 Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue Average no. persons per household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential population at phase buildout 700 1,400 2,100 2,799 Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue2 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $11,302 $22,605 $33,907 $45,210 "1 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density 2 = data from Fiscal Year 2009-2010, California State Controller's Office" Page 61 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Gas Tax Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376(Yrs Buildout Phase Phase I 1-5 Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15 Phase IV (Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue Average no. persons per household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential population at phase buildout 3,151 6,301 9,452 12,603 Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $50,884 $101,768 $152,652 $203,537 ro or me total numner or units possime, at maximum pemrarea uensiry 2 = data from Fiscal Year 2009-2010, California State Controller's Office" Page 62 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Gas Tax Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density ermitted units/acre 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue Average no. persons per household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential population at phase buildout 69 138 207 276 Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue2 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $1,116 $2,233 $3,349 $4,465 "t — assumes ib "/o of the total number of units possime, at maximum permitted density 2 = data from Fiscal Year 2009-2010, California State Controller's Office" Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 123 246 369 492 Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue Average no. persons per household 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Potential population at phase buildout 354 708 1,063 1,417 Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue2 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 $16.15 Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $5,721 $11,442 $17,163 $22,884 1 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density 2 = data from Fiscal Year 2009-2010, California State Controller's Office" Page 63 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Gas Tax Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15 Phase IV (Yrs 16-20 Total Gas Tax Revenue from all development $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 Page 64 of 98 CSA 152 Revenue from Single -Family Residential Development Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs I1-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 234.001 234.001 234.00 234.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 181 181 18 18 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 181 361 54 72 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per dwelling unit 1 1 1 1 Ci 'sBAURate $1.56 $1.561 $1.561 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $28.08F $56.161 $84.241 $112.32 ' = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum penmitted density Page 65 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 du/10 ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs I1-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 4 4 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 4 8 12 16 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per dwelling unit 1 1 1 1 Ci 's BAU Rate $1.561 $1.561 $1.561 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $6.241 $12.481 $18.721 $24.96 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 66 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 du/5ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs I1-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 17 34 51 68 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per dwelling unit 1 1 1 1 Ci 'sBAURate $1.561 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $26.52 $53.04 $79.56 $106.08 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 67 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 No.o PotentialBuildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs I1-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 243 486 729 972 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per dwellin unit I 1 1 1 Ci 's BAU Rate $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $379.08 $758.16 $1,137.24 $1,516.32 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 68 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs I1-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per dwelling unit 1 1 I 1 Ci 'sBAURate 1 $1.561 $1.561 $1.561 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout 1 $1,706.641 $3,413.281 $5,119.921 $6,826.56 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 69 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No.o Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs I1-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per dwelling unit I 1 I 1 Ci 'sBAURate $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $37.44 $74.88 $112.32 $149.76 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 70 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 123 246 369 492 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per dwelling unit I 1 1 l Ci 's BAU Rate $1.561 $1.561 $1.561 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $191.881 $383.761 $575.641 $767.52 = assumes 75% of the total number of units possible, at maximum permitted density Page 71 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 CSA 152 Revenue from Industrial Development Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 28acres Potential Square Feet at Buildout: 414,692 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase 11 rs 6-10) Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Percentage of acres developed(percent lot coverage) 75% 75% 75% 75% Number of acres developed at phase buildout 5.25 10.50 15.75 21.00 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per developed acre 121 121 121 12 Ci 'sBAURate $1.56 $1.561 $1.561 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout S981 $197 $295 $393 Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (LI) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 89 Potential Square Feet at Buildout: 1, 318,124 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 22251 22.251 22.251 22.25 Percentage of acres developed(percent lot coverage) 75% 75% 75% 75% Number of acres developed at phase buildout 1 16.691 33.381 50.061 6.75 Calculation of CSA 152 Revenue BAU Value per developed acre 121 121 121 12 Ci 's BAU Rate $1.561 $1.561 $1.561 $1.56 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $312 $625 $9371 $1,250 Page 72 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs CSA 152 CSA 152 Revenue Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Total CSA 152 Revenue from Residential Development $2,376 $4,752 $7,128 $9,504 Total CSA 152 Revenue from Industrial Development $411 $821 $1,232 $1,643 Total CSA 152 Revenue from all Development $2,787 $5,573 $89360 $119146 Page 73 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD CFD 2010-01 from Single -Family Residential Development Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dull ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 acres No. of Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data *Number of acres developed during this phase 234.00 234.00 234.00 234.00 *Maximum density ermitted units/acre 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Potential dwelling units constructed during thisphase' 18 18 18 18 Total potential dwelling units constructed at phase buildout 18 36 54 72 Number of total parcels existing at phase buildout2 181 361 541 72 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per dwelling unit 1 1 1 1 Ci 's BU Rate $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $7,200.00 $14,400.00 $21,600.00 $28,800.00 Page 74 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during this phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density ermitted units/acre 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Potential dwelling units constructed during thisphase' 4 4 4 4 Total potential dwelling units constructed at phase buildout 4 8 12 16 Number of total parcels existing at phase buildoutz 4 8 12 16 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per dwelling unit 11 11 11 1 Ci 's BU Rate $400.001 $400.001 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout 1 $1,600.001 $3,200.001 $4,800.001 $6,400.00 2 Assumes each future dwelling unit will occupy its own parcel. Page 75 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 du/5ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during this phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density ermitted units/acre 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Potential dwelling units constructed during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Total potential dwelling units constructed at phase buildout 17 34 51 68 Number of total parcels existing at phase buildoutz 171 341 511 68 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per dwelling unit 11 1 1 1 Ci 's BU Rate $400.001 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout 1 $6,800.001 $13,600.00 $20,400.00 $27,200.00 2 Assumes each future dwelling unit will occupy its own parcel. Page 76 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during this phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density ermitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 Potential dwelling units constructed during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Total potential dwelling units constructed at phase buildout 243 486 729 972 Number of total parcels existing at phase buildoutz 243 486 729 972 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per dwelling unit 11 1 1 1 Ci 's BU Rate $400.001 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout 1 $97,200.001 $194,400.00 $291,600.00 $388,800.00 2 Assumes each future dwelling unit will occupy its own parcel. Page 77 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during this phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density ermitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 Potential dwelling units constructed during thisphase' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Total potential dwelling units constructed at phase buildout 1 1,0941 2,1881 3,2821 4,376 Number of total parcels existing at phase buildout2 1,0941 2,1881 3,2821 4,376 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per dwelling unit 1 1 1 1 Ci 's BU Rate $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $437,600.00 $875,200.00 $1,312,800.00 $1,750,400.00 'Assumes each future dwelling unit will occupy its own parcel. Page 78 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No.o Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during this phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 8 8 8 8 Potential dwelling units constructed during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Total potential dwelling units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Number of total parcels existing at phase buildout2 24 48 72 96 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per dwelling unit 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Ci 's BU Rate $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $424.60 $448.60 $472.60 $496.60 Assumes each future dwelling unit will occupy its own parcel. Page 79 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492(Yrs Buildout Phase Phase I 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15)T(Yrs Phase IV 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during this phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 14 14 14 14 Potential dwelling units constructed during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Total potential dwelling units constructed at phase buildout 123 246 369 492 123 246 369 492 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per dwelling unit 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Ci 's BU Rate $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $143.60 $266.60 $389.60 $512.60 Page 80 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs LLD Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (I-L) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 38.48 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 569,904(Yrs Buildout Phase Phase I 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15(Yrs Phase IV 16-20 Number of acres developed during this phase 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.62 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per Acre 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Ci 's BU Rate $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $7,696.00 $7,696.00 $7,696.00 $7,696.00 Land Use Designation: Light Industrial (LI) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 161.61 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 2,393,360 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10(Yrs Phase III 11-15(Yrs Phase IV 16-20 Number of acres developed during this phase 40.40 40.40 40.40 40.40 Calculation of CFD Revenue BU Value per Acre 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Ci 's BU Rate $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 Total Annual Revenue at Phase Buildout $32,322.00 $32,322.00 $32,322.00 $32,322.00 'Assumes existing parcels will not be subdivided when developed. Lighting & Landscaping District Revenue Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20 Total CFD Revenue from Single -Family Resid. Development $550,400 $1,100,800 $1,651,200 $2,201,600 Total CFD Revenue from Multi -Family Resid. Development $568 $715 $862 $1,009 Total CFD Revenue from Industrial Development $40,018 $40,018 $40,018 $40,018 Total Annual CFD Revenue from all development $590,986 $1,141,533 $1,692,080 $2,242,627 Page 81 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Costs of General Government Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 234.00 234 234 234 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 18 18 18 18 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 18 36 54 72 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 521 1041 1561 207 Calculating Annual Costs of General Government General Fund Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of General Government $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 Annual Cost of General Government at Phase Buildout $7,966 $15,931 $23,897 $31,862 Page 82 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 233 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II rs 6-10) Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 4 4 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 4 8 12 16 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 121 231 351 46 Calculating Annual Costs of General Government General Fund Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of General Government $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 Annual Cost of General Government at Phase Buildout $1,770 $3,540 $5,310 $7,081 Page 83 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-I du/5ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5)(Yrs Phase II 6-10) Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 17 34 51 68 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 491 981 1471 196 Calculating Annual Costs of General Government General Fund Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of General Government $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 Annual Cost of General Government at Phase Buildout $7,523 $15,046 $22,569 $30,092 Page 84 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5)(Yrs Phase II 6-10) Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 243 486 729 972 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 7001 1,4001 2,1001 2,799 Calculating Annual Costs of General Government General Fund Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of General Government $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 Annual Cost of General Government at Phase Buildout $107,536 $215,071 $322,607 $430,142 Page 85 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 3,1511 6,3011 9,4521 12,603 Calculating Annual Costs of General Government General Fund Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of General Government $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 Annual Cost of General Government at Phase Buildout $484,131 $968,263 $1,452,394 $1,936,526 Page 86 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II rs 6-10 FPhase III rs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density ermitted units/acre 8 8 8 8 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 69.12 138.24 207.36 276.48 Calculating Annual Costs of General Government General Fund Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of General Government $153.661 $153.661 $153.661 $153.66 Annual Cost of General Government at Phase Buildout $10,6211 $21,2421 $31,8621 $42,483 Page 87 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II rs 6-10) Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 14 14 14 14 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 123 246 369 492 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 3541 7081 1,0631 1,417 Calculating Annual Costs of General Government General Fund Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 $4,119,709 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of General Government $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 $153.66 Annual Cost of General Government at Phase Buildout $54,432 $108,863 $163,295 $217,726 Page 88 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Govt. Costs Costs of General Government Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Yrs 1-5 Yrs 6-10 Yrs 11-15 Yrs 16-20 Annual Costs of General Gov. for all development $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Page 89 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Costs Costs of Public Safety Land Use Designation: Rural Desert (0-1 dull ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 936 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 72 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 234.00 234 234 234 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 18 18 18 18 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 18 36 54 72 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 521 1041 156 207 Calculating Annual Costs of Public Safety Public Safety Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of Public Safe $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 Annual Cost of Public Safe at Phase Buildout $18,511 $37,021 $55,532 $74,042 Page 90 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Costs Land Use Designation: Residential Estates (0-1 dull ac) Total No. ofAcres Lost to Conservation: 233 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 16 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase 11 Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 58.25 58.25 58.25 58.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 4 4 4 4 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 4 8 12 16 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 121 231 35 46 Calculating Annual Costs of Public Safety Public Safety Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of Public Safe $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 Annual Cost of Public Safe at Phase Buildout $4,113 $8,227 $12,340 $16,454 Page 91 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Costs Land Use Designation: Rural Residential (0-1 du/5ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 465 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 68 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III rs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 116.25 116.25 116.25 116.25 Maximum density permitted units/acre 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 17 17 17 17 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 17 34 51 68 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 491 981 1471 196 Calculating Annual Costs of Public Safety Public Safety Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of Public Safe $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 Annual Cost of Public Safety at Phase Buildout $17,482 $34,964 $52,447 $69,929 Page 92 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Costs Land Use Designation: Low Density (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 259 No.o Potential Buildout Units: 972 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase 11 Yrs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV Yrs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 64.75 64.75 64.75 64.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 243 243 243 243 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 243 486 729 972 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase Buildout 700 1,400 2,100 2,799 Calculating Annual Costs of Public Safety Public Safety Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of Public Safe $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 Annual Cost of Public Safe at Phase Buildout $249,893 $499,786 $749,680 $999,573 Page 93 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Costs Land Use Designation: Low Density w/SP (0-5 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 1,167 No. o Potential Buildout Units: 4,376 Buildout Phase Phase I Yrs 1-5 Phase II -F Yrs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 291.75 291.75 291.75 291.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 1,094 1,094 1,094 1,094 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 1,094 2,188 3,282 4,376 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout F 3,1511 6,3011 9,4521 12,603 Calculating Annual Costs of Public Safety Public Safety Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of Public Safe $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 Annual Cost of Public Safety at Phase Buildout $1,125,034 $2,250,067 $3,375,101 $4,500,134 Page 94 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Costs Land Use Designation: Medium Density (0-8 du/ac) Total No. of Acres Lost to Conservation: 16 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 96 Buildout Phase Phase I 77FPhase rs 1-5 11 Yrs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Maximum density permitted units/acre 8 8 8 8 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 24 24 24 24 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 24 48 72 96 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.880 2.880 2.880 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 69 138 207 276 Calculating Annual Costs of Public Safety Public Safety Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of Public Safe $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 Annual Cost of Public Safety at Phase Buildout $24,6811 $49,3621 $74,0421 $98,723 Page 95 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Public Safety Costs Land Use Designation: High Density w/SP(0-14 du/ac) Total No. Acres Lost to Conservation: 47 acres No. o Potential Buildout Units: 492 Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II Yrs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Land Use Buildout Data Number of acres developed during phase 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 Maximum density permitted units/acre 14 14 14 14 Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 123 123 123 123 Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 123 246 369 492 Average number of persons per household ear 2010 2.8801 2.8801 2.8801 2.880 Total no. of potential residents at phase buildout 3541 7081 1,0631 1,417 Calculating Annual Costs of Public Safety Public Safety Expenditures, FY 2010-11 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 $9,573,455 Population of Jurisdiction ear 2010 26,811 26,811 26,811 26,811 Annual Per Capita Cost of Public Safe $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 $357.07 Annual Cost of Public Safety at Phase Buildout $126,489 $252,978 $379,467 $505,957 Costs of Public Safety Buildout Phase Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (Yrs 1-5) (Yrs 6-10) rs 11-15 rs 16-20) Annual Costs of Public Safety for all development $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 Page 96 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Roadway Maintenance Costs Costs of Roadway Maintenance Buildout Phase Phase I rs 1-5 Phase II rs 6-10 Phase III Yrs 11-15 Phase IV rs 16-20 Roadway Data Total land area in jurisdiction (square miles 29 29 29 29 Number of paved road miles in jurisdiction ear 2011 135 135 135 135 Number of road miles per square mile of land area 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Total Area designated for conservation(square miles)' 10.10 10.10 10.10 10.10 Total no. of potential road miles in conservation area 46.51 46.51 46.5 46.5 No. of potential road miles in conservation area at phase buildout 11.61 23.31 34.9 46.5 Calculation of Annual Roadway Maintenance Costs Total Annual Roadway Maintenance Expenditures $88,777 $88,777 $88,777 $88,777 Number of paved road miles in jurisdiction 135 135 135 135 Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance Per Road Mile $658 $658 $658 $658 Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance at Phase Buildout $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 Page 97 of 98 TN/MSHCP Fiscal Analysis Desert Hot Springs Summary Table Total Potential Costs/Revenues Associated with Development of Conservation Lands Summary Table - City of Desert Hot Springs Buildout Phase Phase I (Yrs 1-5) Phase II (Yrs 6-10) Phase III (Yrs 11-15) Phase IV (Yrs 16-20) ANNUAL REVENUES General Fund: Property Tax $540,002 $1,080,004 $1,620,005 $2,160,006 Property Transfer Tax $186,666 $251,729 $307,493 $371,556 Local Sales Tax $111,383 $222,766 $334,149 $445,532 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Tax $417,645 $835,290 $1,252,936 $1,670,581 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Revenue $12,896 $25,791 $38,687 $51,582 Restricted Funds: TUMF Fees $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 Highway Users Gas Tax $70,838 $141,676 $212,513 $283,351 Measure $140 $281 $421 $561 CSA 152 (NPDES) $2,787 $5,573 $8,360 $11,146 Community Facilities District $590,986 $1,141,533 $1,692,080 $2,242,627 Public Safety Tax $217,259 $382,030 $546,804 $711,577 ANNUAL COSTS General Fund: General Government Costs $673,9781 $1,347,9571 $2,021,9351 $2,695,913 Restricted Funds: Public Safety Costs $1,566,203 $3,132,406 $4,698,609 $6,264,812 Roadway Maintenance Costs $7,651 $15,301 $22,952 $30,602 TUMF Allocation to CVAG $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 $3,176,339 SUMMARY OF REVENUES/COSTS: Revenues: Total Annual General Fund Revenues $1,268,592 $2,415,581 $3,553,269 $4,699,257 Total Annual Restricted Fund Revenues $4,058,348 $4,847,431 $5,636,517 $6,425,601 Revenue Subtotal $5,326,940 $7,263,012 $9,189,786 $11,124,859 Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury Bills 5.03°% 5.03°% 5.03°% 5.03% Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $267,945 $365,330 $462,246 $559,580 Total Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $5,594,8851 $7,628,3421 $9,652,0321 $11,684,438 Costs: Total Annual General Fund Costs $673,978 $1,347,957 $2,021,935 $2,695,913 Total Annual Restricted Fund Costs $4 750 192 $6 324,046 $7,897,900 $9 471,753 Total Annual Costs at Phase Buildout $5,424,171 $7,672,002 $9 919,834 $12,167,666 Annual Cash ow at Phase Buildout $170,715 -$43,661 -$267,802 -$483,228 Page 98 of 98 EXHIBIT "C" CVAG ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 07-009 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND APPROVING THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") has prepared, in cooperation and coordination with the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG"), United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage, the County of Riverside, Riverside County Flood Control, Riverside County Parks, Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, the Imperial Irrigation District ("IID"), the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD"), California Department of Transportation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, and other governmental agencies, property owners, development interests, environmental interest groups and other members of the public, a comprehensive Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan for the Coachella Valley in Riverside County ("MSHCP or Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley MSHCP is a regional, comprehensive, multi - jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan focusing on Conservation of Federal and State -Listed Species, other rare and sensitive species, and their Habitats, while maintaining opportunities for recreation and a strong and sustainable environment for economic Development in the region; and WHEREAS, the MSHCP boundary ("MSHCP Plan Area") encompasses approximately 1,776 square miles, consisting of approximately 1.1 million acres, extending eastward from the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan boundary line in Cabazon where it is bounded by the range line common to Range 1 East and Range 2 East, bounded by the San Bernardino County line and the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the north and northeast; the ridgeline of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the west and southwest; the boundary line with San Diego and Imperial Counties to the south; and bounded by the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range and the range line common to Range 13 East and Range 14 East on the east; and containing the cities of. Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs (which is not a Permittee), Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage, as well as portions of unincorporated Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal Endangered Species regulations while accommodating future growth in the MSHCP Plan Area, including issuance of "Take" Permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and Section 2800, et seq. of the California Fish and RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 I Game Code (otherwise known as the "Natural Community Conservation Planning Act" or "NCCP Act of 2002"); and WHEREAS, CVAG is the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), and the USFWS is the Federal lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") (40 C.F.R. 1508.16, 1508.17) (CVAG and USFWS will collectively be referred to hereinafter as "Lead Agencies"); and WHEREAS, a joint Environmental Impact Report/Statement ("EIR/EIS") was previously prepared pursuant to CEQA and NEPA which provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental impacts that could result from the adoption and implementation of the proposed MSHCP, and provides the appropriate decision -makers with the required information upon which to base a decision to adopt the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, CVAG filed a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR/EIS with the State Clearinghouse on June 19, 2000. The NOP was also distributed to each responsible and trustee agency (and any federal agency involved in approving or funding the project) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a) and 15373, and was circulated for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(b) and 15103; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Lead Agencies solicited comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible agency would need to have analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, approximately 29 written comments were received by the Lead Agencies in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the City of Desert Hot Springs elected to withdraw its Incidental Take Permit application and to be excluded from the MSHCP; and WHEREAS, the revision of the Plan to remove the City of Desert of Hot Springs caused the Lead Agencies to prepare a Draft Recirculated MSHCP and a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15372, the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS was completed and released for public review, and a Notice of Completion ("NOC") was filed at the State Clearinghouse on or about March 26, 2007, and a Notice of Availability ("NOA") was filed with the Riverside County Clerk on or about March 27, 2007 with a request for a 30-day posting, and a copy of the NOA was published in the Desert Sun on or about March 24, 2007. The NOC and NOA provided a summary of the Plan and a deadline for submittal of comments, and contact information for obtaining or reviewing the Plan and the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS; and RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 2 WHEREAS, CVAG, the lead agency under CEQA, released the Draft Recirculated EIR component of the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS for public review and comment on March 26, 2007, which review period ended May 9, 2007; and WHEREAS, the USFWS, the Federal lead agency, released the Draft Supplemental EIS component of the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS for public review and comment on March 30, 2007, which review period ended May 29, 2007; and WHEREAS, in March 2007, CVAG sent a letter to each property owner of record ("Property Owner Letter") within the Conservation Areas of the Plan notifying them that the Draft MSHCP, Implementing Agreement ("IA"), and Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS were available for review. As a result of the issuance of the Property Owner Letter, CVAG has responded to 200 telephone calls; and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS, the Lead Agencies received 67 written comments on the Draft Recirculated EIR/EIS, including two after the close of the official review period; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, CVAG provided written responses to comments from all commenting agencies; and WHEREAS, the Lead Agencies prepared the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, CVAG provided copies of the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS to all commenting agencies; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing to be held on September 10, 2007, was published in the Desert Sun; and WHEREAS, postcards to all landowners in the Conservation Areas notifying them of the September 10, 2007 public hearing and informing them that they may make a public comment of up to three minutes were mailed on August 31, 2007; and WHEREAS, CVAG, at a public meeting on September 10, 2007, reviewed the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, MSHCP/Natural Communities Conservation Plan ("NCCP"), IA, and other related documents in the record before it; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the CVAG Executive Committee has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS reflects the independent judgment of the CVAG and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Lead Agencies or any additional information submitted have produced substantial new information requiring RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 3 recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, CVAG has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by CVAG pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been met, and the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, prepared in connection with the Project, is sufficiently detailed so that all potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the above -referenced Act and its Guidelines; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the CVAG Executive Committee on September 10, 2007, that: A. Certain plant and animal species and Habitat exist, or may exist, within the MSHCP Plan Area, which are: 1) state or federally listed as threatened or endangered; 2) proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; or 3) identified as a CDFG Species of Special Concern, a California Fully Protected Species, a California Specially Protected Species, a sensitive plant species as determined by the California Native Plant Society, or other unlisted wildlife considered to be sensitive. B. Future growth and land Development within the MSHCP Plan Area, including both public and private projects, may result in impacts to 27 species ("Covered Species") identified in the Plan and its associated documents, eleven of which are listed under the ESA or the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA"). Thus, Take Authorization is required prior to the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities that may "Take" one or more of these Covered Species. C. The MSHCP establishes the conditions under which entities defined under the Plan and its associated documents as "Permittees" will receive certain long-term Take Authorizations and other assurances that will allow the taking of Covered Species incidental to lawful uses authorized by the Permittees; and D. The MSHCP provides for the assembly and management of a reserve for the Conservation of natural Habitat and its constituent wildlife populations, and establishes an overall Conservation Strategy for the MSHCP Plan Area that will guarantee the protection of the Covered Species. The Conservation Strategy includes the Conservation of the Covered Species, existing Habitat, the restoration of degraded Habitat, managing a Reserve System, and conducting biological monitoring in perpetuity. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 4 E. The MSHCP provides for the creation of a Reserve System that will conserve and manage approximately 723,480 acres of Habitat for the 27 Covered Species which includes approximately 557,100 acres of Existing Reserves (as of 2006) and 166,380 acres of Complementary Conservation and Additional Conservation Lands. (MSHCP, Table 4-1.) F. The MSHCP will serve as a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as well as an NCCP pursuant to the NCCP Act of 2002, as amended. The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the IA allows the CDFG and USFWS (collectively, the "Wildlife Agencies") to issue Take Authorizations for Covered Species in the MSHCP Plan Area to the signatories of the IA. G. The MSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Activities for the Covered Species. The MSHCP is "self -mitigating," meaning that most Project impacts are reduced to below a level of significance as a result of implementation of MSHCP components. Additionally, implementation of the Management and Monitoring Programs outlined in the MSHCP will further reduce all the potential impacts/consequences of the MSHCP. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVAG that the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it confirms that implementation of the MSHCP will result in no significant adverse environmental impacts. A. Aesthetics The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of approximately 723,480 acres of Habitat and protect an array of scenic resources, thereby having a positive or beneficial impact on aesthetics. (MSHCP, Table 4-1; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-9.) The aesthetic impacts potentially associated with the implementation of the MSHCP are primarily limited to those associated with the construction of new trails and interpretive facilities such as kiosks. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS 4.9- 18.) However, the MSHCP provides guidelines for the planning and Development of new trails and public access facilities which will avoid and minimize impacts. (Ibid.) The guidelines prohibit the use of off -road vehicles and motorized access by non -emergency or non -reserve management personnel, and restricts use of mountain bikes in some locations. (Ibid.) Based upon these provisions, the MSHCP will not adversely affect new trail and public access facilities, which can be conditioned as needed to effectively mitigate potential impacts to visual resources in these areas. (Ibid.) Accordingly, impacts on aesthetics are less than significant. Revised Trails Plan. Impacts to aesthetic resources resulting from implementation of the Revised Trails Plan are limited to those associated with the construction of new trails, especially those within and along the lower elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-85.) However, approval for the construction of new perimeter trails and the RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 5 Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector will be deferred pending completion of a focused research program to further evaluate the effects of recreational trail use on PBS. (Ibid.) New trail proposals will be evaluated for alignments that feature aesthetic impacts that are less than significant levels by subjecting the proposed routes to a visual impact analysis. Guidelines will be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts which include initial pre -design and construction assessments to minimize impacts. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-47 through 2-50) The proposed MSHCP guidelines direct future trail alignments to existing dirt roads wherever possible. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-48.) Trailhead guidelines direct such facilities to areas where they will be compatible with Conservation Goals and Objectives. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-47.) New trail development within Conservation Areas outside the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area will be subject to the provisions of NEPA and/or CEQA, and will be required to demonstrate that trail and other facilities development would not have an adverse impact on visual or scenic resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-22, 5-44.) Therefore, the impact of the Plan is less than significant. B. Agricultural Resources Approximately 1,120 acres of the 84,900 acres of active agricultural use in the Plan Area will be included in the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.5-2.) Conversion of all of this land from agricultural use to non- agricultural use if it ever occurs could constitute a maximum potential loss of 1.4% of agricultural lands in the Plan Area. (Ibid.) All of the 1,120 acres of agricultural land within the Conservation Areas are designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" by the California Department of Conservation. (Ibid.) These lands carry a heavy load of mineral salts from decades of irrigation. (Ibid.) Other agricultural soils in this area occur on lands that have been converted into or are planned for Development. (Ibid.) No other active or cultivatable land will be impacted by the implementation of the Plan. (Ibid.) Additionally, the MSHCP will not impact any lands under Williamson Act contracts nor will it preclude entering into such contracts in the future on lands that are currently in active agriculture, whether such lands are located within or outside of a Conservation Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.5-3.) Finally, the Plan will not result in any changes in the physical or regulatory environment that would significantly impact farmland or result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.5-2.) Therefore, given the minor impact to active agricultural lands and state -identified farmlands with the potential for conversion to agricultural use, the Plan will have a less than significant impact on agricultural lands. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 6 C. Air Quality The MSHCP Plan Area is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-12.) In and of itself, the MSHCP does not authorize future Development. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-13.) However, Plan implementation may cause future Development to be displaced to other areas in the Coachella Valley rather than not occurring at all. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-12.) The location of where this Development could be displaced is too speculative to analyze at this point. (Ibid.) In addition, minor vehicular emissions may result from vehicle trips in conjunction with biological monitoring and land management, or from persons traveling to the Reserve System to recreate. (Ibid.) But the total number of vehicle miles traveled will not increase significantly and will be statistically insignificant. (Ibid.) Based on the foregoing, the Plan's effects on air quality are less than significant. D. Biological Resources The intent of the MSHCP is to assure the protection in perpetuity of the Covered Species, natural communities and overall biodiversity, and to protect functioning ecosystems in the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-2.) The MSHCP provides Take Authorization of Covered Species to Permittees for specified Covered Activities. (Ibid.) The MSHCP takes a species -specific approach in determining the requirements for the Conservation of each Covered Species. Discussed below are the impacts to each Covered Species and the Plan features that will reduce Project impacts to below a level of significance. 1. Impacts to Mecca aster (Xylorhiza cognata). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Habitat loss, including those occurring east of the Coachella Canal in the Mecca Hills. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-11.) Approximately 6,328 acres (10%) of all Habitat and 30% of non-federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Approximately 1,339 acres (2%) of this is Core Habitat subject to Habitat loss under the Plan. (Ibid.) However, the remote locations and lack of threats make it unlikely that these levels of Habitat loss will ever occur. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in five Conservation Areas, and protects Other Conserved Habitat in two Conservation Areas across a range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) All of these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation under the Plan includes 11,745 acres of Core Habitat in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, 6,091 acres of Core Habitat in the Indio Hills Palms Conservation Area, 1,594 RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 7 acres of Core Habitat in the East Indio Hills Conservation Area, 4,731 acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation Area, and 31,655 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca Hills/Orocopia Mountains Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-2.) Including Other Conserved Habitat in other Conservation Areas, the total Habitat to be conserved for this species in the Reserve System is 54,667 acres, or 86% of all Mecca aster Habitat in the Plan Area (98% of Core Habitat). (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The Plan will also control and manage activities that degrade this species' Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Based on the above, impacts to the Mecca aster will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 2. Impacts to the Coachella Valley milkvetch — Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be subject to Habitat loss. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-5.) Approximately 15,400 acres (42%) of all Habitat and 51% of the non -Federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 928 acres (6%) of Core Habitat subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Within the Plan Area, the MSHCP will conserve all remaining populations of this species where Essential Ecological Processes are intact. (Ibid.) Approximately 2,385 acres of Core Habitat will be conserved in the Snow Creek/Windy Point, 5,325 acres in the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area, 2,884 acres in the Willow Hole Conservation Area, and 4,292 acres in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-4.) To protect the species in the range of environmental conditions in which it occurs, a total of 4,471 acres of Other Conserved Habitat will be protected in the Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Highway 111/I-10, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Edom Hill, Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National Park Linkage, and Joshua Tree National Park Conservation Areas. (MSHCP, Table 9-4). In total, the Plan will ensure protection and management in perpetuity of 11,650 acres of Habitat for this species, which, together with Existing Conservation Land, will result in approximately 19,357 acres of Habitat for this species being conserved under the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table 4-114.) This includes 94% of the Core Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will also secure the sand source/transport systems for the Core Habitat areas, and will control and manage activities that degrade this species' Habitat, such as sand compaction and/or vegetation destruction, including from OHV travel and other human disturbance. (Ibid.) The Plan will also implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management measures to address RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 8 various threats to the species and to ensure long-term persistence of this species. (Ibid.) Thus, impacts to the Coachella Valley milkvetch under the MSHCP will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 3. Impacts to the triple -ribbed milkvetch — Astragalus tricarinatus. Approximately 164 acres (5%) of all Habitat and 11 % of non-federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-7.) There will be approximately 104 acres (5%) of Core Habitat subject to Habitat loss under the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-7.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. All known occurrences of triple -ribbed milkvetch will be conserved, along with the adjacent lands in Whitewater Canyon and Mission Creek. (Ibid.) In total, 2,838 acres (94% of all Habitat in the Plan Area, including 33 of the 34 known locations, and 96% of the Core Habitat, including Core Habitat in the Whitewater Canyon and Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Areas) will be included in the Reserve System. (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The MSHCP will protect Essential Ecological Processes, including hydrological regimes, necessary to maintain Habitat for this species. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will also implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify and address various threats to the species and to ensure long-term persistence of this species. (Ibid.) In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures discussed at Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that, for most Covered Activities within the modeled triple -ribbed milkvetch Habitat in Whitewater Canyon, Whitewater Floodplain, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, surveys by an Acceptable Biologist will be required for activities during the growing and flowering period from February 1 - May 15. (MSHCP, p. 4-177.) Any occurrences of the species will be flagged and public infrastructure projects shall avoid impacts to the plants to the maximum extent possible. (Ibid.) Known occurrences on a map maintained by CVCC shall not be disturbed. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to triple -ribbed milkvetch under the MSHCP will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 9 4. Impacts to Orocopia sage (Salvia greatae). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Habitat loss, including those occurring on the east side of the Mecca Hills. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-13.) Approximately 6,933 acres (9%) of all Habitat and 28% of non- federal lands will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in two Conservation Areas, and protects Other Conserved Habitat in another Conservation Area across a range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) All of these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation under the Plan includes 735 acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation Area, 64,377 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca Hills/Orocopia Mountains Conservation Area, and 3,838 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Dos Palmas Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-7.) The total of Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 68,950 acres, or 87% of all Orocopia sage Habitat in the Plan Area (97% of Core Habitat). (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) Threats to the species and its Habitat are minimal. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7- 14.) The Plan will also control and manage activities that degrade this species' Habitat, such as OHV activity and other activities that could damage plants and their Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Regarding the Covered Activities that may affect this species, such activities will disturb an insignificant amount of acreage, resulting in enough Conserved Habitat to maintain the plant in perpetuity. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-14.) Based on the above, impacts to the Orocopia sage will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 5. Impacts to the Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus (Linanthus maculates or Gilia maculate). Approximately 429 acres (13%) of all Habitat will be subject to Habitat loss under the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table 4-114; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.7-9.) This is 16% of the non- federal lands in the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-9.) There will be approximately 234 acres (9%) of Core Habitat subject to Habitat loss under the Plan (0 acres outside and 234 acres inside Conservation Areas). (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The Plan conserves large blocks of Habitat for linanthus in the Upper Mission RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 10 Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area totaling 2,235 acres of Core Habitat in the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area, which has also been designed to preserve the braided streams and associated micro -topographic features to which this plant is adapted, 540 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area, and 180 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Willow Hole Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-8.) This is a total of approximately 2,955 acres (87% of all Habitat for this species in the Plan Area) to be conserved in the Reserve System. (MSHCP, Table 4-114.) The Plan also requires that the fluvial processes that sustain Habitat for the linanthus be maintained. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-9.) The Plan will also control and manage activities that degrade linanthus Habitat, such as vehicular travel in washes and other activities that could damage plants and their Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will also implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management measures to identify and address various threats to the species and to ensure long-term persistence of this species. (Ibid.) In addition, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP (Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) provides additional Conservation protection. That provision requires that, to avoid and minimize impacts to this species as much as possible, salvage of top soil and/or seeds should occur prior to ground disturbance in accordance with Section 6.6.1. Salvage should be conducted by or in cooperation with the CVCC. (MSHCP, p. 4-178.) Based on the above, impacts to the Little San Bernardino Mountains linanthus will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 6. Impacts to the Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket (Macrobaenetes valgum). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take Authorization, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-15.) Approximately 13,682 acres (51%) of all Habitat and 61% of non-federal lands will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 533 acres (5%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Nearly all (94%) of the Take will be outside Conservation Areas, such as on Big Dune (Palm Springs Sand Ridge), where the blowsand Habitat is shielded. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in three Conservation Areas, and protects Other Conserved Habitat in four Conservation Areas across a range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (MSHCP, Table 9-9.) The MSHCP also ensures Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems, and RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 11 implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) All of these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation under the Plan includes 1,243 acres of Core Habitat in the Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, 5,309 acres of Core Habitat in the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area, 3,869 acres of Core Habitat in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, 1,594 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Willow Hole Conservation Area, 3 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, 114 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Edom Hill Conservation Area, 754 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the East Indio Hills Conservation Area, and 112 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-9.) The total of Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 12,997 acres, or 48% of all Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket Habitat in the Plan Area (95% of Core Habitat). (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The Plan will also control and manage activities that degrade Habitat for this species, such as OHV activity and other activities that can kill individuals or damage their Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Based on the above, impacts to the Coachella Valley giant sand -treader cricket will be less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 7. Impacts to the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket (Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-17.) Approximately 9,989 acres (44%) of all Habitat and 49% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Nearly all (96%) of the Take will be outside the Conservation Areas, where the Habitat is less likely to be occupied. (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) There will be approximately 150 acres (9%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP protects a contiguous Habitat in the Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, which appears to be the center of this species' distribution, and which will create a preserve of sufficient size to conserve this species in perpetuity. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also protects Other Conserved Habitat in six Conservation Areas across a range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (MSHCP, Table 9-11.) The MSHCP also ensures Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems; maintains Biological Corridors and Linkages to allow connectivity and shifts in RVPUBTAVILAW38185.1 12 distribution over time; and implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) All of these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. Conservation under the Plan includes 1,540 acres of Core Habitat in the Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, and a total of 10,509 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in eleven Conservation Areas. (MSHCP, Table 9-11.) The total of Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 12,049 acres, or 53% of all Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket Habitat in the Plan Area (91% of Core Habitat). (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) Based on the above, impacts to the Jerusalem cricket are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 8. Impacts to the desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring in shoreline pools of the Salton Sea. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-20.) In addition, individuals occurring in the drains will be subject to Take by CVWD for ongoing maintenance activities in the drains. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The Plan will ensure that existing desert pupfish Habitat and ref igia populations are protected and managed. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan conserves 100% of the 31 known locations for the species. (Ibid.) This includes Conservation of agricultural drains and shoreline pools. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will protect Core Habitat in Salt Creek in the Dos Palmas Conservation Area and in the agricultural drains in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area, and will protect refugia populations in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area and the Dos Palmas Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-13) In addition, the Plan requires CVWD to prepare a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan for desert pupfish within one year of Permit issuance to assure long-term viability of pupfish in the agricultural drains leading into the Salton Sea. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) This Monitoring Program will result in updated information on the existing pupfish populations in the Salton Sink. (Ibid.) The Plan also requires CVWD to establish 25 acres of artificial pupfish Habitat. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-21.) Based on the above, impacts to the desert pupfish are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 13 9. Impacts to the arroyo toad (Bufo californicus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring in the Bonnie Bell area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-23.) Approximately 88 acres (4%) of all Arroyo toad Habitat and I I% of non - Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Recovery Plan for the arroyo toad, the MSHCP calls for acquisition and management of key Habitat in Whitewater Canyon. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-24.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 2,007 acres of arroyo toad Habitat, including 2,004 acres of Core Habitat in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area, and 3 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) The 2,007 acres of Conserved Habitat is 96% of all arroyo toad Habitat, (and 96% of the Core Habitat) in the Plan Area. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will protect Essential Ecological Processes, including hydrological regimes, necessary to maintain Habitat for this species. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will also implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify and address various threats to the species and to ensure long-term persistence of this species. