The URL can be used to link to this page

(06) 2035 LQ GP - CERTIFIED EIR - Section V (2013)Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-1 LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Introduction A. Impacts associated with build out of the various alternatives to the proposed General Plan Update are considered in this section of the EIR. A wide range of potential impacts, such as land use, traffic and circulation, soils and geology, air and water quality, hydrological issues, biological and cultural resources, and population and housing, are considered in Section III. The potential impacts associated with the same range of issues that are evaluated in Section III are discussed in this section for three additional General Plan scenarios, as follows: “No Project” Alternative (2002 General Plan); Alternative I General Plan Scenario; and Alternative II. The land use assumptions for each alternative are described in Section V.C., below. Table V-1 illustrates the land use build out summary for the Preferred Alternative. The build out summaries for each of the alternatives are illustrated below. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-2 Table V-1 Preferred Alternative Build Out Summary: City Limits Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Low Density Residential 4,006.0 1,583.7 5,589.7 20,834 4,751 25,585 Medium/High Density Residential 1,292.4 373.6 1,666.0 2,655 3,362 6,017 Residential Subtotal 5,298.4 1.957.3 7,255.7 23,489 8,114 31,603 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 385.6 184.0 569.6 3,695,282 1,763,309 5,458,591 Tourist Commercial 206.6 138.9 345.5 1,979,889 1,331,106 3,310,996 Village Commercial 77.1 12.9 90.0 738,865 123,623 862,488 Commercial Subtotal 669.3 335.8 1,005.1 6,414,036 3,218,039 9,632,074 Major Community Facilities 252.7 193.8 446.5 Open Space - Natural 2,171.6 4,761.7 6,933.3 Open Space - Recreation 4,392.2 867.0 5,259.2 Street Rights-of-Way 1,764.6 191.1 1,955.7 Grand Total 14,548.8 8,306.7 22,855.5 Table V-2 Preferred Alternative Build Out Summary: Sphere of Influence Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Low Density Residential 551.5 6,826.6 7,378.1 801 20,480 21,281 Medium/High Density Residential 0.2 24.4 24.6 - 219 219 Subtotal 551.7 6,851.0 7,402.7 801 20,699 21,500 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 28.6 256.6 285.1 273,760 2,458,797 2,732,557 Industrial/Lgt. Mfg. 0 63.8 63.8 - 611,408 611,408 Major Community Facilities 28.17 1.61 29.8 Street Rights-of-Way 319.93 0 319.9 Grand Total 928.4 7,173.0 8,101.4 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-3 Table V-3 Preferred Alternative Build Out Summary: Entire Planning Area Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Low Density Residential1,3 4,557.5 8,410.3 12,967.8 21,635 25,231 46,866 Medium/High Density2,3 Residential 1,292.6 398.0 1,690.6 2,655 3,582 6,236 Total 5,850.1 8,808.3 14,658.4 24,290 28,813 53,103 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 414.2 440.6 854.7 3,969,042 4,222,106 8,191,148 Tourist Commercial 206.6 138.9 345.5 1,979,889 1,331,106 3,310,996 Village Commercial 77.1 12.9 90.0 738,865 123,623 862,488 Total4 697.9 592.4 1,290.2 6,687,796 5,676,835 12,364,631 Industrial/Lgt. Mfg. 0.0 63.8 63.8 - 611,408 611,408 Major Community Facilities 280.9 195.4 476.3 Open Space - Natural 2,171.6 4,761.7 6,933.3 Open Space - Recreation 4,392.2 867.0 5,259.2 Street Rights-of-Way 2,084.5 191.1 2,275.6 Grand Total 15,477.2 15,479.7 30,956.9 1 Includes single-family attached and detached housing units. 2 Includes single-family attached and detached and multi-family housing units. 3 Future residential development is assumed to occur at 75% of the maximum density permitted. 4 Assumes 22% lot coverage for commercial and industrial development. Assumes 70% of TC and VC developed as commercial. Statement of Project Objectives B. The City of La Quinta developed a Vision for the General Plan Update, and prepared Guiding Principles for the General Plan, as follows:  A Neighborhood Oriented Community – Strive to ensure that existing and future housing for all residents continues to be diverse in type and of high quality. Establish and maintain connections between existing and future neighborhoods, including existing housing stock and associated infrastructure.  