Local Government: La Quinta Expansion

La Quinta plans expansion over residents' opposition

Assuring residents that they would do nothing to change residents' rural life-style, the La Quinta City Council voted unanimously January 2, 2001, to initiate an annexation and expansion of the city's sphere of influence to take in unincorporated area east of La Quinta and south and west of Coachella. More than 50 area residents turned out for the council meeting, most to protest the action or its potential impacts to farms and ranches.

Speaking in opposition to the city expansion, Riverside County Farm Bureau Executive Manager Bob Perkins echoed remarks by area residents, warning the city expansion would accelerate development, place incompatible uses among farms and ranches, pressure remaining agriculture, and push the city to encourage faster resort and urban development to pay for infrastructure and services.

The city's assurances to protect agriculture, Perkins and other opponents told council members, are not effective against complaints and regulations.

Coachella Valley Farm Bureau Center Chairman Lee Anderson, a date grower in the proposed expansion area, was among the farmers and ranchers who spoke against the city proposal. He told the council the County of Riverside has already taken steps to establish a community of interest in the unincorporated area. Residents are working on a plan for a community named Vista Santa Rosa that would maintain a farm, ranch and rural atmosphere. The unincorporated area includes date gardens, farms and horse ranches.

La Quinta plans a zoning change that would assign urban zoning to all properties. However, the city would apply an agricultural overlay to guarantee property owners that they could remain in agriculture as long as they have active farming or ranching. Council members said this protection could be passed on to a new buyer. However, if a property goes out of agriculture for a year, the zoning reverts to the underlying urban designation.

The city's own analysis notes that "funding the City's higher service levels would necessitate development of revenue-generating resort, recreational and commercial uses in the Study Area." The city estimates infrastructure improvements could total $26.8 million. Among the potential solutions, the city is considering adjusting its development impact fee to pay for $18.9 million of the improvements. The city also wants a pre-annexation agreement with the county that would let the city review development proposals and then annex developed properties.

Council members noted that their action would initiate further study, but it would be months before the city will decide whether to ask the Local Agency Formation Commission to allow the expansion. Council members said they would be responsive to the wishes of property owners but then, brushing aside almost two hours of opposition testimony, voted to initiate the expansion.

The City of Coachella testified that it already provides some city services including sewers to portions of the area.

Economics could drive La Quinta to push incompatible development in the new city area. Acknowledging that La Quinta might not get property tax revenues and special assessments now going to the county, the city study suggests "the City will need to rely on commercial and hospitality development in the Study Area to generate sufficient revenues to support municipal service costs at buildout."

Projections show the city expansion costing the city from $245,900 in the first year to $590,150 in the tenth year ... unless commercial and hospitality development occurs as proposed by the city and the rest of the area develops to an average of three units per acre. (Farm Bureau's testimony to the city council was based on California Farm Bureau Federation policies 120 and 125. These policies state in part:

(Landowners within a city's current or proposed sphere of influence and/or planning areas shall be notified by mail and entitled to participate in all phases of the planning process affecting those areas. Property owners were previously mailed a nonbinding survey about possible integration into La Quinta but have not been notified of a formal government action to initiate annexation or sphere of influence.

(Non-farm related developments should not be deemed compatible in agricultural zones if the proposed use significantly compromises the productive capability of the parcel; displaces or impairs agricultural operations in the area; or, induces nonagricultural growth or intensifies pressure for conversion of other lands from agriculture. The city expansion of infrastructure and services depends on conversion of lands to nonagricultural uses, expanding the urban-agriculture interface into productive farmlands..

(Urban development should not be allowed to exceed infrastructure capacity, including water supply, or further degrade air or water quality. Opponents cited urban and golf course use of groundwater, contributing to groundwater overdraft and lowering wells and wasting water in visible surface runoff from golf course irrigation. The city's economic analysis demonstrates that its costs for infrastructure and services would exceed available resources.)

For information about the City of La Quinta, visit the city's web site at http://www.la-quinta.org/