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the arroyo toad are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 10. Impacts to the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizir). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring east of Hwy 62 and east of Dillon Rd to the boundary with Joshua Tree National Park. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-33.) Approximately 67,229 acres (12%) of all Habitat and 28% of non - Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Ibid.; MSHCP, Tables 4-114 and 4-116.) There will be approximately 11,478 acres (3%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-33.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety- seven percent of the Critical Habitat in the eastern Plan Area will be conserved for desert tortoise and 86% of the occupied or potential Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of approximately 145,911 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land or a total of 491,810 acres conserved, including 365,379 acres of Core Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 9-15.) The MSHCP ensures Conservation of Core Habitat in seven RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 14 Conservation Areas from western to eastern parts of the Plan Area. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP also maintains Biological Corridors and Linkages to ensure connectivity between Conservation Areas and with Habitat outside the Plan Area, and implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to identify threats and to ensure Conservation of this species. ([bid.) All of these actions will conserve this species in perpetuity. (Ibid.) Conservation under the Plan includes 5,482 acres of Core Habitat in the Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons Conservation Area, 4,374 acres of Core Habitat in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area, 26,519 acres of Core Habitat in the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area, 9,449 acres of Core Habitat in the Indio Hills/Joshua Tree National Park Linkage Conservation Area, 125,453 acres of Core Habitat in the Joshua Tree National Park Conservation Area, 84,151 acres of Core Habitat in the Desert Tortoise and Linkage Conservation Area, and 109,951 acres of Core Habitat in the Mecca Hills/Orocopia Mountains Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-15.) The MSHCP protects a total of 126,431 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in fourteen Conservation Areas across a range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (Ibid.) The total of Habitat for this species to be conserved in the Reserve System is 491,810 acres, or 86% of all desert tortoise Habitat in the Plan Area (97% of the designated Critical Habitat in the eastern portion of the Plan Area). (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will also control and manage activities that degrade Habitat for this species, such as OHV activity and other activities that can kill individuals or damage their Habitat. (MSHCP, pp. 9-94 through 9-95.) In addition, the Plan addresses recovery units within the Plan Area that were identified by the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan in 1994. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-34.) This Recovery Plan recommended establishment of the Joshua Tree National Park Desert Wildlife Management Area ("DWMA") and the Chuckwalla DWMA, both of which fall within the Plan Area of the MSHCP. (Ibid.) In addition, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP (Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) provides additional Conservation protection. That provision requires that, under most circumstances, the Permittees will conduct surveys for desert tortoise before initiation of Development activities in modeled desert tortoise Habitat within Conservation Areas. (MSHCP, p. 4-170.) The Plan provides a specific procedure for such surveys. For Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") activities in the Conservation Areas, personnel undertaking such activities are to be alert for the presence of desert tortoise. (MSHCP, p. 4-171.) If a tortoise is spotted, activities adjacent to the tortoise's location will be halted and the tortoise will be allowed to move away from the activity area. (Ibid.) If the tortoise is not moving, it will be relocated by an Acceptable Biologist to nearby RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 15 suitable Habitat and placed in the shade of a shrub. (Ibid.) To the maximum extent Feasible, O&M activities will avoid the period from February 15 and October 31. (Ibid.) The Plan also has developed two utility development protocols (active season and inactive season) to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to the desert tortoise in the Conservation Areas from utility and road right-of-way projects. (MSHCP, pp. 4-171 through 4-176.) Based on the above, impacts to the desert tortoise are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 11. Impacts to the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-26.) Approximately 13,681 acres (51%) of all Habitat and 61% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take Authorization under Plan. (Ibid.) (MSHCP, Table 4-114.) There will be approximately 606 acres (5%) of Core Habitat subject to Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.7-26.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard Recovery Plan was established in 1985, recommending over 50 measures that could be taken to lead to recovery of the lizard. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will meet or exceed the standards of this recovery plan by creating and implementing Conservation measures in the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.7-26 to -27.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 6,999 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 12,998 acres conserved, including 11,245 acres (95%) of Core Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 9-16; Table 4-116.). This includes 1,244 acres of Core Habitat in Snow Creek/Windy Point Conservation Area, 5,309 acres of Core Habitat in Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area, 823 acres of Core Habitat at Willow Hole Conservation Area, and 3,869 acres of Core Habitat in Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-16.) In addition, the MSHCP will conserve 1,754 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in five Conservation Areas, representing a range of environmental conditions in which the species occurs. (MSHCP, Table 9-16.) The Plan will also conserve the scattered blowsand deposits and occupied Habitat in the Indio Hills. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.7- 27 to -28.) The Plan also employs measures to protect and maintain Essential Ecological Processes for sand transport to the new Conservation Areas, and provides Linkages between these Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, RVPUBTAVILAW38185.1 16 p. 4.7-29.) Furthermore, the Plan requires CVCC, CVAG and CalTrans to acquire 1,795 acres for interchange and arterial road Covered Activities listed in Table 7-1 of the MSHCP. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-29.) Adaptive Management implemented by the Plan includes several measures that will forestall or prevent extirpation in a Conservation Area. (Ibid.) Such measures include the establishment of "sand fences" to trap sand upwind in armored Habitat and create blowsand hummocks for expansion of the extant population. (Ibid.) Other measures which may be utilized as appropriate include hauling sand upwind, destabilizing armored deposits by physically removing vegetation and surface crusts, controlling exotic plant species and feral animals, and re -introduction of fringe -toed lizards into areas where they may be extirpated or into restored sites. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 12. Impacts to flat -tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring on the Big Dune. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-38.) Approximately 17,562 acres (54%) of all predicted Habitat, 65% of non -Federal predicted Habitat lands, 1,720 acres (33%) of all potential Habitat and 41 % of all potential Habitat on non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 97 acres (2%) of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 7,334 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 13,908 acres conserved. (MSHCP, Table 9-17.) Only one area of the MSHCP was delineated as Core Habitat for this species, at the Thousand Palms Preserve. (MSHCP, Table 9-17.) The Planning Team for this Plan delineated approximately 4,148 acres as Core Habitat. (Ibid.) Conservation Objectives ensure the Conservation of at least 4,051 acres in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. (Ibid.) In addition, the MSHCP will conserve approximately 587 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in East Indio Hills and 5,134 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in Dos Palmas. (MSHCP, Tables 9-17.) The MSHCP will also: Protect Other Conserved Habitat in a total of five Conservation Areas representing the range of environmental conditions within which this species occurs; Ensure Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/transport systems; Maintain Biological Corridors and Linkages among conserved populations or RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 17 Habitats; and Implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure Conservation of this species. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Based on the above, impacts to the flat -tailed horned lizard are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 13. Impacts to the Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-63.) Approximately 63 acres (8%) of all Habitat and 13% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. This bird is found only in the Dos Palmas and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Areas. Implementation of the Plan will provide for persistence of the Yuma clapper rail within the Plan Area, as currently unprotected portions of its Habitat and potential Habitat areas will be conserved. (MSHCP, p. 9-129.) Ninety-one percent of the modeled clapper rail Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 426 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 697 conserved acres. (Ibid.) In addition, the CVWD will establish 66 acres of permanent replacement rail Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Management and Monitoring activities will be implemented to ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade Habitat. (Ibid.) Biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will be implemented to ensure Conservation, and Essential Ecological Processes will be protected, including the regimes necessary to maintain rail Habitat. (Ibid.) Finally, because this rail is a California Fully Protected Species, the required surveys will be conducted in accordance with law. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the Yuma clapper rail are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 14. Impacts to the California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including any occurring in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-43.) Approximately 59 acres (9%) of all Habitat and 13% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. This bird is found only in the Dos Palmas and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 18 and Delta Conservation Areas. Implementation of the Plan will provide for persistence of the California black rail within the Plan Area, as currently unprotected portions of its Habitat and potential Habitat areas will be conserved. (MSHCP, p. 9-135.) Ninety-one percent of the modeled clapper rail Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 386 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 616 conserved acres. (Ibid.) In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD") will establish 66 acres of permanent replacement rail Habitat. Management and Monitoring activities would be implemented to ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade Habitat. (Ibid.) Biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will be implemented to ensure Conservation, and Essential Ecological Processes will be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain rail Habitat. (Ibid.) Finally, because this rail is a California Fully Protected Species, the required surveys will be conducted in accordance with law. (Ibid.) Given the level of Conservation, which includes establishment of permanent riparian Habitat and expansion of the marsh Habitat, all impacts are considered beneficial. Based on the above, impacts to the California black rail are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 15. Impacts to the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Impacts to burrowing owl are very difficult to predict, given the limited knowledge on their distribution and abundance in the Plan Area, and their ability to relocate when established nesting sites are lost, which are often in agricultural and urban areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-41.) However, it is estimated that 45% of known locations for burrowing owl will be subject to Take in areas compromised by fragmentation, Development, and associated impacts. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The reserve design process focused on inclusion of areas of contiguous Habitat in areas where burrowing owls are known to occur. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 41 of the 74 known locations of burrowing owl, which include foraging areas. (Ibid.) These locations include areas in Snow Creek, Whitewater Floodplain Preserve, the Mission Creek area west of Highway 62, the Willow Hole-Edom Hill Preserve/ACEC area, the Thousand Palms Preserve, including the sand source area, and significant portions of the Indio Hills and Mecca Hills. (Ibid.) Overall the 723,480 acre Reserve System will contain sufficient Habitat to maintain a viable population of burrowing owls within the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-41.) RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 19 The Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures listed in Section 4.4 of the MSHCP will minimize Take of burrowing owls. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-41.) In total, the Plan ensures the Conservation of burrowing owls within nine Conservation Areas, and the protection of Other Conserved Habitat in ten Conservation Areas. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also be implemented to ensure Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the burrowing owl are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. Thus, no mitigation measures are necessary. 16. Impacts to the Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-53.) Approximately 168 acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11% on non -Federal lands) and 15,351 acres (27%) of migratory Habitat (42% on non -Federal lands) will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the modeled willow flycatcher breeding Habitat and 71 % of the modeled willow flycatcher migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Permittees will protect and manage 1,037 acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 2,563 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 19,534 acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,846 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The Conservation Areas in the Plan will protect 96% of the occupied and potential breeding Habitat and 95% of the potential migratory Habitat for this species. (Ibid.) The Plan will also provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and establish permanent riparian Habitat in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.7-53 to - 54.) CVWD will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood - willow riparian forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that no net loss occurs. (Ibid.) RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 20 Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also take place to ensure Conservation of the vireo. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for Southwestern willow flycatcher. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) If Covered Activities must occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, the Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest. (Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered Activity may proceed. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the Southwestern willow flycatcher are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 17. Impacts to the crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring on lands in the south portion of the valley near the Salton Sea. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-47.) Approximately 5,172 acres (75%) of all Habitat and 76% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 125 acres (9%) of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 1,418 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 1,676 acres of land conserved. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Approximately 91% of the Core Habitat for this species will be conserved under the Plan, including 498 acres of occupied Habitat in Dos Palmas and 809 acres of occupied Habitat in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Areas. (Ibid.; MSHCP, Table 9-22.) Implementation of the Plan will provide for the Conservation of the unprotected portions of crissal thrasher Habitat. (Ibid.) RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 21 The Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP will also ensure Conservation of the species. This section requires that, in the Willow Hole, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, East Indio Hills, Dos Palmas, and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation Areas, surveys will be conducted by an Acceptable Biologist prior to the start of construction activities during the nesting season, January 15 — June 15, to determine if active nest sites for this species occur on the construction site and/or within 500 feet of the construction site, or to the edge of the property boundary if less than 500 feet. (MSHCP, p. 4-170.) If nesting crissal thrashers are found, a 500-foot buffer, or a buffer to the edge of the property boundary if less than 500 feet, will be established around the nest site. (Ibid.) The buffer will be staked and flagged. (Ibid.) No construction activities will be permitted within the buffer during the breeding season of January 15 — June 15 or until the young have fledged. (Ibid.) The Plan will also: Protect Essential Ecological Processes including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain thrasher Habitat; Maintain Biological Corridors and Linkages for Habitat connectivity; and Implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure Conservation of this species. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Based on the above, impacts to the crissal thrasher are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 18. Impacts to the Le Conte's thrasher (Toxostoma lecontea). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring on the Big Dune and the east end of the Indio Hills. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.7-44 to -45.) Approximately 96,133 acres (40%) of all Habitat and 53% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the Plan. ([bid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-five percent of the predicted Other Conserved Habitat for Le Conte's thrasher will be conserved and 54% of the modeled Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (Final Recirculated MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 73,204 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 132,456 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in twenty Conservation Areas across a range of environmental conditions within which the species occurs. (Final Recirculated MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Management and monitoring activities will ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade its Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Biological Corridors and Linkages will be maintained for RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 22 Habitat connectivity and Essential Ecological Processes will be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain thrasher Habitat. (Ibid.) In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that, prior to the start of most construction activities in all Conservation Areas, surveys will be conducted by an Acceptable Biologist on the construction site and within 500 feet of the construction site, or to the property boundary if less than 500 feet. (MSHCP, p. 4-176.) If nesting Le Conte's thrashers are found, a 500 foot buffer, or to the property boundary if less than 500 feet, will be established around the nest site. The buffer will be staked and flagged. (Ibid.) No construction will be permitted within the buffer during the breeding season of January 15 - June 15 or until the young have fledged. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the Le Conte's thrasher are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 19. Impacts to the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-51.) Approximately 761 acres (21 %) of all breeding Habitat (31 % on non - Federal lands) and 14,775 acres (25%) of migratory Habitat (41% on non - Federal lands) will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Seventy-nine percent of the modeled vireo breeding Habitat, and 71 % of the modeled vireo migratory Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 1,282 acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 2,911 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 19,301 acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,510 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The Plan will provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by establishment of permanent riparian Habitat in the Coachella Valley Storm Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-51.) CVWD will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian forest in these two areas. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also occur to ensure Conservation of the vireo. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 23 Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. (Ibid.) In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent Feasible outside of the March 15 — September 15 nesting season for least Bell's vireo. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) If Covered Activities must occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, the Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest. (Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered Activity may proceed. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the least Bell's vireo are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will provide permanent protection to its riparian Habitat. 20. Impacts to the gray vireo (Vireo vicinior). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring in the Pinyon Flats area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-49.) Approximately 3,913 acres (4%) of all Habitat and 18% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-six percent of the occupied or potential Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 13,194 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 101,544 conserved acres. (Ibid.) The MSHCP protects a total of 30,519 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in Joshua Tree National Park Conservation Area and 66,089 acres of Other Conserved Habitat in Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. (MSHCP, Table 9-25.) Management and monitoring activities will ensure Conservation of this species, including control of activities that degrade its Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan calls for coordination with federal agencies regarding appropriate management prescriptions for Pinyon juniper woodland and chaparral Habitats and control of brown -headed cowbird nest parasitism. (Ibid.) RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 24 Based on the above, the Plan will not have a significant impact on the gray vireo. 21. Impacts to the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsterr). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-58.) Approximately 168 acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11% on non - Federal lands) and 15,371 acres (27%) of migratory Habitat (42% on non - Federal lands) will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-59.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the modeled yellow warbler breeding Habitat and 71% of the modeled yellow warbler migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will ensure the protection and management of 1,037 acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 2,563 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 19,534 acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,846 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The Plan will provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by establishment of permanent riparian Habitat in the Whitewater Storm Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-59.) CVWD will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that no net loss occurs. (Ibid.) Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also take place to ensure Conservation of the yellow warbler. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 25 yellow warbler. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) If Covered Activities must occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, the Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest. (Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered Activity may proceed. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the yellow warbler are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 22. Impacts to yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-61.) Approximately 168 acres (6%) of all breeding Habitat (11% on non -Federal lands) and 15,371 acres (27%) of migratory Habitat (42% on non -Federal lands) will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the modeled chat breeding Habitat and 71 % of the modeled chat migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will ensure the protection and management of 1,160 acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 2,829 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 19,414 acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,583 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The Plan will provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by establishment of permanent riparian Habitat in the Whitewater Storm Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-61.) CVWD will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, where disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that no net loss occurs. (Ibid.) Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also take place to ensure Conservation of the yellow -breasted chat. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. (Ibid.) In RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 26 addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for yellow -breasted chat. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) If Covered Activities must occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, the Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest. (Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered Activity may proceed. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the yellow -breasted chat are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 23. Impacts to the summer tanager (Piranga rubra). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those in migratory Habitat east of the Coachella Canal and in a small portion of Dos Palmas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-56.) Approximately 168 acres of all breeding Habitat and 15,371 acres of migratory Habitat will be subject to Take under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-114.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the modeled summer tanager breeding Habitat and 71 % of the modeled summer tanager migratory Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 1,037 acres of modeled breeding Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 2,563 acres of breeding Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) Permittees will also protect and manage 19,534 acres of modeled migratory Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 40,846 acres of migratory Habitat conserved. (Ibid.) The Plan will provide permanent protection to riparian Habitat via acquisition and management in several Conservation Areas and by establishment of permanent riparian Habitat in the Coachella Valley Storm Channel and Delta Conservation Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-57.) CVWD will establish 44 acres of permanent Sonoran cottonwood -willow riparian forest in the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta Conservation area as described in Section 4.3.20 of the MSHCP. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) In addition, the Plan requires that, RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 27 where disturbance of a given number of acres of a riparian natural community is authorized, an equivalent number of acres will be replaced to ensure that no net loss occurs. (Ibid.) Implementation of biological monitoring and Adaptive Management will also take place to ensure Conservation of the summer tanager. (Ibid.) Essential Ecological Processes will also be protected, including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain riparian Habitat. In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including construction and O&M activities, in riparian Habitat of the Cabazon, Stubbe and Cottonwood Canyons, Whitewater Canyon, Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, Joshua Tree National Park, Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, will be conducted to the maximum extent Feasible outside of the May 1 — September 15 nesting season for summer tanager. (MSHCP, pp. 4-169 to -170.) If Covered Activities must occur during the nesting season, surveys shall be conducted to determine if any active nests are present. (Ibid.) If active nests are identified, the Covered Activity shall not be conducted within 200 feet of an active nest. (Ibid.) If surveys conducted during the nesting season document that Covered nesting riparian bird Species are not present, the Covered Activity may proceed. (Ibid.) Based on the above, impacts to the summer tanager are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will provide permanent protection to its riparian Habitat. 24. Impacts to the Southern yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring in isolated palm oases scattered throughout the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-75.) Approximately 78 acres (6%) of all Habitat and 9% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the 1,329 acres of occupied or potential yellow bat Habitat is conserved under the Plan. (Final Recirculated MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 590 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 1,250 acres conserved. (Ibid.) The Plan will protect Essential Ecological processes including hydrological regimes necessary to maintain fan palm oases and implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure Conservation RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 28 of yellow bat Habitat. (Ibid.) The Plan will also conserve occupied and potential Habitat in native fan palm oases. (Ibid.) Finally, existing wetland laws and CEQA requirements that protect the fan palm oases could further reduce impacts to the southern yellow bat, if any are expected to be minor and insignificant. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-75.) Based on the above, impacts to the Southern yellow bat are less than significant. 25. Impacts to Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring east of Desert Hot Springs, on the Big Dune and along the Coachella Canal south of I-10. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-69.) Approximately 61,243 acres (60%) of all Habitat and 69% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 1,319 acres (6%) of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-four percent of the Core Habitat for this ground squirrel will be conserved and 33% of the occupied or potential Habitat will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 20,469 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 33,826 acres conserved. (Ibid.) Using the criteria set forth by the Scientific Advisory Committee, the MSHCP has established Conservation Areas to protect this species. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-70.) Four of these Conservation Areas contain Core Habitat and 16 protect Other Conserved Habitat. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Conservation Areas are large enough to contain hundreds of animals and are adequately connected to each other to allow genetic exchange. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-70.) The MSHCP ensures Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/sand transport systems; maintains Linkages among all conserved populations; and implements biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure long-term persistence (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) Because occupancy rates for this ground squirrel are high in mesquite hummocks, it is therefore desirable to preserve the natural communities with a mesquite component for this squirrel. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.7-70.) Substantial stands of mesquite hummocks and dunes are conserved within the Willow Hole and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas. (Ibid.) As discussed in Section 8 of the Plan, the Monitoring Program will include the use of appropriate methods and technologies (which may change over time) to monitor groundwater levels in the RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 29 Willow Hole, East Indio Hills, and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas where a substantial lowering of the water table could have a significant adverse impact on mesquite hummocks. (Ibid.) Should monitoring detect a substantial lowering of the water table or a decline in mesquite health, the Plan specifies procedures to be taken to ameliorate potentially significant effects. (Ibid.) Finally, Section 4.4 of the Plan requires that most Construction Activities in Cabazon, Willow Hole, Thousand Palms, Indio Hills Palms, East Indio Hills, Dos Palmas, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and Delta, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas avoid mesquite hummocks and mesquite bosque to the maximum extent Feasible. (MSHCP, p. 4-176). Based on the above, impacts to the Coachella Valley round -tailed ground squirrel are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will protect adequate unfragmented Habitat, maintain Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Habitat, and protect Biological Corridors and Linkages, as appropriate. 26. Impacts to the Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsr). Individuals occurring outside the Conservation Areas will be subject to Take, including those occurring east of Desert Hot Springs, on the Big Dune, between the southern Indio Hills and the Little San Bernardino Mountains, east of the Coachella Canal south of I-10 and in the North Shore area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-72.) Approximately 75,304 acres (53%) of all Habitat and 62% of non -Federal lands will be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) There will be approximately 1,993 acres (7%) of Core Habitat subject to Take under the Plan. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-three percent of the Core Habitat for the pocket mouse will be conserved and 40% of the occupied or potential Habitat is conserved under the Plan. ((MSHCP, Table 4-116.) This includes protection of 77% of the known occurrences for the mouse. The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 35,605 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 56,856 acres conserved. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The Plan will ensure Conservation of Core Habitat within five Conservation Areas; Protect Other Conserved Habitat in 16 Conservation Areas through adherence to other Conservation Objectives; Ensure Conservation of Essential Ecological Processes including sand source/sand transport system; Maintain Linkages among all conserved populations; and Implement biological monitoring and Adaptive Management to ensure long-term persistence. (Ibid.) Implementation of the Plan will maintain and enhance population viability of the Palm RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 30 Springs pocket mouse which currently receives no protection outside of the existing Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Preserve System. (Ibid.) Management and monitoring prescriptions will further enhance long-term Conservation of this species. (Ibid.) In addition, the Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures of Section 4.4 of the MSHCP require that Covered Activities, including Flood Control -related construction activities, avoid impacts to the Palm Springs pocket mouse and its habitat in the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon and Willow Hole Conservation Areas, related to clearing, translocation, revegetation, and trapping and holding. (MSHCP, pp. 4-177 to -178.) 27. Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelsoni). Approximately 6,533 acres (3%) of all Habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep ("PBS") and 6% of non -Federal lands would be subject to Take under the MSHCP. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-65.) Habitat impacts outside the Conservation Areas would occur primarily in the Pinyon Flats area under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Features of the MSHCP that will reduce Project Impacts. Ninety-six percent of the Essential Habitat for the PBS will be conserved under the Plan. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) The MSHCP will result in the Conservation of 30,226 acres of modeled Habitat together with Existing Conservation Land for a total of 165,856 acres conserved. (Ibid.) The Plan contains several management strategies designed to avoid Take of the PBS. First, the Plan will protect Essential Habitat for the PBS as delineated in the final Recovery Plan for PBS in the Peninsular Ranges, California (USFWS 2000). (Ibid.) Second, the Plan contains measures to control and manage activities that degrade PBS Essential Habitat within the Conservation area. (Ibid.) This could include human disturbance, Habitat fragmentation, and edge effects. (Ibid.) Third, the Plan provides mechanisms to reduce impacts from invasive species. (Ibid.) Fourth, fire management guidelines may be developed where necessary. (Ibid.) Fifth, restoration and enhancement of degraded Habitat are options that may be used. (Ibid.) And finally, Section 4.4 of the MSHCP (Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures) contains further avoidance requirements. That section states that completion of Covered Activities in PBS Habitat in the Cabazon, Snow Creek/Windy Point, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas will be conducted outside of the January 1 - June 30 lambing season unless otherwise authorized through a Minor Amendment to the Plan with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. (MSHCP, Table 4-116.) O&M of Covered Activities, including but not limited to refinishing the inside of water storage tanks, shall be scheduled to avoid the lambing season, but may extend into the RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 31 January 1 — June 30 period if necessary to complete the activity, upon concurrence with the Wildlife Agencies. (MSHCP, p. 4-176.) Section 4.4 further states that for new projects in the aforementioned Conservation Areas, no toxic or invasive plant species may be used for landscaping. (Ibid.) For existing public infrastructure facilities which have landscaping in PBS Habitat in the Cabazon, Snow Creek/Windy Point, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas, the Permittees who have such facilities will, with respect to those facilities, develop and implement a plan and schedule to remove or prevent access to oleander and any other plants known to be toxic to PBS. (MSHCP, pp. 4-176 to - 177.) The plan and schedule will be prepared within one (1) year of Permit issuance. (MSHCP, p. 4-177.) The majority of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, a Conservation Area listed by the Recovery Plan for the PBS as a recovery region, is subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy ("HANS") process described in Section 6.6.1.2 of the Plan. The HANS process is to be utilized to ensure that all Development complies with the Conservation Goals and Objectives of the MSHCP for conserving Essential Habitat and alleviating threats to the Plan Area population. ( MSHCP, pp. 6-21 through 6-30; Table 4-116.) In addition, Land Use Adjacency Guidelines set forth in Section 4.5 of the Plan establish parameters by which potential impacts to PBS and their Habitat will be judged. These include adverse alterations to natural drainages, introduction of toxic or hazardous materials, light and noise, and the introduction of toxic and invasive plants. (MSHCP, pp. 4-178 to - 183.) Finally, the Species Objectives for PBS (Section 9.8.4.1 of the MSHCP) include ensuring that implementation of the MSHCP is consistent with the recovery strategy in the Recovery Plan to the maximum extent feasible. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.7-67.) Based on the above, impacts to the PBS are less than significant and the benefits conferred by the Plan will provide permanent protection to its Habitat. Revised Trails Plan. To ensure that recreational disturbance does not significantly affect Peninsula Bighorn Sheep ("PBS"), the Revised Trails Plan in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area has adopted an Adaptive Management approach with an emphasis on research. (MSHCP, § 7.3.3.2) The Trails Plan will focus on multi -agency scientific data gathering to evaluate the effects of recreation trail use on PBS health, habitat selection, and long-term population dynamics. (Ibid) The overarching goal of this research RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 32 program is to obtain empirical data from the Plan Area to guide future trails construction and management. (Ibid.) Because there is no established causative link between recreational use and impacts to PBS at the time of Project adoption, the Monitoring Program will be used to further evaluate the effects of recreational trail use on PBS within essential PBS Habitat in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, and to propose standards to ensure that any potential future impacts are below a level of significance. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-16 through 5-25.) The Monitoring Program will provide empirical data to inform decisions about future trails Management Program actions that complement PBS recovery and benefit or enhance PBS Conservation for the trail use as set forth in the Revised Trails Plan. (Ibid.) The components of the Monitoring Program will be designed to preclude potentially significant adverse effects on biological resources, as they will be constructed to serve as a mitigation strategy for any potentially adverse effects from trail use. (Ibid.) The Monitoring Program will help provide detail on the levels and type of trail use in the study area, primarily by the development and implementation of a self - permit system. (Ibid.) The system will focus on evaluation of the use of recreational trails by hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers as it relates to habitat use by PBS. (Ibid.) The Monitoring Program will increase the amount of currently available data regarding periodic documentation of trail use, provide ongoing population surveys of PBS on an annual basis, and provide other data for consideration by the Trails Management Subcommittee that could result in trails management actions to reduce any impacts to PBS or their Habitat. (Ibid.) Hot season trail closures of designated trails between June 15th and September 30th will avoid significant impacts to PBS and their access to essential water sources during the hottest and driest times of the year. (Ibid.) These closures will be beneficial to biological resources, especially PBS, that might otherwise avoid important water sources during this period of greatest need. (Ibid.) Proposals to construct perimeter trails and other new trails, including the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail, would be deferred until the research program has been completed and potential impacts, if any, can be analyzed and addressed. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-31.) Unless research results show that recreational trail use would adversely impact PBS health, demography, population sustainability, and population connectivity, construction of the perimeter trails and other new trails, including the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail, could be initiated after appropriate CEQA/NEPA review. (Ibid.) This deferral will ensure that trail conditions (e.g., use levels) are consistent once the Monitoring Program is initiated. (Ibid.) Existing trailhead facilities will be used whenever possible. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-35.) Future proposals for new trails on Reserve Lands in the Santa RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 33 Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, other than the identified trails described herein, would be addressed on a case -by -case basis, subject to existing regulations, policies, and land management plans. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-32.) If approved for construction, perimeter trails would generally run parallel to and not rise more than 200 feet above the toe of slope, except where necessary to avoid residential or other developed areas or topographically inaccessible terrain. (Ibid.) No perimeter trails will be constructed within 1/4 mile of wildlife water sources and, where possible, will incorporate topographic variability. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-33.) The public awareness and education program will enhance cooperation and participation in the self -permitting program of the Revised Trails Plan through the monitoring and management of trail use. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-22.) Wildlife managers will consistently track trail use and impacts, if any, to PBS, and require immediate action to be undertaken if specified PBS population numbers are reduced to specified thresholds. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 2- 37.) In the event a ewe group reaches 15 individuals or fewer, responsible parties shall meet and consult on whether to close, reduce use or otherwise regulate related trails. (Ibid.) In the event a ewe group reaches 5 individuals or fewer, responsible parties shall immediately close related trails, and shall meet and consult on future trail use and/or otherwise regulate related trails. (Ibid.) These actions will ensure that disturbance to PBS from recreational use, if any, will cease immediately. Trail rerouting, including the Art Smith and Mirage Trails, will be designed to protect sensitive resource values (e.g., cultural resources, wildlife Habitat, soils) where feasible. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-45.) After coordination between the CVCC and federal and state wildlife agencies, redundant trails will be removed to reduce any current impacts in these areas. (Ibid.) Trails and trail segments on certain State lands will also be decommissioned and removed, thereby reducing trail use impacts in sensitive Habitat areas. (Ibid.) Rerouting and decommissioning of trails will occur following approval of a specific project by the appropriate project lead agency and these actions would have to meet NEPA and CEQA requirements. (Ibid.) Thus, impacts associated with deferring the rerouting, decommissioning, and removal of trails will be less than significant. (Ibid.) Dogs may disturb PBS and its habitat through intimidation, trail usage and excrement. Therefore, dogs would be allowed in designated areas only. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-46.) An educational kiosk at each designated dog walking area will inform dog owners about basic PBS ecology and behavior, as well as potential threats to PBS due to the presence of dogs. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-46.) The implementation of the Plan will therefore ensure that any potential impacts to PBS from the Revised Trails Plan are maintained below a level of significance. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 34 E. Cultural Resources The MSHCP involves detailed Conservation planning, management and monitoring within Conservation Areas, which will enhance the Conservation of cultural resources by precluding Development that may impact those resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-9.) All conditionally compatible uses, including future planning and development of trails, trailheads, and interpretive facilities (i.e. information kiosks) must follow guidelines specified in the Plan that will protect cultural resources. (Ibid.) In addition, certain Allowable Uses in the Reserve System, including activities associated with reserve management, monitoring and scientific research, will not result in any significant land disturbance. (Ibid.) Thus, the Plan will not generate adverse impacts on sensitive cultural resources. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to cultural resources from the MSHCP. Revised Trails Plan. New trails proposed for construction under the Revised Trails Plan have the potential to affect cultural resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-59.) Several proposed trails may pass through areas with varying potential to affect cultural resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-59 through 5-60.) Implementation of the provisions of the MSHCP in conjunction with trails planning will avoid adverse impacts to sensitive cultural resources and ensure that such potential impacts are maintained below a level of significance. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-59 to -60.) Rerouting trails to avoid areas identified as sensitive by Native Americans or that contain historic properties will avoid impacts and in fact have a positive effect on cultural resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-59.) Prior to making recommendations for decommissioning and removing trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, an inventory of all trails in the Conservation Area will occur. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-60.) The determination of which trails would be decommissioned or removed will be made following this inventory. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-60 through 5-61.) Thus, if an action under any of the public access and use alternatives has the potential to affect historic properties, cultural resources review will be needed before the action may be implemented. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-56.) Literature reviews, field surveys and data recovery may be required where appropriate. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-56.) Public Education programs would help fully inform the public of the resource issues at risk, and would provide the public with useful information so as to maximize the effectiveness of the Revised Trails Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-22.) The implementation of the Plan will thus ensure that potential impacts to PBS are maintained below a level of significance. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 35 F. Environmental Justice Since its inception, the MSHCP planning process has been open to the public in an effort to disseminate information, solicit comments, and provide opportunities for public input. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-27 through 4.9-28.) Three public scoping meetings, which were fully noticed in local newspapers and mailings to public interest groups and potentially affected landowners, were held in 2000 in the western, central, and eastern portions of the Coachella Valley. (Ibid.) More than a dozen meetings were held by the BLM to solicit input and feedback from special interest groups. (Ibid.) All meetings of the Project Advisory Group ("PAG"), which met approximately once a month from 1998 through 2005, have been open to the public. (Ibid.) The primary objectives of the proposed Plan are: (1) to preserve undeveloped, uninhabited open space lands, which can be used to create large, interconnected preserves for sensitive species and their Habitats, and (2) to standardize mitigation/compensation measures for the Covered Species in a manner that satisfies applicable Federal and State laws pertaining to Endangered Species protection. (Ibid.; MSHCP, § 1.2.) The Plan Area includes City and County lands in Eastern Riverside County believed necessary to achieve these goals, and it does not target or exclude any community or parcel of land based on demographic or income characteristics. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.9-28.) No Indian Reservations are subject to the MSHCP. The MSHCP will not result in any adverse, direct or disproportionate impacts to minorities or minority populations, low income populations, concentrated Native American populations or children. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-24 through 4.9-28.) Therefore, no significant impacts to minority populations, low income populations, Native American populations, or children will result from implementation of the MSHCP. G. Geology and Soils While the Plan does provide for minimal building (i.e. information kiosks) and potentially provides for minimal soil disturbance (i.e. trail construction), the MSHCP does not allow Development that would otherwise not be permitted in areas where geologic hazards occur. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-1.) In fact, the MSHCP will reduce the exposure to geologic hazards by acquiring lands for Conservation. (Ibid.) Existing General Plans, zoning ordinances, building codes, and environmental review policies, standards, and requirements will remain in effect under the MSHCP to ensure that any Development in Conservation Areas will assess potential hazards and impacts and enforce relevant laws and regulations. (Ibid.) Accordingly, impacts on soils and geology are less than significant. H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 36 The MSHCP does not require or promote the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-28 through 4.9-29.) Nor will the Plan facilitate a hazardous release of materials, substances or waste. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.9-29.) Likewise, the Plan will not directly involve the building of any structure on a site which is included in the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Ibid.) In addition, as a Conservation Plan, the Plan does not facilitate the Development of residences or buildings related to an airport land use plan area or airstrip, nor does the Plan cater to any involvement of persons residing or working in such areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS p. 4.9-30.) As such, the Plan will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within an airport land use plan area or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. (Ibid.) Nor does the Plan allow for or impair an adopted emergency response plan. (Ibid.) Finally, the Plan will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. (Ibid.) Management of the Reserve System will entail the limited use and storage of herbicides and pesticides to control exotic or invasive non-native plant and animal species. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS 4.9-29.) This use and storage is an allowable use which would be overseen by the appropriate Reserve Management Unit Committee and would comply with all applicable laws and regulations. ([bid.) Because the implementation of the MSHCP will not pose or create a significant threat or hazard, nor expose the public to significant hazardous or toxic materials, no mitigation measures are required. L Hydrology and Water Quality Existing alluvial fans and floodplains in the Coachella Valley have previously been selected and developed for large-scale groundwater recharge activities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-4.) The MSHCP ensures, rather than interferes with, the continued functioning of these activities in several ways. For example, the MSHCP provides Take Authorization for CVWD planned groundwater recharge facilities and the continued operation of its existing groundwater recharge facilities within the Plan Area. (Ibid.) CVWD must conserve the lands within the Whitewater Floodplain Preserve in perpetuity, and also cooperate with CVCC in the Conservation of other CVWD lands in the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-4.) In addition, the Plan provides Take Authorization for the Operation and Maintenance of levees and flood control channels within the Conservation Areas to ensure that Plan implementation does not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. (Final Recirculation EIR/EIS 4.6-5.) Further, the Plan will not in itself permit housing within a 100-year flood hazard RVPUB\FAVILA\7381 ss.1 37 as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. (Ibid.) Nor will the Plan itself permit structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard area, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. (Ibid.) The Plan also will not contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, mud or debris flow since it will not create any physical changes that would cause or contribute to such inundation. (Ibid.) In contrast, the Plan will conserve many floodplain areas, thus reducing the potential for structures to be built in these areas. (Ibid.) Also, through Reserve Assembly, the MSHCP will not substantially alter any existing drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, nor in a manner that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net -deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-6.) Because the MSHCP will conserve many floodplain areas, it will reduce the potential for structures to be built in such areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-5.) The MSHCP also does not propose any significant change to existing or planned flood control projects or facilities. Nor will the MSHCP affect existing regulations for Development on mapped floodplains which are intended to reduce risk to lives or property. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-6.) For the above reasons, the MSHCP will not conflict with but rather facilitates the requirements of federal agencies to act to reduce risk of flood loss and minimize impacts to human safety, health and welfare, and to restore the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-7.) For the foregoing reasons, the MSHCP will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor impede groundwater recharge. Therefore, no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality will result from implementation of the MSHCP. J. Land Use and Planning The general plan land use designation information utilized by the MSHCP is based in part on the GIS land use designation information for the Plan Area provided to CVAG from the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"). SCAG based its map on the information largely provided it by member cities. Utilizing this information provided by SCAG, the MSHCP was designed to avoid conflicts with any plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.2-6.) The MSHCP also does not change existing general plan land use designations. In fact, several RVPUB\FAVILA\7381 ss.1 38 components of the Plan ensure that the Plan is consistent with general land use designations and that neither the CVCC nor the Wildlife Agencies will have decision -making authority over land use decisions. The Wildlife Agencies may, but are not required to, submit comments on proposed projects in the Conservation Areas through the Joint Project Review process. (MSHCP, pp. 6-19 through 6-21.) The design of the Conservation Areas of the MSHCP took into account the General Plan land use designations of the Local Permittees, and approximately 91% of the land in the Conservation Areas has an Open Space designation to conserve open space resources. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.2-6.) The proposed Plan is also consistent and compatible with the objectives of local, State, regional and Federal agencies, and tribal land use plans, policies and controls for the Plan Area through ongoing consultation and coordination. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.2-7.) Based upon the coordinated and integrated nature of the MSHCP, impacts to Federal, state, regional, local, or tribal land use plans, policies, or controls are considered to be less than significant for CEQA analysis purposes. (Ibid.) Because the distribution of the Conservation Areas accommodates the physical integrity of the communities, the MSHCP does not contribute towards the physical separation of a community. (Ibid.) The one potential exception is due to the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area, which adjoins the existing urbanized portion of Desert Hot Springs and creates a separation between it and future planned Development. (Ibid.) The separation, however, ranges between 0.25 miles and 0.5 miles and follows the Morongo Wash floodplain area, which already constitutes a natural separation. (Ibid.) The proposed Plan also provides Take Authorization for major roads that connect the two portions of the city. (Ibid.) Additionally, a trail system is allowed in the Conservation Area and would serve as an amenity to help unite the two areas of the city. (Ibid.) The MSHCP does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Ibid.; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS § 4.8) Based on the above, no significant impacts to land use will result from implementation of the MSHCP. Revised Trails Plan. Proposed new trails have been carefully sited to largely stay within public lands and/or rights of way. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-12.) However, proposals to construct perimeter trails and other new trails will be deferred until the initial phase of the monitoring and research program has been completed. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-13.) This approach will ensure that trail conditions (e.g., use levels) are consistent once the research and monitoring programs are initiated. (Ibid.) Thus the Revised Trails Plan does not conflict with any plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts are less than significant. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 39 The development of the Revised Trails Plan has involved close coordination with local jurisdictions and state and federal agencies to assure that the Revised Trails Plan is consistent and compatible with the objectives of local, state, regional and federal agencies, and tribal land use plans, polices and controls for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-13.) Based upon the coordinated and integrated nature of the Revised Trails Plan, impacts to federal, state, regional, local, or tribal land use plans, policies, or controls are less than significant. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-13.) The Revised Trails Plan also does not result in the physical separation of a community. Most of the trail alignments within the Revised Trails Plan are outside currently developed areas and do not intrude into existing or planned urban Development. (Ibid.) The Revised Trails Plan also does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (Ibid.) The construction and use of new perimeter trails described in Element 5 of the Proposed Trail Plan will be a Covered Activity unless research results indicate that these trails would adversely affect bighorn sheep. Current analysis indicates that these perimeter trails would not substantially impact Peninsular bighorn sheep populations, nor result in Take. The element provides for additional research through Element 2 to further analyze impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep from recreational trail use, thereby confirming and expanding upon previous impact assessments. Proposals to construct perimeter trails and other new trails, including the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail, would be deferred. This deferral would ensure that trail conditions (e.g., use levels) are as consistent as possible once the research and monitoring programs are initiated. Construction of these new trails could be initiated as soon as feasible, depending on funding availability and acquisition of easements or other authorizations, and completion of applicable NEPA and CEQA requirements and upon results of research and the effect upon PBS. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS pp. 5-21 to 5-22.) Future proposals for new trails on Reserve Lands in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, other than the identified trails described herein, would be addressed on a case -by -case basis, subject to existing regulations, policies, and land management plans. Such future trail proposals would require a Minor Amendment to the Plan with Wildlife Agency concurrence. Impacts associated with deferring the construction of new trails are expected to be less than significant for CEQA analysis purposes. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-22.) Several proposed alternative alignments to the Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail could have a significant adverse impact on land use. (Final EIR/EIS, pp. 5-19 through 5-21.) The Palm Desert to La Quinta Connector Trail will be deferred pending completion of a focused research program to evaluate the effects of recreational trail use on wild sheep in the Conservation Area and a subsequent research program evaluating the effects of this portion of the Connector Trail on captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 40 (Final EIR/EIS, p. 5-22.) If significant adverse impacts to native and/or captive breeding populations result as determined through the research program described in Element 2, and feasible mitigation measures cannot be implemented to reduce this impact, then all or a portion of this trail as originally proposed will not be constructed. (Ibid.) Subsequent CEQA and/or NEPA analysis of the connector trail will also be conducted. (Ibid.) K. Mineral Resources The MSHCP may result in the potential loss of a mineral resource (sand and gravel) within the Plan Area, or may result in the loss of availability of wind energy to the region. However, impacts to mineral resources under the MSHCP will be less than significant. First, the Conservation Areas were designed to minimize inclusion of mining operations, thus allowing continued mineral extractions. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-2.) In the Plan Area, there are 17,527 acres that have been designated as Mineral Resource Zone 2 ("MRZ-2"). (Ibid.) Of this acreage, ten thousand acres of Mineral Resource Zone 2 (lands containing significant mineral deposits) are included in the Conservation Areas, including 1,983 Federally owned acres, 921 acres of non -Federal Existing Conservation Land, and 1,051 acres which have been approved for mining and will receive Take Authorization under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Thus, only 6,052 acres of MRZ-2 lands could be directly affected by the Plan. (Ibid.) Because Development will be limited in Conservation Areas, it is foreseeable that this resource may not be developed under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) However, this impact will not be significant because the Plan Area contains sufficient sand and gravel resources to meet the demand for approximately 130 years at the current rate of consumption and the consumption of land under the MSHCP does not physically affect the resource. (Ibid.) Second, the Plan does not affect or modify existing Permits or require new Permits, and does not impose limits on the extraction of available resources. As such, existing mining operations, although not Covered Activities, will not be affected by the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Third, existing mineral resources will not be physically affected by lands conserved under the Plan. Finally, certain mining areas, such as certain Indio Quarry lands, will actually benefit by implementation of the MSHCP because they will receive Take Authorization. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.4-3 to -5.) Impacts to energy resources, specifically wind energy conservation systems (turbines) within the Plan Area would be less than significant. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-5.) Given the substantial windfarm development that has already occurred and the continuing retrofit of turbines on existing sites, as well as the RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 41 continued relatively low impact of windfarm Development, existing and future Development of regional wind resources are not significantly in conflict with or constrained by adoption and implementation of the proposed Plan.. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-5.) The Plan provides Take Authorization for ground disturbance associated with windfarm Development in Conservation Areas that is consistent with applicable Conservation Goals and Objectives. Ground disturbances include roads and staging areas, foundation pads and storage areas, with further disturbance limited once constructed. The retrofitting of wind turbines is a proposed Covered Activity only with respect to impacts from ground disturbance. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-5.) In addition, the Plan will not constrain future solar or thermal energy facilities that may be built. (Ibid.) There are no existing or planned timber harvesting areas in the Plan Area; thus there are no impacts. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-6.) Additionally, the Plan would have no effect on any commercially viable timber resource in any area outside but adjacent to the Plan Area. (Ibid.) L. Noise The MSHCP will not result in the generation of significant noise levels as defined by CEQA. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-16 to -17.) The MSHCP will result in very little construction or maintenance activities that will generate significant noise impacts. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-17.) Construction activities under the Plan will be limited to minor construction projects associated with installation of fencing, and the construction of trails and trailhead facilities. (Ibid.) All of these activities will be very limited in extent and short in duration and will be less than significant. (Ibid.) M. Population and Housing Since 1980, population in the Coachella Valley has grown rapidly, and is expected to increase to 440,301 by 2010 and 540,901 by 2020. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-1.) If the trend continues, the Coachella Valley and its jurisdictions will require additional housing to support the increase in population. Because a goal of the MSHCP is to conserve a significant amount of acreage for the benefit of species' preservation within the Plan Area, affected jurisdictions could have less acreage with which to consider the placement of proposed Developments, resulting in a potential impact from implementation of the MSHCP. Relevant impact areas are analyzed below. County and City Budgets. The MSHCP has developed a fiscal impact analysis to calculate the potential costs and revenues of each jurisdiction if buildout of lands actually occurred. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-6.) The analysis concluded that in most jurisdictions, the potential buildout of the lands proposed for inclusion in Conservation Areas would result in residential Development at RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 42 low or very low densities, and would result in a negative cash flow to the jurisdiction at buildout. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-7.) In fact, only Palm Springs (+$706,868) and Riverside County (+$22,100,100) would generate positive annual cash flow by building out developable Conservation Lands. (Ibid.) The net loss to Palm Springs would represent 0.6% of the City's annual operating revenue, while the County would lose approximately 2% of its General Fund Revenues. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, at pp. 4.8-6 through 4.8-7.) Thus, because buildout in most jurisdictions would create a negative funding stream, and in Riverside County and Palm Springs the loss of such potential funds would not create a substantial adverse economic impact on each jurisdiction's economy, such impacts to each jurisdiction are less than significant. Development Potential. The analysis also compared potentially developable lands within and outside of the Conservation Areas for each jurisdiction. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-7 through 4.8-21.) For the nine cities within the Plan Area, a combined 43,262.22 acres of Development potential lie outside the proposed Conservation Areas, and approximately 9,181.7 acres with at least some (and often constrained) Development potential lie within the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-7 through 4.8-21.) Regarding Riverside County, 153,270.79 acres of developable lands are within the Conservation Areas and 90,512.63 acres are outside. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-19.) However, most of the lands within the Conservation Areas are designated as low - density, very -low density, or urban, whereas the lands outside Conservation Areas represent more suburban and urban densities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-7 through 4.8-21.) Therefore, the number of development units that may be constructed in Conservation Areas is low even without the Plan, and given the fact that the MSHCP allows Development on 10% of the land within the Conservation Areas, a substantial portion of these lands could be used for construction even with the Plan. Thus, the impacts of the Plan associated with residential, commercial, and industrial Development potential on lands within Conservation Areas are less than significant. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8- 29.) Growth Constraints. Future residential Development will be minimally impacted in Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, and La Quinta. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-7 to -22.) In the remaining cities and in the unincorporated portions of the Plan Area, impacts will be primarily on lands within Conservation Areas but, as discussed above, these lands have been designated for low or very low density designations. (Ibid.) Thus, based on the above analysis, impacts to future residential growth will be less than significant. For the entire Plan Area, approximately 8,300 acres of lands with potential for commercial Development are located outside the Conservation Areas, and less than 80 acres lie within Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8- 24.) Given the fact that the Plan Area encompasses over 1.1 million acres, impacts to future commercial Development are less than significant. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 43 Approximately 14,000 of the 15,000 acres of land currently designated for industrial use are located outside the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-24.) Thus, the Plan will not constitute a significant constraint to industrial Development in the Plan Area. Based on the above analysis, the MSHCP will not significantly constrain Development potential within the Plan Area. Thus, impacts are overall less than significant. Affordable Housing. In most jurisdictions, there will be minimal or no impact on affordable housing, since lands designated for medium to high density residential Development (where affordable housing is most likely to occur) occur outside the Conservation Areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.8-22 to -24.) Exceptions occur in Palm Desert, and the unincorporated areas of the Plan Area. (Ibid.) In Palm Desert, lands designated for medium density Development could yield up to 170 dwelling units, whereas the 100 acres outside Conservation Areas could yield 706 dwelling units. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, Table 4-16.) In the unincorporated areas, the ratio is 1,159:14,398. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, Table 4-19.) Because such a small amount of potentially affordable land will be conserved in comparison to affordable available land outside the Conservation Areas, overall impacts will be less than significant. Employment. Potentially developable lands most impacted are designated for low to very low density residential Development, which has limited potential to generate jobs. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-24.) Commercial and industrial lands have more potential for sustainable employment. However, commercial lands within Conservation Areas represent less than one percent of the total lands. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, 4.8-24.) This loss in potential employment is expected to be equivalent to the loss in leasable retail space, and represents a less than significant impact. (Ibid.) In addition, industrial lands within Conservation Areas represent 6.9% of the developable lands, also representing a less than significant impact. N. Utilities and Service Systems The MSHCP will provide Take Authorization for public facilities operated by CVWD, IID, County Flood Control, County Parks, and County Waste, as well as by the nine city Permittees in the Coachella Valley. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-19.) This will facilitate the O&M of public facilities and the delivery of services by these Permittees. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will provide the basis for the issuance of Take Authorization for Emergency access and Emergency response within the MSHCP Reserve System. (Ibid.) The MSHCP also allows limited Development in these Areas, so that additional new public facilities are not precluded in the Conservation Areas. (Ibid.) Non-permittees that provide public services requiring Take Authorization could seek such Authorization under the Permits through the Participating Special Entity provisions. (Ibid.) The Plan will have a beneficial impact on electric power facilities as IID's Covered Activities RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 44 can proceed and be maintained. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-20.) Southern California Edison ("SCE") is not a Permittee under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) However, under the provisions set forth in Section 7.5 of the MSHCP, SCE may request Take Authorization for its activities from the CVCC pursuant to the Permits as a Participating Special Entity, consistent with the terms and requirements of the Permits, the Plan, and the IA. (Ibid.) Based upon an assessment of the potential impacts of the MSHCP on electric power facilities, natural gas transmission facilities, telephone and cable facilities, and the provisions of Sections 7.0 and 7.4 of the MSHCP, the MSHCP will not conflict with or obstruct construction of new public utilities or facilities, including above ground and subsurface energy, fuel or telecommunication transmission facilities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-20 to -21.) Nor will it conflict with or obstruct the Operation and Maintenance of existing public utilities or facilities, including above ground and subsurface energy, fuel or telecommunication transmission facilities. (Ibid.) In addition, the Plan will not generate additional solid waste, with the exception of the waste discussed below. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-22.) Moreover, landfill related activities will be Covered Activities under the Plan, thereby creating a beneficial impact. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-22.) Therefore, the MSHCP will not conflict with or obstruct continued operation of existing landfill facilities. (Ibid.) The Plan will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, or require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-23.) Further, it does not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Ibid.) The Plan will not involve any deficiency in sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. (Ibid.) The Plan could generate minor amounts of waste when trash is cleaned up from properties or exotic plant species are removed. (Ibid.) Adequate landfill capacity exists to accommodate the project's minimal solid waste disposal needs, and the Plan complies with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Ibid.) Based on the above, no significant impacts to utilities and service systems will result from implementation of the MSHCP. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 45 O. Recreation The MSHCP provides the basis for the development of a system of local, County, state and federal wildlife and Habitat preserves of local and national importance. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-10.) The MSHCP provides guidelines for public access and recreation that will be implemented over time within the Reserve System. (Ibid.) Thus, implementation of this measure would have a less than significant effect on cross-country travel and camping. The potential for expanded hiking, equestrian and other "passive" recreation in the MSHCP Reserve System is a significant benefit of the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-10.) In addition to trails, the Plan envisions interpretive centers, information kiosks and other facilities to enhance the open space experience the Reserve System would provide to the public. (Ibid.) Thus, the MSHCP will result in significant beneficial impacts for public use, trails and recreation in the Plan Area by increasing access to open space, restoring and protecting the underlying environmental resource. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.9-10 to -11.) No significant impacts to recreation will result from implementation of the MSHCP. Revised Trails Plan. The Revised Trails Plan will provide year-round use of 38 of the 40 trails covered by the Plan, or about 95 of 115 miles (83%) of trails that spread across the lower elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-67.) These trails extend from the Snow Creek area west of Palm Springs to Martinez Canyon south of La Quinta, and would assure the availability of a wide range of mountain hiking, biking, and horseback riding experiences. (Ibid.) Eighty-eight percent of trails addressed by the Revised Trails Plan, or 83% of total trail mileage, will be available for year-round use. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-68.) Thirty-eight of the 40 trails (or 105 of 115 miles of trails) addressed by the Revised Trails Plan are available for recreation during the maximum -usage months (January through April). (Ibid.) Only three trails totaling about 10 miles will be closed during the "hot season" from June 15 through September 30. (Ibid.) Data exists indicating that as the weather gets hotter, human trail use decreases. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-68.) Thus, considering the extent of available trails in combination with the lower levels of use, the effects of summer trail closures on recreational opportunities will be minor. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-69.) Closures of certain trails or trail segments to bicycles will be limited to those that complement existing closures by precluding access where continuation of use along a trail would result in a violation. (Ibid.) Therefore, these new restrictions will have a minor effect on trail use by mountain bicyclists. (Ibid.) Upon completion of the focused research program, study results and management recommendations will be integrated into a revised public use and trails Management Program, using best available science, professional judgment, and RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 46 wildlife management principles where study results may be less than definitive. (Ibid.) Depending on study results, future restrictions on recreational use of existing trails may or may not be imposed. (Ibid.) Construction of perimeter trails will be deferred under the Revised Trails Plan pending completion of focused research program. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-69.) Deferring the construction of new trails will not have a substantial effect on recreation. (Ibid.) Decommissioning of trails will occur only after completion of a focused research program, and no trails would be decommissioned coincident with approval of the Revised Trails Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 5-70.) Therefore, impacts to recreational opportunities resulting from the Revised Trails Plan as it relates to trail rerouting, decommission, and removal are not anticipated at this time. (Ibid.) Cross-country travel and camping in essential PBS habitat from January 1 through September 30 would be prohibited due to potentially affecting recreational access to certain parts of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 5-71 through 5-72.) Thus, opportunities for this activity would not be precluded, but access would be limited to a 106-day period each year. (Ibid.) In summary, implementation of the Revised Trails Plan will not substantially affect trail use opportunities on existing trails in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area. P. Public Services Police, fire and other Emergency services operate under the direct authority of or through a service agreement with Permittees. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9- 22.) Section 7.3.2 of the MSHCP provides that local, state, and federal law enforcement entities will be allowed access to the Reserve Land as necessary to enforce the law. Medical, rescue, fire fighting operations, and other Emergency service providers will be allowed access to Reserve Lands to carry out operations necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the public. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-22; MSHCP, § 7.3.2.1.) Local law enforcement agencies and other entities such as the National Guard or Immigration and Naturalization Service operating on Reserve Lands are subject to existing state and federal laws. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will not create additional Permit requirements for these entities beyond those of existing state and federal laws. (Ibid.) Based upon an assessment of the potential impacts of the MSHCP, and the provisions listed above in Section 7.3 of the MSHCP, the Plan will not conflict with or obstruct police and fire protection services. The Plan will also not have significant impacts on schools as it will not result in student increases nor the need to construct new school facilities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.9-22.) Because the Plan focuses on Conservation of species and natural communities and the provision of recreational opportunities, it RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 47 would not have adverse impacts on parks but instead will have a positive impact on recreation. (See Section O above.) Thus, no significant impacts to recreation will result from implementation of the MSHCP. Q. Transportation The MSHCP provides Take Authorization for both construction of planned roadways and improvements to certain existing roadways, both in and out of the Conservation Areas, listed in Section 3 and Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.3-7.) The MSHCP includes design and siting guidelines for planned roadways. (Ibid.) The implementation of these guidelines will ensure that planned roadways are designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the objectives of the MSHCP, while providing for the efficient passage of persons and goods through the Coachella Valley, the alleviation of traffic congestion, the maintenance of level of service standards, and continuation of adequate Emergency access/evacuation routes. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.3-6 through 4.3-9.) Since the operation, maintenance and construction of existing and planned roadways are covered activities within the MSHCP Conservation Area, potential transportation -related impacts resulting from implementation of the MSHCP will be less than significant. However, other roads are not Covered Activities under the Plan and will not receive Take Authorization. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.3-7.) The Plan does not preclude Permittees from seeking approval of these roadway segments through the MSHCP Plan amendment process. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.3-7.) The City of Desert Hot Springs would be required to seek Take Authorization for non -Covered Activities by separate consultations with the Wildlife Agencies.. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will indirectly affect the circulation system by limiting Development within the Conservation Areas, thus limiting the traffic generation in these areas. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.3-9.) This indirect effect will reduce traffic volumes on the overall circulation network. (Ibid.) As a practical matter, the trips that would have been generated in the Conservation Areas would have been relatively limited given the underlying land uses. (Ibid.) Some of the Development in the Conservation Areas may be reduced or shifted to other areas in the Coachella Valley due to acquisition of lands for Conservation from willing sellers. (Ibid.) This potential shifting of Development will not have significant impacts because the anticipated trips that would have been generated from the Conservation Areas would have been relatively low given the land use designations. (Ibid.) With a shift in the location of Development, the MSHCP could have the result of a net reduction in regional trip generation. (Ibid.) No levels of service on any designated major roadway will be affected. (Ibid.) Emergency access will not be constrained because the Plan will provide Take RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 48 Authorization for Emergency access and activities in the MSHCP Reserve System. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will not place any lands in Conservation which would conflict with or hinder the operation of local or regional roadways or associated facilities. (Ibid.) Neither will it result in a substantial increase in traffic volumes, volume to capacity ratios or applicable policies plans or programs supporting alternative transportation systems on or serving roadway segments or intersections. (Ibid.) Emergency access will not be significantly affected nor will the Plan affect design features of any roadway that resulted in the creation of a hazardous condition. (Ibid.) Neither railroads nor airports in the Plan Area will be affected by the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Based on the above discussed features of the MSHCP, impacts to Transportation and Circulation are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it confirms that implementation of the MSHCP will result in no significant cumulative adverse environmental impacts with regard to: Land Use Compatibility (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-11; 9-13); Transportation, Traffic, and Circulation (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-14 to -15; 9-17); Mineral, Energy, and Timber Resources (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-17 to -19); Agricultural Lands and Activities (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-19 to -21); Hydrology and Water Quality (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-21 to -22; 9-25); Flooding and Hydrology (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-21 to -22; 9-25); Water Resources/Quality (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-25 to -29); Biological Resources (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9- 29 to -33; 9-36 to -44); Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-44 to -45); Parks Trails and Recreation (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-45 to - 48); Air Quality (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 9-48); Noise (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9- 48 to -49); Visual/Scenic Resources (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 9-49); Utilities/Public Services and Facilities (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-49 to -50); Socioeconomic Resources: Population, Housing, and Employment (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-50 to -51.); Environmental Justice and Children (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 9-51 to -52); and Growth - Inducing Impacts (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 9-52). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 566.) An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6.) In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." (Ibid.) The lead agency is not required to choose an alternative identified in an EIR if the alternative (1) does not substantially reduce significant environmental RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 49 impacts; (2) does not meet project objectives; or (3) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative infeasible. (Ibid.) The primary goals and objectives of the MSHCP are to: 1. Obtain Permits from the Wildlife Agencies to authorize Take for the Covered Activities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 1-6.) 