A Healthy, Vibrant and Heritage Minded Community – Ensure parks, public facilities and open spaces are appropriately sized and designed to meet the needs and interests of all segments of the community. Continue to ensure that all land uses cohesively exist with the area’s natural, cultural and historical heritage.  A Fiscally Sound Community – Capitalize on our unique development opportunities, especially within the Highway 111 Corridor and the Village area by focusing on shopping, Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-4 dining, entertainment, professional and mixed use options while improving the aesthetics of the community.  A Safe Community – Continue to enforce development standards that promote safe indoor and outdoor spaces and provide emergency services that are adequately funded, staffed, and equipped to provide timely response.  A Full Service Community – Ensure that streets, water and sewer systems, storm drains, and other infrastructure is maintained in good working order and of adequate service level to address existing and future needs.  A Resort Oriented Community – Maintain and improve the opportunities for La Quinta to be recognized, both nationally and internationally, as a top resort and recreation destination.  A Circulation Minded Community – Promote and encourage a broad range of transportation opportunities, especially those that reduce the impact to our environment, as well as effectively moving people and goods. Continue to work closely with neighboring communities and regional agencies to address regional transportation issues.  A Conservation Focused Community – Promote and encourage the efficient use of energy and water; minimize air and water pollution; reduce noise and light pollution; preserve native habitat; reduce litter; and increase recycling programs. These Guiding Principles form the basis for the Project Objectives described below. 1. The preservation and enhancement of the City’s quality of life. 2. The preservation and enhancement of existing neighborhoods. 3. A balance of housing types to accommodate the needs of all current and future residents. 4. The build out of a wide-ranging economic base providing jobs and sufficient revenues to maintain the high levels of services the City has been able to provide its residents. 5. The development of comprehensive transportation system that reduces vehicle trips and encourages alternative transportation routes for pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle use. 6. The preservation of open space, water quality and air quality to the greatest extent possible. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-5 Alternative Projects Selected for Detailed Analysis C. 1. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes that the build out of the General Plan would occur under existing City and County General Plan land use designations. Within the City, that build out would occur as planned in the currently approved General Plan. In the City’s Sphere of Influence, build out would occur as anticipated in the Riverside County General Plan in the north Sphere area; and as proposed in the Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Plan in the east Sphere area. Within the City limits, this alternative is very similar to the Preferred Alternative. The most significant differences with the Preferred Alternative occur in the Sphere of Influence. The County’s General Plan and Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Plan propose primarily very low and low density residential lands, with a community center and commercial core occurring along Airport Boulevard, generally east of Van Buren. The single family residential land use designations generally range from 1 unit per two acres to two units per acre. Medium and Medium High Density Residential lands are proposed adjacent to the Community Center and commercial land uses, and are estimated to build out in the range of 4 to 10 units per acre. Along Harrison Street, between Airport Boulevard and Avenue 61 (extended), Business Park and Tourist Commercial uses are proposed. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-6 Exhibit V-1 No Project Alternative Land Use Map Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-7 Table V-4 No Project Alternative Build Out Summary: City Limits Only Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 209.5 227.6 437.1 341 341 Low Density Residential 4,352.2 1,783.0 6,135.2 20,834 5,349 26,183 Medium Density Residential 957.4 145.2 1,102.6 871 871 Medium High Density Residential 315.2 205.3 520.5 2,655 1,848 4,503 High Density Residential 90.4 2.6 93.0 31 31 Total 5,924.7 2,363.7 8,288.4 23,489 8,440 31,929 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF Village Commercial 90.8 10.9 101.7 870,155 104,457 974,611 Regional Commercial 263.7 71.2 334.9 2,527,090 682,324 3,209,414 Community Commercial 49.3 45.1 94.4 472,452 432,202 904,654 Neighborhood Commercial 22.5 48.1 70.6 215,622 460,952 676,574 Tourist Commercial 210.4 150.4 360.8 2,016,305 1,441,313 3,457,619 Office Commercial 34.2 0.1 34.3 328,043 651 328,694 Commercial Park 38.4 20.3 58.6 367,691 194,296 561,987 Total 709.3 346.0 1,055.3 6,797,358 3,316,195 10,113,553 Major Community Facilities 179.1 2.8 181.9 Parks and Recreation 611.3 87.2 698.5 Golf Course 3,891.1 1,000.3 4,891.4 Open Space 1,250.8 4,177.7 5,428.5 Water 511.2 124.0 635.2 Street Rights-of-Way 1,475.4 200.4 1,675.8 Grand Total 14,552.9 8,302.1 22,855.0 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-8 Table V-5 No Project Alternative Build Out Summary: Sphere-of-Influence Land Use Designation Develo ped Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Estate Density Residential 136.9 1,160.3 1,297.2 580 580 Very Low Density Residential 37.9 887.5 925.4 888 888 Low Density Residential 235.8 4,003.5 4,239.3 801 6,005 6,806 Medium Density Residential 101.0 200.4 301.3 751 751 Medium High Density Residential 2.5 249.6 252.1 1,498 1,498 High Density Residential 23.6 135.5 159.0 1,422 1,422 Total 537.6 6,636.9 7,174.4 801 11,144 11,945 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF Commercial Retail 1.2 16.6 17.8 11,928 158,985 170,913 Commercial Tourist 0.0 119.9 119.9 - 1,149,107 1,149,107 Business Park 34.0 247.3 281.3 325,445 2,370,213 2,695,658 Community Center 7.5 112.12 119.6 71,617 1,074,468 1,146,086 Total 42.7 495.9 538.6 408,990.5 4,752,773.5 5,161,764.1 Public Facilities 28.2 40.2 68.4 Street Rights of Way 320.05 0 320.1 Total 348.2 40.2 388.4 Grand Total 928.5 7,173.0 8,101.5 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-9 Table V-6 No Project Alternative Build Out Summary: Planning Area Total Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 209.5 227.6 437.1 0 341 341 Low Density Residential 4,352.2 1,783.0 6,135.2 20,834 5,349 26,183 Medium Density Residential 957.4 145.2 1,102.6 0 871 871 Medium High Density Residential 315.2 205.3 520.5 2,655 1,848 4,503 High Density Residential 90.4 2.6 93.0 0 31 31 Estate Density Residential 136.9 1,160.3 1,297.2 0 580 580 Very Low Density Residential 37.9 887.5 925.4 0 888 888 Low Density Residential 235.8 4,003.5 4,239.3 801 6,005 6,806 Medium Density Residential 101.0 200.4 301.3 0 751 751 Medium High Density Residential 2.5 249.6 252.1 0 1,498 1,498 High Density Residential 23.6 135.5 159.0 0 1,422 1,422 Total 6,462.3 9,000.6 15,462.8 24,290 19,584 43,874 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF Village Commercial 90.8 10.9 101.7 870,155 104,457 974,611 Regional Commercial 263.7 71.2 334.9 2,527,090 682,324 3,209,414 Community Commercial 49.3 45.1 94.4 472,452 432,202 904,654 Neighborhood Commercial 22.5 48.1 70.6 215,622 460,952 676,574 Tourist Commercial 210.4 150.4 360.8 2,016,305 1,441,313 3,457,619 Office Commercial 34.2 0.1 34.3 328,043 651 328,694 Commercial Park 38.4 20.3 58.6 367,691 194,296 561,987 Commercial Retail 1.2 16.6 17.8 11,928 158,985 170,913 Commercial Tourist 0.0 119.9 119.9 0 1,149,107 1,149,107 Business Park 34.0 247.3 281.3 325,445 2,370,213 2,695,658 Community Center 7.5 112.1 119.6 71,617 1,074,468 1,146,086 Sub-Total 752.0 842.0 1,594.0 7,206,348.8 8,068,968.5 15,275,317.3 Major Community Facilities 179.1 2.8 181.9 Parks and Recreation 611.3 87.2 698.5 Golf Course 3,891.1 1,000.3 4,891.4 Open Space 1,250.8 4,177.7 5,428.5 Water 511.2 124.0 635.2 Public Facilities 28.2 40.2 68.4 Street Rights-of-Way 1,795.5 200.4 1,995.9 Sub-Total 8,267.1 5,632.6 13,899.7 Grand Total 15,481.4 15,475.2 30,956.5 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-10 2. Alternative 1 This Alternative would reduce residential land use intensity, and commercial acreage, and represents a lower intensity option to the Preferred Alternative. Within the City limits, this alternative would remove approximately 49 acres of Tourist Commercial land in the SilverRock Resort, and replace it with Medium Density Residential. In addition, lands currently proposed for Low Density Residential development in the southwestern corner of the City would develop at Very Low Density Residential densities (2 units per acre). Under this Alternative, almost all lands in the eastern Sphere area would be designated Very Low Density Residential, with the exception of lands on the west side of Harrison Street, which would remain Industrial and Commercial. Commercial lands on the east side of Monroe would be significantly reduced. Table V-7 Alternative 1 Build Out Summary: City Limits Only Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 0.0 339.2 339.2 509 509 Low Density Residential 4,171.2 1,336.7 5,507.9 20,834 4,010 24,844 Medium/High Density Residential 1,303.2 380.3 1,683.6 2,655 3,423 6,078 Total 5,474.4 2,056.2 7,530.6 23,489 7,942 31,431 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 383.2 186.4 569.6 3,671,883 1,786,305 5,458,188 Tourist Commercial 189.1 108.6 297.7 1,812,074 1,040,786 2,852,860 Village Commercial 77.4 12.9 90.2 741,328 123,207 864,535 Total 649.6 307.9 957.5 6,225,285 2,950,298 9,175,583 Major Community Facilities 238.0 160.0 398.0 Open Space - Natural 2,242.7 5,233.3 7,476.0 Open Space - Recreation 4,272.0 287.5 4,559.5 Street Rights-of-Way 1,676.1 257.6 1,933.7 Grand Total 14,552.9 8,302.5 22,855.3 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-11 Table V-8 Alternative 1 Build Out Summary: Sphere-of-Influence Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 527.2 6,844.5 7,371.7 801 10,267 11,068 Low Density Residential 27.5 71.9 99.4 0 216 216 Medium/High Density Residential 0 5.5 5.5 0 50 50 Total 554.7 6,922.0 7,476.7 801 10,532 11,333 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 25.6 185.6 211.2 245,298 1,778,761 2,024,059 Total 25.6 185.6 211.2 245,298 1,778,761 2,024,059 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF Industrial/Lgt. Mfg. 0 63.8 63.8 - 611,393 611,393 Total 0.0 63.8 63.8 - 611,393 611,393 Major Community Facilities 28.2 1.6 29.8 Street Rights-of-Way 319.9 0 319.9 Grand Total 928.4 7,173.0 8,101.4 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-12 Table V-9 Alternative 1 Build Out Summary: Planning Area Total Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 527.2 7,183.7 7,710.9 801 10,776 11,577 Low Density Residential 4,198.7 1,408.5 5,607.3 20,834 4,226 25,060 Medium/High Density Residential 1,303.2 385.9 1,689.1 2,655 3,473 6,128 Total 6,029.2 8,978.1 15,007.3 24,290 18,474 42,764 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 408.8 372.0 780.8 3,917,181 3,565,066 7,482,247 Tourist Commercial 189.1 108.6 297.7 1,812,074 1,040,786 2,852,860 Village Commercial 77.4 12.9 90.2 741,328 123,207 864,535 Total 675.2 493.5 1,168.7 6,470,583 4,729,059 11,199,643 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF Industrial/Lgt. Mfg. 0.0 63.8 63.8 - 611,393 611,393 Major Community Facilities 266.2 161.6 427.7 Open Space - Natural 2,242.7 5,233.3 7,476.0 Open Space - Recreation 4,272.0 287.5 4,559.5 Street Rights-of-Way 1,996.0 257.6 2,253.7 Grand Total 15,481.3 15,475.4 30,956.7 This alternative would result in a reduction of 24% of total residential units, when compared to the Preferred Alternative. The potential Commercial and Industrial square footage would be comparable, with a reduction of 10%. Under this Alternative, Open Space lands would be somewhat reduced from the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-13 Exhibit V-2 Alternative 1 Land Use Map Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-14 3. Alternative 2 This Alternative was developed to analyze the potential for concentrated population centers near commercial and public land uses, in