2. Protect Core and Other Conserved Habitat for 27 proposed Covered Species and 27 natural communities, maintain the Essential Ecological Processes to keep the Core Habitat viable and link Core Habitat to maximize the conservation value of the land within the Coachella Valley. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 1-6.) 3. Improve the future economic development in the Plan Area by providing an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which Development can proceed in an efficient way. The proposed Plan is intended to provide a means to standardize mitigation/compensation measures for the Covered Species so that, with respect to public and private Development actions, mitigation/compensation measures established by the Plan will concurrently satisfy applicable provisions of Federal and State laws pertaining to species protection. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 1-6.) 4. Provide for permanent open space, community edges and recreational opportunities, which contribute to maintaining the community character of the Coachella Valley. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 1-6.) A. The Preferred Alternative In 1994, a Scientific Advisory Committee ("SAC") was established, composed of members which included biologists from BLM, the National Park Service, United States Forest Service, the University of California Natural Reserve System, the Center for Natural Lands Management, CVWD, and representatives of CDFG and USFWS. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-2.) The Plan was developed in consultation with SAC using best available science. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-3.) The Preferred Alternative will conserve 27 species ("Covered Species") and 27 natural communities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-4 through 2-6.) The Reserve System proposed by the Preferred Alternative contains 21 Conservation Areas totaling 723,480 acres of land, and provides Core Habitat and Other Conserved Habitat for the proposed Covered Species. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-8.) Based upon the analysis in the Final Recirculated EIR, and in particular the comparison of the impacts of the various alternatives analyzed, the Preferred Alternative is determined to be the environmental superior alternative. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, Table E-1.) In addition to the Preferred Alternative, several additional alternatives were considered. These are the Public Lands Alternative, the Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative, the Enhanced Conservation Alternative and the No Action/No RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 50 Project Alternative. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-51 through 2-64.) These alternatives are discussed below. One other alternative considered would have fully protected the Habitat of the Covered Species in the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-64.) Because all Habitat would have been conserved under this alternative, no Take coverage would have been required, eliminating the need for a habitat conservation plan. (Ibid.) This alternative could not meet Plan objectives, was determined to be infeasible and did not meet the purposes and needs of the USFWS. (Ibid.) Thus, that alternative was initially considered but eliminated from further review. (Ibid.) B. Public Lands Alternative 1. Description This alternative includes all local, State, and Federal agency land, and Private Conservation Land, in the Plan Area with Conservation management levels 1, 2, and 3. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) Level 1 lands are lands consisting of state and federal Wilderness Areas. (MSHCP, pp. 2-7.) Level 2 lands contain some Existing Uses, but the overall management objective is maintenance of natural values. (Ibid.) Level 3 lands are designated for multiple use while providing significant Conservation value. (MSHCP, p. 2-8.) This alternative entails no land acquisition; only Core Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, and Linkages that happen to be on exiting public conservation lands or Private Conservation Lands would be protected. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) The local jurisdictions would contribute to the management of the existing Conservation Areas as mitigation for the Habitat loss allowed under the Plan. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) In total, this alternative would result in the Conservation of 19.5% less acreage than under the Preferred Alternative. (Final EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-25.) 2. Finding This alternative fails to meet the basic Project objectives, would not substantially reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased impacts. 3. Supporting Explanation This alternative conserves far less Habitat acreage than the Preferred Alternative, and would result in Habitat fragmentation where considerable private lands exist. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51 through 2-54.) The only significant reserve areas on the valley floor would be the three existing Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard preserves and Dos Palmas ACEC. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-51.) Within mountainous areas, some conserved land would be well preserved, but habitat fragmentation is a problem in other areas where considerable private lands still exist. RVPUBTAVILAW38185.1 51 (Ibid.) This lack of conservation lands would fail to provide maximum possible certainty that the viability of Core and Other Conserved Habitat for several of the 27 Covered Species and 27 natural communities would be maintained, and would potentially impact wetlands and riparian habitats. This alternative entails no land acquisition; only Core Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, and Linkages that happen to be on existing public conservation lands or Private Conservation Lands would be protected. (MSHCP, p. 3-13.) As a result, sand transport, watershed, and other ecological processes would not be adequately protected; Biological Corridors would not be conserved; and Core Habitat areas would be fragmented in many instances. (Ibid.) For these reasons, basic Project objective 2 would not be met. For the same reasons, it is less likely that the Wildlife Agencies would authorize a Take Permit for the Covered Species, thus frustrating basic Project objective 1. Failure to achieve basic Project objective 1 would, in turn, prohibit achievement of basic Project objective 3. No Take Authorization would exist (or would be issued for fewer Covered Species), nor would this alternative achieve an efficient, streamlined regulatory process for project Development. Finally, the benefits derived from achievement of basic Project objective 4 would be far less substantial under this alternative than they would be under the Preferred Alternative. Recreational opportunities and open space preservation would be reduced, as this objective is best achieved by additional land conservation. In addition, the Public Lands Alternative could adversely affect existing and planned groundwater recharge facilities in the Plan Area. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.6-7.) This alternative could result in the need for individual permits for the development of certain projects, which will be substantially more difficult to obtain in the absence of a comprehensive conservation plan such as the Preferred Alternative. (Ibid.) These uncertainties and the biological resource conservation issues that would remain unresolved under this alternative mean that the potential for adverse impacts to existing and planned groundwater recharge facilities could be significant. (Ibid.) Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the Public Lands Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts, could result in increased impacts as compared with the Preferred Alternative, fails to meet the basic Project objectives and therefore rejects it. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 52 C. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative 1. Description This alternative would result in the conservation of 4.2% less acreage than under the Preferred Alternative. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 4.8-25.) It would establish Conservation Areas intended to protect Core Habitat for the Covered Species and natural communities included in the Plan, and Essential Ecological Processes necessary to sustain these Habitats and some Biological Corridors. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-54.) The Conservation Areas include most of the Public Lands Alternative lands as well as the acquisition of additional private lands for Core Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, and Biological Corridors. (Ibid.) 2. Finding This alternative fails to meet basic Project objectives 1 and 3. In addition, this alternative fails to fully realize basic Project objective 4. 3. Supporting Explanation Under this alternative, only 697,280 acres of Conservation Area would be conserved for Habitat, which is approximately 50,000 acres less than the Preferred Alternative. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-9 and 2-57.) An additional 47,000 acres of Complementary Conservation and Additional Conservation Lands would be conserved through the Preferred Alternative. (Ibid.) Due to this dearth of conservation lands, there is a greater likelihood that the Wildlife Agencies would not issue a Take Permit as compared to the Preferred Alternative if the Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative was adopted by the Permittees. In that instance, basic Project objective 1 would not be met. If basic Project objective 1 was not met, then basic Project objective 3 would not be met. If no Take Permit was issued (or issued for fewer species), then no streamlined regulatory process would exist to assist the processing of Development projects. This, in turn, would fail to improve the future economic Development in the Plan Area. This alternative would conserve far less permanent open space and community edges, and provide fewer recreational opportunities than the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, this alternative frustrates the purposes of basic Project objective 4. Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative fails to meet basic Project objectives 1 and 3, and fails to fully realize basic Projective objective 4, and therefore rejects it. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 53 D. Enhanced Conservation Alternative 1. Description This alternative would expand upon the MSHCP by adding Conservation Lands to the Plan as listed in the EIR/EIS. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-58 through 2-63.) 2. Finding The Enhanced Conservation Alternative would result in minimal additional biological value, significant land use conflicts, high acquisition and management costs, severe edge effects and the possibility of creating an unmanageable reserve configuration. (MSHCP, pp. 3-14.) This alternative fails to meet basic Project objectives 1 and 3, would not substantially reduce significant environmental impacts, would result in increased impacts, and would be infeasible. 3. Supporting Explanation Based on field visits with the SAC and representatives from various jurisdictions, it was determined that not all areas included in this alternative were biologically viable or Feasible to conserve. (MSHCP, p. 3-14.) Additionally, much of the area anticipated for Conservation under this alternative would cause significant land use conflicts and increased costs without significantly increasing Habitat value. (Ibid.) Significant conflicts with local, county, State or Federal land use plans, policies or controls would result, and the alternative would physically divide established communities. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.2-8 through 4.2-13.) Some of the proposed conservation acreage already contains approved Development, which would significantly increase the acquisition costs. (Mid.) Existing Development adjacent to these areas would also create Habitat fragmentation and severe edge effects. (Ibid.) This alternative would also result in significant adverse impacts to transportation, and could result in significant impacts to agriculture. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.3-10 through 4.3-15.) The additional Conservation measures proposed under this Alternative would include existing groundwater recharge basins operated by CVWD, which could require realigning the recharge basins at great cost. (MSHCP, p. 3-14.) It would also conflict with certain adopted local or regional flood control plans or projects. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 4.6-8 through 4.6-9.) This Alternative would increase the number of acres to be conserved by approximately 10,200 acres over the Preferred Alternative, even though the amount of Habitat included in the Preferred Alternative is sufficient to RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 54 adequately conserve all of the Covered Species. (MSHCP, p. 3-14.) Thus, the Enhanced Conservation Alternative would significantly increase the cost of the Project without significantly increasing the Habitat value of the Reserve. (Ibid.) This Alternative would also conflict with basic Project objectives 1 and 3. Because more land is conserved, less Take coverage would be issued by the Wildlife Agencies. This would decrease the future economic development, which would severely reduce the amount of fees collected. Because fewer fees would be collected, it would make infeasible the ability to develop a larger reserve. Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the Public Lands Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts, results in increased impacts as compared with the Preferred Alternative, fails to meet Project objective 3, and therefore rejects it. E. No Action/No Project Alternative 1. Description With the No Action/No Project Alternative, land use changes and policies that are being contemplated to implement the MSHCP would not occur, and no Permits would be issued. Individual project proponents would continue to obtain their own Take Authorizations or avoid Take. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) 2. Finding This Alternative fails to meet all four basic Project objectives, would not substantially reduce environmental impacts and would result in increased impacts. 3. Supporting Explanation Under this alternative, none of the objectives of the Project would be met. Under the No Project Alternative, the MSHCP would not be approved or implemented. (MSHCP, pp. 3-14 through 3-15; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) Therefore, there would be no process in place to provide Take Authorization for Covered Species and no Core Habitat to protect. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, pp. 2-63 through 2-64.) Taking no action in the Plan Area would also fail to improve the future economic development in the Plan Area as no efficient, streamlined regulatory process would be in place. In addition, no permanent open space, community edges or recreational opportunities would be provided. In addition, the Project's goal to improve the future economic development of the Plan Area would not be met as no streamlined RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 55 regulatory approach would be implemented. Instead, environmental impacts, especially impacts to biological resources, resulting from Development activities in the Plan Area would continue to be subject to a variety of local, state and federal regulatory processes. (Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) Private parties would also be required to mitigate biological impacts on a project -by -project basis resulting in inconsistent Conservation and management. In addition, no comprehensive, long-term process would exist for protecting Core Habitat for 27 proposed Covered Species and 27 natural communities that occur within the Plan Area. (MSHCP, p. 3-15; Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, p. 2-63.) Habitat would be conserved on an ad hoc basis — if at all — rather than in functional blocks. (Ibid.) There would also be no fee -based funding plan that would generate funds necessary to support Conservation. The No Action/No Project Alternative would also fail to substantially reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased impacts. Because there would not be a coordinated system of Linkages provided to connect Conservation Areas, impacts to natural communities and species that would have been covered under the MSHCP would be exacerbated under this alternative. (MSHCP, p. 3-15.) Edge effects would also be intensified due to the loss of Biological Corridors and Linkages, increased interaction with humans, and an increase in Development. Therefore, the CVAG Executive Committee finds that the No Action/No Project Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts, results in increased impacts as compared with the Preferred Alternative, fails to meet Project objectives, and therefore rejects it. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that it has reviewed and considered the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, and all other applicable documents in the record, in evaluating the Project, that the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS is an accurate and objective statement that complies with CEQA and reflects CVAG's independent judgment, and that the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS and all other volumes of the MSHCP are incorporated herein by this reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings/administrative record for the County's approval of the Project are located at 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California 92260, and the custodian of these records is the Executive Director of CVAG. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that it hereby CERTIFIES the Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, adopts the MSHCP, approves the IA, and authorizes the Chairman of the Executive Committee to execute the IA. RVPUB\FAVILA\738185.1 56 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVAG Executive Committee that staff shall file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within five (5) working days of final Project approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2007. AYES: ID NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: Richard Kite, Chair Coachella Valley Association of Governments Imuth, Executive Director Valley Association of Governments APPROVED AS TO FORM: Toni Eggebraaten, CVAG Counsel 57 EXHIBIT "D" CVCC ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 14-004 RESOLUTION OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY CONSERVATION COMMISSION ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND THE COACHELLA VALLEY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN / NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT (SCH # 200006179). WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission ("CVCC') has prepared, in cooperation and coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage, the County of Riverside, Riverside County Flood Control, Riverside County Parks, Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, the Imperial Irrigation District ("IID"), Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD"), Mission Springs Water District ("MSWD"), California Department of Transportation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, and other governmental agencies, property owners, Development interests, environmental interest groups and other members of the public, a comprehensive Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan for the Coachella Valley in Riverside County ("CVMSHCP" or "Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley CVMSHCP is a regional, comprehensive, multi - jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan focusing on Conservation of Federal and State -Listed Species, other rare and sensitive species, and their Habitats, while maintaining opportunities for recreation and a strong and sustainable environment for economic Development in the region; and WHEREAS, the CVMSHCP boundary ("CVMSHCP Plan Area") encompasses approximately 1,850 square miles, consisting of approximately 1.1 million acres, extending eastward from the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan boundary line in Cabazon where it is bounded by the range line common to Range 1 East and Range 2 East, bounded by the San Bernardino County line and the Little San Bernardino Mountains on the north and northeast; the ridgeline of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the west and southwest; the boundary line with San Diego and Imperial Counties to the south; and bounded by the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range and the range line common to Range 13 East and Range 14 East on the east; and containing the cities of: Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage; and WHEREAS, the CVMSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal Endangered Species regulations while accommodating future growth in the CVMSHCP Plan Area, including issuance of "Take" Permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and Section 2800, et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (otherwise known as the "Natural Community Conservation Planning Act" or "NCCP Act of 2002"); and WHEREAS, the CVMSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Activities for the Covered Species. The CVMSHCP is "self -mitigating," meaning that most Project impacts are reduced to below a level of significance as a result of implementation of CVMSHCP components. Additionally, implementation of the Management and Monitoring Programs outlined in the CVMSHCP further reduce all the potential impacts/consequences of the CVMSHCP; and WHEREAS, CVCC is the lead agency pursuant to Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), and the USFWS is the Federal lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") (40 C.F.R. 1508.16, 1508.17) (CVCC and USFWS will collectively be referred to hereinafter as "Lead Agencies"); and WHEREAS, a joint Final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Statement ("EIR/EIS") was previously prepared in February 2006 pursuant to CEQA and NEPA ("2006 Final CVMSHCP"), which provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential environmental impacts that could result from the adopted CVMSHCP, and provides the appropriate decision - makers with the required information upon which to base a decision to adopt the amendment to the CVMSHCP; and WHEREAS, thereafter the Plan was revised to remove Desert Hot Springs as a Permittee and to reflect other project description modifications and, as a result, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") prepared a Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Final EIS in September 2007, which it certified in June 2008 (the "September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS"); and WHEREAS, because the Lead Agencies now wish to add in the City of Desert Hot Springs ("City") and Mission Springs Water District as Permittees (the "Plan Amendment" or "Project"), the Lead Agencies have prepared a Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP and a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement (the "SEIR/SETS" or the "Supplemental EIR/EIS") pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and CEQ NEPA Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c); and WHEREAS, the proposed Project would include the issuance of Take Authorization associated with the Major Amendment for Covered Activities that are not currently included under the existing federal Section 10(a) Permit and state NCCP Permit ("Permits"). This Major Amendment will restore the boundaries from the 2006 Final CVMSHCP for the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area that would be amended to include all of the private lands within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs. The private lands to be included total approximately 770 acres that were removed from this Conservation Area when Desert Hot Springs chose not to participate in 2006. The city limits of Desert Hot Springs also include two parcels in the Whitewater Canyon Conservation Area that are both owned by BLM and are currently managed consistent with the Plan, therefore no additional disturbance associated with the Major Amendment will occur in this area; and WHEREAS, CVCC filed a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft Supplemental SEIR/SETS with the State Clearinghouse on March 30, 2011. The NOP was also distributed to each responsible and trustee agency (and any federal agency involved in approving or funding the project) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(a) and 15373, and was circulated for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(b) and 15103; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the Lead Agencies solicited comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the responsible agency would need to have analyzed in the Supplemental EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15372, the Supplemental EIR/EIS was completed and released for public review, and a Notice of Completion ("NOU) was filed at the State Clearinghouse on or about September 6, 2013, and a Notice of Availability ("NOK) was filed with the Riverside County Clerk on or about September 5, 2013 with a request for a 30-day posting. A copy of the NOA was published in the Desert Sun on or about September 6, 2013. The NOC and NOA provided a summary of the Major Amendment and a deadline for submittal of comments, and contact information for obtaining or reviewing the Plan and the Supplemental EIR/EIS; and WHEREAS, CVCC, the lead agency under CEQA, released the Supplemental EIR component of the Supplemental EIR/EIS for public review and comment on September 6, 2013 to October 21, 2013; and WHEREAS, the USFWS, the Federal lead agency, released the Supplemental EIS component of the Supplemental EIR/EIS for public review and comment on September 6, 2013, which review period ended October 21, 2013; and WHEREAS, in September 2013, CVCC sent a letter to each property owner of record ("Property Owner Letter") within the Conservation Areas of the Plan within the City of Desert Hot Springs notifying them that the Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP, Implementing Agreement ("IA"), and Supplemental EIR/EIS were available for review. As a result of the issuance of the Property Owner Letter, CVCC has responded to 5 telephone calls; and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Supplemental EIR/EIS, the Lead Agencies received seven written comments on the Supplemental EIR/EIS,; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, CVCC provided written responses to comments from all commenting agencies; and WHEREAS, the Lead Agencies prepared the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS and, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, CVCC provided copies of the Supplemental EIR to all commenting agencies; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing to be held on March 13, 2014, was published in the Desert Sun; and WHEREAS, notices to all landowners in the Conservation Areas notifying them of the March 13, 2014 public hearing and informing them that they may make a public comment of up to three minutes were mailed on February 28, 2014; and WHEREAS, CVCC, at a public meeting on March 13, 2014, reviewed the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, CVMSHCP/Natural Communities Conservation Plan ("NCCP"), IA, and other related documents in the record before it; and WHEREAS, CVCC finds that all environmental impacts identified in the EIR are less than significant and do not require mitigation as described in Section 2 hereof; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the SEIR/SETS and set forth herein, are described in Section 3 hereof; and WHEREAS, the potential significant and irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the SEIR/SEIS and set forth herein, are described in Section 4 hereof; and WHEREAS, the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the SEIR/SEIS and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 hereof; and WHEREAS, although no significant and unavoidable impacts were disclosed, alternatives to the proposed Project are set forth herein, as described in Section 6 hereof; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, CVCC has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the Supplemental EIR/EIS reflects the independent judgment of the CVCC and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Lead Agencies or any additional information submitted have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, CVCC has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by CVCC pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been met, and the Supplemental EIR/EIS, prepared in connection with the Project, is sufficiently detailed so that all potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the above -referenced Act and its Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at a special meeting assembled on March 13, 2014, the CVCC determined that, based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the SEIR/SEIS, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, the submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, and the whole of the administrative record, which is incorporated by reference herein, that all environmental impacts associated with the Project are less than significant and do not require mitigation; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. A0T1 DOES HEREBY RESOLVE SECTION 1: FINDINGS A. Certain plant and animal species and Habitat exist, or may exist, within the CVMSHCP Plan Area, which are: 1) state or federally listed as threatened or endangered; 2) proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; or 3) identified as a CDFW Species of Special Concern, a California Fully Protected Species, a California Specially Protected Species, a sensitive plant species as determined by the California Native Plant Society, or other unlisted wildlife considered to be sensitive. B. Future growth and land Development within the CVMSHCP Plan Area, including both public and private projects, may result in impacts to 27 species ("Covered Species") identified in the Plan and its associated documents, eleven of which are listed under the ESA or the California Endangered Species Act ("CESA" ). Thus, Take Authorization is required prior to the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities that may "Take" one or more of these Covered Species. C. The CVMSHCP establishes the conditions under which entities defined under the Plan and its associated documents as "Permittees" will receive certain long-term Take Authorizations and other assurances that will allow the taking of Covered Species incidental to lawful uses authorized by the Permittees; and D. The CVMSHCP provides for the assembly and management of a reserve for the Conservation of natural Habitat and its constituent wildlife populations, and establishes an overall Conservation Strategy for the CVMSHCP Plan Area that will guarantee the protection of the Covered Species. The Conservation Strategy includes the Conservation of the Covered Species, existing Habitat, the restoration of degraded Habitat, managing a Reserve System, and conducting biological monitoring in perpetuity. E. The CVMSHCP provides for the creation of a Reserve System that will conserve and manage approximately 723,680 acres of Habitat for the 27 Covered Species which includes approximately 557,100 acres of Existing Reserves (as of 2006) and 166,580 acres of Complementary Conservation and Additional Conservation Lands. (CVMSHCP, Table 4-1.) F. The CVMSHCP serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as well as an NCCP pursuant to the NCCP Act of 2002, as amended. The approval of the CVMSHCP and execution of the IA allows the CDFW and USFWS (collectively, the "Wildlife Agencies") to issue Take Authorizations for Covered Species in the CVMSHCP Plan Area to the signatories of the IA. G. The CVMSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Activities for the Covered Species. The CVMSHCP is "self -mitigating," meaning that most Project impacts are reduced to below a level of significance as a result of implementation of CVMSHCP components. Additionally, implementation of the Management and Monitoring Programs outlined in the CVMSHCP will further reduce all the potential impacts/consequences of the CVMSHCP. MITIGATION BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVCC that the Supplemental EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it confirms that implementation of the CVMSHCP will result in no significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. A. Biological Resources Finding: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means; would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-3-19. ) Supporting Explanation: When Desert Hot Springs opted not to participate in the CVMSHCP in 2006, it was anticipated that development would still occur inside and outside the Conservation Areas. Therefore, the amount of disturbance, or Take, authorized in the 2008 Permit included the acres subject to disturbance within the city of Desert Hot Springs. The City of Desert Hot Springs covered projects in the Conservation Areas are road improvements that are already covered as CVAG's covered projects. Although this Take was authorized by the state and federal permits, as a non-Permittee, the City does not have the authority to allocate this Take. The Major Amendment will include Take authorization for Desert Hot Springs in the CVMSHCP Permits, allowing the disturbance to occur consistent with the Plan Conservation Goals and Objectives. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-3.) The additional disturbance to Covered Species and natural communities associated with MSWD Covered Activities will be mitigated through the Plan by permanent protection of habitat within Conservation Areas and contributions to the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Program. MSWD projects will be subject to the Joint Project Review process to minimize the potential impacts and ensure consistency with Conservation Goals and Objectives. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1- 4.) The Major Amendment benefits would include the expansion of conserved, unfragmented Habitat and natural communities, continued maintenance of Essential Ecological Processes to sustain the Covered Species and their Habitat, and further protection of Biological Corridors and Linkages. Most of the disturbance associated with the city of Desert Hot Springs is already covered under the existing Permit. As shown in Table 4.1-1 of the Supplemental EIR/EIS, the potential additional disturbance authorized by the Major Amendment is limited (less than three acres) for a majority of the Covered Species and would not exceed approximately 29 acres of Habitat (e.g., desert tortoise). The disturbance allowed under the Preferred Alternative would be less than significant because additional loss of Habitat within Conservation Areas would be offset by approximately 770 acres of additional conservation within the Conservation Area, including desert tortoise Habitat. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-4.) The establishment and management of Conservation Areas, including additional conserved lands within the City, would help further reduce Habitat fragmentation, promote maintenance of Essential Ecological Processes including sand transport that supports sensitive Habitat, and enhance connectivity along corridors and linkages by limiting development in this area. Consequently, implementation of the proposed Major Amendment will not result in significant impacts to any sensitive species. Figure 4-1 of the Supplemental EIR/EIS shows Natural Communities in the Conservation Area with the proposed additions. As shown, the additional areas to be conserved consist of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and Sonoran mixed woody and succulent scrub. Figure 4-2 of the Supplemental EIR/EIS shows Covered Species in the Conservation Area with the proposed additions. As shown, two Covered Species occur in the additional areas to be conserved, the Palm Springs pocket mouse and desert tortoise. The limited impact identified in Tables 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 of the Supplemental EIR/EIS will be offset by additional conservation of 770 acres; with a maximum of 10% development allowed in Conservation Areas, 693 of these acres will be permanently conserved. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-4-10.) The existing CVMSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Activities as long as such activities comply with required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures as specified in Section 4.4 of the Plan and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines as specified in Section 4.5 of the Plan, and Obligations of Permittees as described in Section 6.6 of the Plan. Details of the general requirements for all Local Permittees are described in Section 2.1 of the SEIR/SEIS. Specific obligations that MSWD has committed to are discussed on Pages 4.1-13 through 4.1-17 of the SEIR/SEIS. The required measures are designed and implemented as part of the Plan to assure future development within and adjacent to established Conservation Areas would result in less than significant impacts to Covered Species, Habitats, natural communities, and Essential Ecological Processes. The development and operation of any Covered Activities proposed by the City and MSWD within the Major Amendment areas will be required to comply with the applicable measures in the Plan designed to mitigate potential effects on the Covered Species. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-12.) Covered Activities for MSWD would not include groundwater extraction and therefore, no direct impacts to sensitive species or associated Habitats related to such activity would occur as a result of the Major Amendment. However, because MSWD will be added as a Permittee and in light of comments received during the NOP review period (Letter from Worden-Williams, Appendix A), MSWD has committed to a number of obligations in addition to the current Monitoring Program outlined in Section 8.4.1 of the Plan as it pertains to the relationship between groundwater extraction and the continued viability of mesquite hummocks as a conserved natural community. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-13.) As discussed in Section 8.4.1 of the Plan, the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program will include the use of appropriate methods and technologies (which may change over time) to monitor groundwater levels in the Willow Hole, East Indio Hills, and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas where a substantial lowering of the water table could have a significant adverse impact on mesquite hummocks and associated Covered Species. Should monitoring detect a substantial lowering of the water table or a decline in mesquite health, the following actions will be taken: 1) evaluate the results of the monitoring, 2) prepare a damage assessment report, 3) develop effective measures to ameliorate the effects of substantial lowering of the water table on mesquite hummocks and associated Covered Species, and 4) implement effective measures through Adaptive Management. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-14.) In addition to the required Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, MSWD has also agreed to implement measures that will be added to Section 6.6.1 of the Plan should this Major Amendment be adopted. They include conservation measures for the approximately 61 acres they own in the Conservation Areas and other measures for activities outside Conservation Areas. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-14-16.) All of these measures will ensure the ongoing health of mesquite hummocks in the affected Conservation Areas of the Mission Creek Subbasin. Riparian Habitat The addition of approximately 770 acres to the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area would result in an overall beneficial effect to natural communities within the Plan area. There are no riparian communities currently located within either the existing or the additional lands in the Conservation Areas to be addressed under the Major Amendment; therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the Major Amendment. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-17.) Federally Protected Wetlands There are no wetlands, defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or other sensitive natural communities such as wetlands, marshes, or vernal pools within the existing or the additional areas to be addressed under the Major Amendment. Therefore, no impacts to federally protected wetlands would occur. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-17.) Wildlife Movement The additional areas to be included within the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area would result in a beneficial effect to the movement of wildlife species by expanding the limits of the established Conservation Area. The establishment of Conservation Areas within the City would reduce the potential for urban development in the affected area, and would preserve it as open -space and natural desert areas, allowing the continued use by wildlife species. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement would occur as a result of implementing the Major Amendment. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-17.) Local Policies There are currently no local policies protecting biological resources within the areas to be included in the Conservation Area. However, due to two recent annexations of approximately 4,000 acres of County lands into the City (together known as the Desert Hot Springs 1-10 Annexation) all provisions of the approved CVMSHCP were adopted by the City for that area. The Major Amendment would provide for adoption of CVMSHCP policies throughout the remaining parts of the City not currently covered by the Plan, resulting in a more cohesive biological planning policy throughout the City. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-18.) Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan The proposed Major Amendment will result in the City of Desert Hot Springs being included as a Permittee to the CVMSHCP that will allow for expansion and continuity of the established Conservation Areas. Conservation Areas within the MSWD service area outside Desert Hot Springs City limits will remain unchanged. As indicated in the preceding discussions, adding the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan, and establishing Conservation Areas within the City, would result in an overall beneficial effect to the Covered Species and natural communities currently protected by the Plan. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-18.) Climate Change The changing climate has the potential to affect wildlife throughout North America, either directly or indirectly through responses to changing habitat conditions (Hinkley et al. 2004). (Final SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-18.) Because specific effects of climate change on CVMSHCP Covered Species and Natural Communities are speculative and could change over time, both the State of California (California Natural Resources Agency 2009) and the USFWS (2012) emphasize flexible, adaptive strategies for coping with climate change. Hulme (2005) states that adaptation strategies should focus on increasing the flexibility of managing vulnerable ecosystems and increasing the adaptability of vulnerable ecosystems and species. Management also needs to address interacting species and ecosystems. Additionally, large reserves, especially those spanning broad elevational gradients, are critical to encompassing a broad range of present and future climates (Ackerly 2012). Halpin (1997) recommended the following management prescriptions to address climate changes (Final SEIR/SEIS at 4.1- 19. ): 1. Selection of redundant reserves and selection of reserves that protect habitat diversity; 2. Management for buffer zone flexibility; 3. Management for landscape connectivity; 4. Management for habitat maintenance; The CVMSHCP incorporates all four elements identified by Halpin (1997) to address climate change; builds a large, interconnected reserve system that spans temperature and elevational gradients; incorporates adaptation strategies to increasing the flexibility of Reserve managers; provides adaptive monitoring to address interacting species and ecosystems. (Final SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-19.) The external boundaries of the Plan Area encompass approximately 1.1 million acres and the Plan preserves the majority of land from the toe of slope to the ridgeline of mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley and, as such, includes a redundant reserve system that protects habitat diversity in the Coachella Valley. Additionally, the Plan includes adjacency guidelines to manage for buffer zone effects; conservation goals to maintain biological corridors and linkages; and an adaptive management and monitoring strategy to ensure Covered Species and Natural Communities persist in the Plan Area. (Final SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-19.) The CVMSHCP provides for the long-term conservation of ecological diversity by creating a 210,000 acre integrated Reserve system that maintains physical linkages over a range of existing temperature -moisture regimes and elevations. This climate envelope approach includes the current range of climatic and environmental conditions occupied by each Covered Species and Natural Community. By including geographically distinct sites, the multiple sites criterion will include the range of conditions a given species inhabits today. As the climate changes in the future, there is a possibility that the habitat at one or more sites will become unsuitable for a target species. But preserving multiple sites will increase the likelihood that some refuge for each of the Covered Species will be maintained if climatic conditions change over time, which may provide Covered Species and Natural Community resiliency to even the most extreme predicted effects of climate change (Barrows et. al. 2010). (Final SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-19-20.) The Plan uses adaptive management and monitoring to ensure Covered Species and Natural Community persistence and support a landscape -scale, ecosystem - based management strategy. The Plan incorporates flexibility into management of vulnerable ecosystems by coordinating the necessary management to achieve the conservation goals and objectives through Resource Management Unit Plans ("RMUP"). The premise of the RMUP is that maximizing cooperation and coordination will result in enhanced, flexible management of all Reserve lands and facilitate management actions. Additionally, RMUP's include components for monitoring and managing natural communities; ecological processes; and biological corridors and linkages to address interacting species and ecosystems. The Major Amendment would enhance the Plan's ability to ensure Covered Species and Natural Communities persist in the face of accelerated climate change because it will expand an existing conservation area and improve the coordination of management and monitoring by adding Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as permittees with responsibilities and obligations to ensure the Plan's conservation goals are achieved. (Final SEIR/SEIS at 4.1- 20.) Conclusion: Therefore, the proposed Major Amendment would not result in a significant impact to biological resources within the Plan Area. The addition of the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan provides a more comprehensive and cohesive Plan that would provide benefits for the Covered Species and natural communities protected in the Plan Area. The Plan also incorporates required Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures; Land Use Adjacency guidelines; and a comprehensive Monitoring and Management Program designed to mitigate potential adverse effects to the greatest extent practicable. Because the Plan has been designed to adequately conserve the Covered Species and natural communities, and has already incorporated all feasible measures to mitigate Plan impacts as part of the design of the Plan, no additional mitigation measures are either necessary or feasible. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-18.) B. Land Use and Planning Finding: The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community; would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-3-6.) Supporting Explanation: The proposed Major Amendment would not result in the physical separation of a community. The proposed Plan Amendment does conflict with some of the land uses established in the existing City General Plan. However, when the City opted out of becoming a Permittee of the Plan, an agreement was made with CVAG to establish most of the previously proposed Conservation Area adjacent to the Morongo Wash floodplain area as a Special Provisions Area, which allows for the purchase and preservation of that area. The General Plan is currently being updated and when complete will have land use designations that are compatible with the proposed Conservation Areas within the City limits and Sphere of Influence. The proposed Major Amendment will result in the City being included as a Permittee to the CVMSHCP that will allow for continuity of the previously established Conservation Areas. Conservation Areas within MSWD boundaries outside City limits will remain unchanged. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-4.) The Major Amendment will not conflict with any plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed Major Amendment would serve to strengthen the existing CVMSHCP by including the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan and thereby broadening the potential to achieve the land use control and conservation objectives of the Plan to protect Covered Species. The proposed Major Amendment will also establish the area within the City currently designated as the Morongo Wash Special Provisions Area as part of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area, and will facilitate the future development of County Flood Control's planned Morongo Wash Flood Control facility. These actions would serve to broaden and reinforce the Plan's goals and objectives aimed at protecting sensitive resources and facilitating logical development in a sustainable manner, and therefore, would not conflict with the adopted CVMSHCP. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-4-5.) Conclusion: Based on the preceding analysis, it has been determined that no significant adverse impacts related to land use have been identified in association with the implementation of the proposed Major Amendment. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-6.) C. Socioeconomic and Fiscal Finding: The proposed Project would not cause a significant adverse socioeconomic effect on communities located within the amended planning area; would not create a substantial adverse fiscal effect on the City or local governments as a consequence of the loss of public revenues or in association with the provision of governmental infrastructure (staff and facilities) associated with implementation of the Major Amendment; would not create a substantial adverse economic effect on an important sector of the planning area's economy; would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure); would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-8-26. ) Supporting Explanation: The 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan considered the lands in Conservation Areas in each city and on unincorporated County lands, and calculated potential costs and revenues associated with build - out of those lands according to each jurisdiction's General Plan, in current dollars. Although not a Permittee of the Plan, Desert Hot Springs was included in the analysis because the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area encompasses the portions of the Mission Creek flood control channel and Morongo Wash within the City of Desert Hot Springs. The area was designated as a Special Provisions Area to address a potential Morongo Wash flood control facility and its associated mitigation, as well as conservation for a wildlife habitat corridor. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-8.) The overall purpose of the SEIR/SEIS is to evaluate amending the Plan to include both Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees. However, the supporting Fiscal Impact Assessment (Appendix to SEIR/SEIS) focuses on public costs and revenues that would result if vacant lands identified for conservation by the CVMSHCP were instead allowed to develop in Desert Hot Springs consistent with the current General Plan land use designation. MSWD does not have decision -making authority over land use designations and no Conservation Area boundaries will change within the MSWD service area outside of Desert Hot Springs; therefore, the fiscal impact of adding MSWD as a Permittee is considered less than significant. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-8.) Table 4.3-15 of the SEIR/SEIS summarizes all general fund and restricted fund revenues, that would be lost if vacant lands in Desert Hot Springs with development potential were placed in conservation under the proposed Major Amendment. This table also shows potential annual investment income that would be lost as a result of conservation of these lands. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-20- 21.) If lands being proposed for conservation are allowed to develop in the future, they will generate additional municipal costs. Expenditures will be required for general government services and the expansion and/or extension of infrastructure, roads, and other public services. The supporting fiscal model estimates the costs of providing general government services, public safety, and transportation/roadway maintenance to new development on lands identified for conservation under the proposed Major Amendment. The City will not incur these costs if these lands remain undeveloped and are placed in conservation. Table 4.3-19 of the SEIR/SEIS depicts the total annual costs to the City should the lands proposed for conservation under the Plan be developed. (SEIR/SEIS 4.3- 23-24. ) Based on Table 4.3-20 of the SEIR/SEIS, currently vacant lands with potential for urban development in Desert Hot Springs would, if developed, result in a negative cash flow for the City over the long term. This is attributable to the fact that residential development does not generate sufficient municipal revenues to cover associated costs, particularly in areas such as Desert Hot Springs, where housing is affordable. Therefore, conservation of these potentially developable lands under the proposed Major Amendment will benefit Desert Hot Springs over the long term. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-24-26.) Population Growth The proposed Major Amendment would not directly induce population growth in the Plan Area as it would simply result in establishing Conservation Areas within the City and granting Permittee status to the City and MSWD. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3- 26. ) Housing Displacement The proposed Major Amendment would establish Conservation Areas within City limits and would not displace any existing housing or persons that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The inclusion of MSWD as a Permittee of the Plan would not result in displacement of any existing housing. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-26.) Displacement of People The project would not displace any existing housing or persons and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-26. ) Conclusion: The Major Amendment would not result in any significant adverse socioeconomic or fiscal impacts. D. Transportation Finding: The Proposed Project would not Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); would not result in inadequate emergency access; and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Supporting Explanation: As shown in Table 2-1, Section 2.4 of the SEIR/SEIS, the City has included a number of roadway projects as Covered Activities under the proposed Major Amendment. Although the affected roadway segments will become Covered Activities under the Major Amendment, they also represent planned improvements per the City's existing General Plan Circulation Element and have been programmatically reviewed under the General Plan EIR. The City has selected key roadway segments from their Circulation Element as Covered Projects under the Major Amendment to ensure efficient levels of service on existing and planned roadways as the City continues to build out in accordance with its General Plan. This is consistent with the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, which specifies that approval of the Plan would result in a significant impact to circulation and transportation systems only if it precluded the ability of the various roadway agencies to make necessary improvements or develop planned key arterials and roadway segments. The currently approved CVMSHCP already includes a number of regional roads within the City as Covered Activities and the impacts of these projects have been evaluated and addressed in the 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS. These roadways would thus be constructed regardless of whether the City becomes a Plan Permittee. The approved Plan incorporates design and impact avoidance/minimization and mitigation measures that address development, improvement, and operation and maintenance of Covered Activities, including roadways. Implementation of these required measures will be made a condition of project approval for all Covered Activities within the City. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.4-4.) Congestion Management The agencies with jurisdiction over transportation in the Major Amendment Area (i.e., City of Desert Hot Springs, CVAG, Riverside County) all have adopted performance criteria for roadway planning and operating procedures. However, only the City of Desert Hot Springs is proposing to add transportation projects to the list of Covered Activities as part of the proposed Major Amendment. The City of Desert Hot Springs utilizes "Level of Service" (LOS) criteria to assess performance of roadway links and intersections. LOS includes a range of alphabetical connotations "A" through "F", used to characterize roadway operating conditions. LOS A represents the best/free flow conditions and LOS F indicates the worst/system failure. LOS D is considered the generally acceptable service level at intersections and roadways throughout the City, similar to other jurisdictions in the Plan Area, although anything better is desirable. For purposes of this analysis, a significant impact to transportation caused by the Major Amendment would be one that caused a roadway link or intersection to operate below LOS D. Such a deficiency must be "caused" by implementation of the Major Amendment for it to be considered an impact. Deficiencies that exist without implementation of the Major Amendment are not a result of the "Project" and therefore, would not be considered a significant impact. Significant impacts are also considered based upon substantial conflicts with other transportation systems, including railroads and airports, or the creation of inadequate emergency access as a result of the Major Amendment. Adding the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan and establishing Conservation Areas within the City will not conflict with the County's Congestion Management Program, as it will not result in the generation of any new vehicle trips. Per the approved September 2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS, a LOS deficiency must be caused by implementation of the Plan for it to be considered an impact. Therefore, existing deficiencies in LOS or traffic control systems are not considered a significant impact if they would remain regardless of whether the Major Amendment is approved. The establishment of Conservation Areas within the City and implementation of the stated Conservation Goals and Objectives of the Plan would not conflict with a congestion management program, existing LOS standards, or other standards established by the County for designated roads or highways. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.4- 4-5. ) Air Traffic As noted above, there are no public or private airports within the Major Amendment Area. Therefore, the proposed Major Amendment would not impede existing air traffic navigational patterns or cause a change in the location of existing airport facilities in the region. No significant impacts related to air traffic would occur as a result of project implementation. (SEIR/SEIS 4.4-5.) Hazards The proposed Major Amendment would not result in new roadways or other physical improvements that could increase roadway hazards. The City proposed Covered Activities (roadway improvements) would result in improvements to existing roadways and would employ standard construction safety measures per City requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts related to roadway hazards would occur as a result of project implementation. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.4-5.) Emergency Access The CVMSHCP allows Take Authorization for emergency access and emergency response within the Plan Area. The Major Amendment will not result in any revisions to this policy and therefore, no impacts related to emergency access would occur. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.4-6.) Public Transit Implementation of the proposed Major Amendment would not conflict with adopted policies or involve elimination of facilities supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. Access to bus stops will be maintained to the extent feasible during construction of proposed roadway improvements that are to be included by the City as Covered Activities. Therefore, no significant impacts related to public transit or alternative transportation would occur as a result of implementing the proposed Major Amendment. Conclusion: No significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from the proposed Major Amendment and no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.4-6.) SECTION 3: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVCC that the Supplemental EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it, that the cumulative analysis in the 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS remains sufficient and the Project would not have any significant adverse cumulative impacts: The adopted September 2007 EIR/EIS performed an assessment of the long- term land use impacts the implementation of the CVMSHCP would have within the Plan Area. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 b(1) allows the use of a summary of land use projections set forth in adopted General Plans (and associated EIRs) and the buildout of these plans. Rates of growth were assumed based upon recent trends in land conversion. (SEIR/SEIS at 6-2-3.) The intent in determining the significance of those cumulative impacts evaluated in the approved EIR/EIS was an assessment of the aggregated effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions, regardless of who undertakes them. (SEIR/SEIS at 6-3.) A cumulative impacts analysis is largely qualitative in nature but builds upon an extensive quantitative analysis of land use patterns and designations, regulatory and environmental constraints and opportunities affecting development, and socio-economic trends. The potential cumulative impacts of the overall Plan have been evaluated to determine the degree to which they degrade a resource to unacceptable levels and the incremental contribution made by the CVMSHCP to the overall cumulative effect. The cumulative impacts analysis described in the 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS provides sufficient analysis of the Plan as a whole and approval of the Major Amendment would not change the scope of that cumulative analysis. Since the state and federal permits were received in October 2008, an economic recession has resulted in very limited development within the proposed Major Amendment area. Projects that were considered reasonably foreseeable future projects in 2007 were impacted by the economic downturn and are no longer viable. Many of the parcels of land proposed for these projects within Conservation Areas have been purchased by CVCC and other partners. Therefore, no further cumulative impact analysis is considered in the SEIR/SETS. (SEIR/SETS at 6-3.) SECTION 4: SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVCC, based on the Supplemental EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it, that CVCC makes the following findings concerning significant and irreversible environmental changes: Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the evaluation of the uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a project when a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non -removal or non-use thereafter unlikely. NEPA regulations also require an EIS analysis to include a discussion of the potential irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmental resources as a consequence of the approval and implementation of the Proposed Project (40 CFR 1502.16). The Proposed Project is a Major Amendment to the approved September 2007 CVMSHCP to add the City of Desert Hot Springs and the Mission Springs Water District as Permittees. The current Plan would be amended to include all of the private lands within the City limits of Desert Hot Springs and restore the original boundaries of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon Conservation Areas within City limits. Covered Activities that include certain activities carried out or conducted by Permittees are also included in the Major Amendment as described in Section 2.0 of the SEIR/SETS. (SEIR/SEIS at 5-2. ) The proposed Major Amendment would not in itself increase or decrease the amount of development that is anticipated to occur, and thus does not directly result in development that would involve the irretrievable and irreversible use of land, water, and building materials. Development impacts would occur regardless of whether the CVMSHCP is amended to include Desert Hot Springs and MSWD. As Permittees of the Plan, both agencies will be required to conform to the Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines outlined in Sections 4.4 and 4.5 of the Plan, in order to implement their Covered Activities. This would potentially result in fewer environmental impacts in the Conservation Areas within City and MSWD boundaries and is expected to result in more efficient land use patterns outside of Conservation Areas. Establishment of the original boundaries of Conservation Areas within City limits will further preserve sensitive species, their habitat, and other natural resources within the City boundaries. Development outside of Conservation Areas would occur as anticipated in the proposed City of Desert Hot Springs General Plan Update that is being prepared concurrently with the SEIR/SEIS. Development within those areas of the MSWD boundaries outside of the City limits will occur as specified in either the Palm Springs or County of Riverside General Plans. (SEIR/SETS at 5-2-3.) RUN I Lei 111141tel :•YA I no a IN-1111611Z RNT&_ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVCC, based on the Supplemental EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it, that CVCC makes the following findings concerning growth -inducing impacts: Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of how the potential growth -inducing impacts of the Proposed Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Induced growth is distinguished from the direct employment, population, or housing growth of a project. If a project has characteristics that "may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively," then these aspects of the project must be discussed as well. Induced growth is any growth that exceeds planned growth and results from new development that would not have taken place in the absence of the Proposed Project. For example, a project could induce growth by lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating or allowing a use such as an industrial facility that attracts new population or economic activity. CEQA Guidelines also indicate that the topic of growth should not be assumed to be either beneficial or detrimental (Section 15126.2[d]). (SEIR/SEIS at 5-3.) The proposed Major Amendment to include the City of Desert Hot Spring and MSWD as Permittees would not directly induce population growth in the CVMSHCP Area and would not displace any existing housing or persons that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Major Amendment would result in establishing Conservation Areas within the City and granting Permittee status to the City and MSWD. The City will be responsible for exercising land use authority to implement the CVMSHCP. Consequently, approval of the proposed Major Amendment would not result in significant growth -inducing impacts. (SEIR/SEIS at 5-3.) SECTION 6: RESOLUTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVES BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by CVCC that the Supplemental EIR/EIS and the evidence in the administrative record before it confirms that the alternatives discussed in the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS provide sufficient analysis and no further alternatives other than an updated No Action/No Project Alternative are considered in the SEIR for the Plan Amendment. The evaluation of environmental impacts in the SEIR/SEIS concluded that the Plan Amendment would not result in any temporary or permanent significant and unavoidable effects for any of the environmental issue areas identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Where significant impacts are identified, section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to consider and discuss alternatives to the proposed actions. Subsection (a) states: (a) An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision -making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. Subsection 15126.6(b) states the purpose of the alternatives analysis: (b) Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. In subsection 15126.6(c), the State CEQA Guidelines describe the selection process for a range of reasonable alternatives: (c) The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The range of alternatives required is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed Project. Alternatives are limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project. However, when a project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead agency has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives to lessen or avoid environmental impacts, even if the alternative would reduce the impact to a greater degree than the proposed Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2), CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project Alternative, be identified in an EIR, after comparing the potentially significant impacts of each alternative as compared to the Proposed Project. Proiect Obiectives The specific objective of the Major Amendment is to add the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan. In so doing, all of the private lands within the city limits of the City of Desert Hot Springs will be included, thus restoring the 2006 boundaries of the Upper Mission Creek/Big Morongo Canyon Conservation Area within city limits. In addition, as Permittees of the Plan, Desert Hot Springs and MSWD will contribute to the overall goals and objectives of the CVMSHCP along with the other Permittees within the Plan Area. Desert Hot Springs and MSWD will be included in the state and federal Incidental Take permits issued for species covered by the CVMSHCP in lieu of the current case -by -case development review process, as it relates to biological resources. At the same time, the proposed Major Amendment will bring lands within the city limits of Desert Hot Springs into the CVMSHCP's comprehensive biological resource conservation strategy that provides adequate assurance of habitat conservation and long-term viability and protection of Covered Species. (SEIR/SEIS at 1-8.) Alternatives Selected for Analvsis The alternatives selected for review include: • No Action/No Project Alternative • Public Lands Alternative • Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative • Enhanced Conservation Alternative As discussed in detail in Section 7.0 of the SEIR/SEIS, the SEIR/SEIS supplements the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS that discussed a wide range of alternatives to the CVMSHCP without the City of Desert Hot Springs as a Permittee. The Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA and the environmentally preferred alternative under NEPA because it is the only alternative that would meet the primary objectives of the Plan Amendment, which is adding both Desert Hot Springs and Mission Springs Water District as Permittees of the Plan. Amending the CVMSHCP and permit as proposed would be the environmentally preferable alternative because adding these two new Permittees would provide a more comprehensive and cohesive Plan that would benefit the Covered Species and natural communities protected within the Plan Area. Furthermore, no significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative have been identified in this SEIR/SEIS. (SEIR/SEIS at 2-10-11.) The alternatives discussed in the approved September 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS provide sufficient analysis and no further alternatives other than an updated No Action/No Project Alternative are considered in the SEIR/SEIS for the Plan Amendment. However, each of the environmental topics discussed in Section 4.0 of the SEIR/SEIS, and set forth below this Resolution below, provide an analysis of whether the proposed Major Amendment would change any conclusions contained in each of the alternatives. (SEIR/SEIS at 2-11, 7-2.) Evaluation of Alternatives No Action/No Project Alternative Description: Under the approved EIR/EIS, it was determined the No Action/No Project Alternative may result in significant adverse impacts to biological resources for CEQA analysis purposes due to the lack of protection for both Covered and non -Covered Species. Since there is now an approved Plan in place, the No Action/No Project Alternative for the proposed Major Amendment would mean that neither the City nor MSWD would become Permittees of the Plan. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-3.) Impacts: Biological Resources The No Project Alternative under this scenario would mean that some areas of the City and the MSWD boundaries would not receive full protection for Covered and non -Covered Species as provided by the Plan. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to biological resources could occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. Since no feasible mitigation measures have been identified should the preferred project not be approved, the impact of this Alternative remains significant. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-19.) Land Use and Planning Under the approved EIR/EIS, it was determined the No Action/No Project Alternative may have a significant long-term adverse impact on land use due to piecemeal habitat conservation that may lead to the fragmentation of human communities and stifle efficient economic development and activities. Since there is now an approved Plan in place, the No Project Alternative for the proposed Major Amendment would mean that both the City and MSWD would not become Permittees of the Plan. Without the Major Amendment, both agencies would have to comply with state and federal regulations for the Covered Species on a case by case basis. Furthermore, this alternative would not have the beneficial effect of strengthening the existing CVMSHCP by broadening the potential to achieve land use control and conservation objectives to protect Covered Species. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-6.) Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts Under the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, it was determined the No Action/No Project Alternative would result in all lands proposed for inclusion in Conservation Areas under the Preferred Alternative potentially being available for development. Since there is now an approved Plan in place, the No Action/No Project Alternative for the proposed Major Amendment would mean that both the City of Desert Hot Springs and MSWD would not become Permittees of the Plan. It was concluded that vacant lands with potential for urban development in Desert Hot Springs would, if developed, result in a negative cash flow for the City over the long term and conservation of some lands as recommended under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative will benefit Desert Hot Springs over the long term. Therefore, the beneficial fiscal impact for the City would not be realized under the No Action/No Project Alternative. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-27.) Transportation As indicated in the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse direct impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative; however, for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes, significant adverse indirect impacts could result due to rejecting the proposed Major Amendment. Since there is an approved Plan in place, the proposed Major Amendment would further the goals and objectives of the Plan, by increasing conservation within the Plan boundaries and facilitating planned roadway improvements for local and regional roadways within the City's jurisdiction. (SEIR/SETS at 4.4-7.) Objectives and Feasibility: Similar to the conclusion in the approved EIR/EIS, the No Action/No Project Alternative under this scenario would mean that some areas of the City and the MSWD boundaries would not receive full protection for Covered and non- Covered Species as provided by the Plan. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to biological resources could occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. The No Action/No Project Alternative would result in Desert Hot Springs and MSWD not being added as Permittees of the Plan and no Take Authorization would be issued for their proposed Covered Activities. The City and MSWD would not be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the CVMSHCP, including acquisition, monitoring and management within their jurisdictions. The City and MSWD would be responsible for obtaining their own permits through the USFWS and CDFW for any project approvals that may affect sensitive species or core habitat areas. This Alternative would not serve to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth in the planning area. (SEIR/SETS at 7-3.) Finding: The CVCC rejects this alternative on the basis that it would fail to achieve the Project's objectives, and finds that this ground provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative. Therefore, it is eliminated from further consideration. Public Lands Alternative Description: Under the Public Lands Alternative, substantial areas would be protected in the mountainous portions of the Plan Area. Because this Alternative entails no land acquisition, only Core Habitat, Essential Ecological Processes, and Biological Corridors and Linkages that happen to be on existing public conservation lands or private conservation lands would be protected. As a result, sand transport, watershed, and other ecological processes would not be protected, Biological Corridors and Linkages would not be conserved, and Core Habitat areas would likely be fragmented in many instances. As indicated in the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would not include a broad acquisition plan as part of the Plan requirements. Management of the existing reserves would be increased, so that Covered Species within these reserves would receive greater protection. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-2.) Impacts: Biological Resources Conservation lands would decrease under this alternative and would thus result in a greater impact to Covered Species and natural communities. However, no feasible mitigation measures were identified in the approved EIR/EIS. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-18.) Land Use and Planning As indicated in the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, the Public Lands Alternative would not include a broad acquisition plan as part of the Plan requirements. Management of the existing reserves would be increased, so that Covered Species within these reserves would receive greater protection. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. As with the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, there would be no direct impact on applicable plans because this Alternative does not propose additional conservation of lands. For the same reason, this Alternative would not result in the physical division of an established community. State and federal lands would be managed in a manner consistent with their respective management plans, and thus this Alternative would not conflict with such plans. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-5.) Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts This Alternative includes all lands managed for conservation under local, state, and federal agency ownership, and Private Conservation Lands, and could require additional management prescriptions to be implemented on certain BLM and other public lands. No new areas would be acquired for CVMSHCP purposes. Because this Alternative does not propose additional conservation of lands, no socioeconomic effects would result including displacement of housing or people. State and federal lands would be managed in a manner consistent with their respective management plans, and thus this Alternative would not conflict with such plans. (SEIR/SETS at 4.3-26.) Transportation As indicated in the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. (SEIR/SETS at 4.4-6.) Objectives and Feasibility: Although findings rejecting alternatives in favor of the Project are not required because the Project as proposed would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21002), for the reasons set forth herein, and as discussed further in the SEIR/SEIS, CVCC hereby rejects the Public Lands Alternative because it would result in potentially significant environmental impacts. Overall conservation lands would decrease under this Alternative and would thus result in a greater impact to Covered Species and natural communities. In addition, it was found to have potentially significant impacts to groundwater recharge. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. Adoption of the Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-2.) Finding: The CVCC rejects this alternative on the basis that it would cause potentially significant effects that would not occur with the Proposed Project, and finds that this ground provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative. Therefore, it is eliminated from further consideration. Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative Description: Under the Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative, it would establish Conservation Areas intended to protect Core Habitat for the Covered Species and natural communities included in the Plan, Essential Ecological Processes necessary to sustain these habitats, and some Biological Corridors. The Conservation Areas include most of the Public Lands Alternative lands as well as the acquisition of additional private lands particularly in the mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley as necessary to: avoid habitat fragmentation of Core Habitat, protect Essential Ecological Processes, and maintain Biological Corridors. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-2.) Impacts: Biological Resources This Alternative would result in less conservation than the Preferred Alternative, and thus would have greater impacts on Covered Species and natural communities. No Feasible mitigation measures were identified in the approved EIR/EIS. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and impacts of this alternative would remain significant. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-18.) Land Use and Planning As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would have a lower level of conservation of private lands compared to the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, and thus would have even fewer potential conflicts with applicable land use plans. Based upon the coordinated and integrated nature of this Alternative, impacts to federal, state, regional, local, or tribal land use plans, policies, or controls are considered to be less than significant. This Alternative would not physically divide an established community for the reasons described under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-5.) Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts This Alternative would have a lower level of conservation of private lands compared to the Proposed Action and Preferred Alternative. Although the jurisdictions would be able to develop lands that would otherwise be conserved, the increased land mass in each jurisdiction would not be significant for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes, and would not impact any jurisdiction's ability to provide adequate lands for development. Affordable housing could be permitted on lands that would otherwise be conserved. It would not directly induce substantial population growth in the CVMSHCP Area, as the Plan does not propose any new construction. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to these conclusions. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-26-27.) Transportation As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, no significant adverse impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation would result from this Alternative for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes and no mitigation is required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.4-6.) Objectives and Feasibility: Although findings rejecting alternatives in favor of the Project are not required because the Project as proposed would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21002), for the reasons set forth herein, and as discussed further in the SEIR/SEIS, CVCC hereby rejects the Core Habitat with Ecological Processes Alternative because it would result in potentially significant environmental impacts that would not result from the Proposed Project. As indicated in the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would result in less conservation than the Preferred Alternative, and thus would have greater impact on Covered Species and natural communities. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. Adoption of the Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-2.) Finding: The CVCC rejects this alternative on the basis that it would cause potentially significant effects that would not occur with the Proposed Project, and finds that this ground provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative. Therefore, it is eliminated from further consideration. Enhanced Conservation Alternative Description: The Enhanced Conservation Alternative expands upon the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative and includes the same Covered Activities as the Preferred Alternative. It would result in less Take than the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative and additional Conservation Lands would be added. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-2.) Impacts: Biological Resources This Alternative would result in the acquisition and management of more land than the Preferred Alternative. All other provisions of the Preferred Alternative would apply. Therefore, impacts from this Alternative would be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required in the approved EIR/EIS. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion and no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.1-19.) Land Use and Planning As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would result in a substantial increase in lands in Conservation Areas compared to the other alternatives. The analysis determined this additional conservation could result in significant land use compatibility conflicts and physically divide established communities. The proposed Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.2-5-6.) Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts This Alternative would result in slight increases in lands included in Conservation Areas in the City of Desert Hot Springs. The overall percentage increase, however, would not significantly increase the lands lost by the City. Impacts to the fiscal health of the City would be expected to be similar to those described above under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. Impacts to the development potential within Desert Hot Springs would be expected to be similar to those described above under the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative, This Alternative would not directly induce substantial population growth in the Plan Area, as the Plan does not propose any new construction. This Alternative would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This Alternative also does not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to these conclusions. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.3-27.) Transportation As indicated in the approved Recirculated EIR/EIS prepared for the Plan, this Alternative would result in significant impacts on transportation, traffic, or circulation for CEQA/NEPA analysis purposes. The impacts of this Alternative to local, regional, state and federal roadways cannot be effectively mitigated. The Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. (SEIR/SEIS at 4.4-6.) Objectives and Feasibility: Although findings rejecting alternatives in favor of the Project are not required because the Project as proposed would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts (Pub. Res. Code § 21002), for the reasons set forth herein, and as discussed further in the SEIR/SEIS, CVCC hereby rejects the Enhanced Conservation Alternative because it would not achieve the objectives of the CVMSHCP to the same degree as the Project. As indicated in the approved 2007 Recirculated EIR/EIS, this Alternative would not result in any significant impacts. However, it would result in highly fragmented Conservation Areas in some locations interspersed with urban land uses and major transportation links, undermining the effectiveness of Conservation in these areas. Adoption of the Major Amendment would not result in any changes to that conclusion. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-2.) Finding: The CVCC rejects this alternative on the basis that it would not achieve the objectives of the CVMSHCP to the same degree as the Project, and finds that this ground provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative. Therefore, it is eliminated from further consideration. Environmentally Superior Alternative As disclosed in the analysis above, the alternative that causes the least damage to biological resources and physical environment and best preserves natural resources is the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative. The addition of the City and MSWD as Permittees of the Plan provides a more comprehensive and cohesive Plan that would provide beneficial impacts for the Covered Species and natural communities protected within the Plan Area. The Plan also incorporates required avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures; land use adjacency guidelines; and a comprehensive Monitoring and Management Program designed to mitigate potential adverse effects to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. (SEIR/SEIS at 7-4.) SECTION 7: CERTIFICATION OF THE SEIR/SEIS BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVCC that it has reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, and all other applicable documents in the record, in evaluating the Project, that the Supplemental EIR/EIS is an accurate and objective statement that complies with CEQA and reflects CVCC's independent judgment, and that the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS and all other volumes of the CVCVMSHCP are incorporated herein by this reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVCC that it hereby CERTIFIES the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS, adopts the Major Amendment to the CVCVMSHCP, approves the revised IA, and authorizes the execution of the revised IA. Findings No significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (both project -specific and cumulative) have been identified in the SEIR/SEIS. As set out in this Resolution, all impacts of the Proposed Project are less than significant. Conclusions All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the SEIR/SEIS and will be less than significant level. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. SECTION 8: RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVCC that the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings/administrative record for the CVCC's approval of the Project are located at 73710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200, Palm Desert, California 92260, and the custodian of these records is the Executive Director of CVCC. SECTION 9: RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the CVCC that staff shall file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within five (5) working days of final Project approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13t" day of March, 2014. AYES: �I NOES: 0.3 ABSTAIN: qi Richard W. kiie, Chair Coachella Valley Conservation Commission ATTEST: Tom Kirk E ecutive Director Coachella alley Conservation Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Toni Eggebraaten, CVCC Counsel