order to reduce potential traffic and air quality impacts. Under this Alternative, lands immediately south of Saint Francis Catholic Church would be developed at Medium/High Density Residential intensities, as would all the lands in the north Sphere of Influence. In addition, Medium/High Density lands would occur in the eastern Sphere, adjacent to and west of the industrial and commercial lands along Harrison Street, and east of the commercial lands on the east side of Monroe. Medium/High Density Residential lands would also occur at the southeast corner of Airport Boulevard and Monroe. A 40 acre commercial center would also be developed at Airport Boulevard and Van Buren, in the Vista Santa Rosa area. Table V-10 Alternative 2 Build Out Summary: City Limits Only Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0 Low Density Residential 4,171.2 1,636.9 5,808.1 20,834 4,911 25,745 Medium/High Density Residential 1,284.0 389.3 1,673.3 2,655 3,503 6,158 Total 5,455.3 2,026.2 7,481.4 23,489 8,414 31,903 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 383.2 186.4 569.6 3,671,883 1,786,305 5,458,188 Tourist Commercial 208.3 138.6 346.9 1,995,983 1,328,283 3,324,266 Village Commercial 77.4 12.9 90.2 741,328 123,207 864,535 Total 668.8 337.9 1,006.7 6,409,194 3,237,795 9,646,989 Major Community Facilities 238.0 160.0 398.0 Open Space - Natural 2,242.7 5,233.3 7,476.0 Open Space - Recreation 4,272.0 287.5 4,559.5 Street Rights-of-Way 1,676.1 257.6 1,933.7 Grand Total 14,552.9 8,302.5 22,855.3 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-15 Table V-11 Alternative 2 Build Out Summary: Sphere-of-Influence Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 - 801 Low Density Residential 483.3 6,161.9 6,645.2 801 18,486 19,287 Medium/High Density Residential 67.7 652.0 719.7 0 5,868 5,868 Total 550.9 6,813.9 7,364.8 801 24,354 25,956 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 29.4 293.7 323.0 281,461 2,814,376 3,095,837 Total 29.4 293.7 323.0 281,461 2,814,376 3,095,837 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF Industrial/Lgt. Mfg. 0 63.8 63.8 - 611,393 611,393 Total 0.0 63.8 63.8 - 611,393 611,393 Major Community Facilities 28.2 1.6 29.8 Street Rights-of-Way 319.9 0 319.9 Grand Total 928.4 7,173.0 8,101.4 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-16 Table V-12 Alternative 2 Build Out Summary: Planning Area Total Land Use Designation Developed Vacant Total Existing Units Potential Units Total Units Very Low Density Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 801 0 801 Low Density Residential 4,654.5 7,798.8 12,453.3 20,834 23,396 44,230 Medium/High Density Residential 1,351.7 1,041.3 2,393.0 2,655 9,371 12,026 Total 6,006.2 8,840.1 14,846.3 24,290 32,768 57,058 Existing SF Potential SF Total SF General Commercial 412.5 480.1 892.6 3,953,343 4,600,681 8,554,024 Tourist Commercial 208.3 138.6 346.9 1,995,983 1,328,283 3,324,266 Village Commercial 77.4 12.9 90.2 741,328 123,207 864,535 Total 698.2 631.5 1,329.7 6,690,654 6,052,171 12,742,826 Industrial/Lgt. Mfg. 0.0 63.8 63.8 - 611,393 611,393 Major Community Facilities 266.2 161.6 427.7 Open Space - Natural 2,242.7 5,233.3 7,476.0 Open Space - Recreation 4,272.0 287.5 4,559.5 Street Rights-of-Way 1,996.0 257.6 2,253.7 Grand Total 15,481.3 15,475.4 30,956.7 Under this Alternative, residential units would increase by 7.5% over the Preferred Alternative. Commercial and industrial lands would be generally consistent with the Preferred Alternative, representing an increase of about 378,000 square feet. Open Space land use designations would be consistent with the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-17 Exhibit V-3 Alternative 2 Land Use Map Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-18 Alternative Projects Analysis D. A. Aesthetics The land within the City limits is mostly built out, and will experience redevelopment and infill development on vacant or underutilized parcels under all alternatives. The Sphere of Influence areas will see more significant changes over the next twenty five years, and convert from an agricultural and rural community to a more urban setting. The discussion below addresses aesthetic impacts according to each of the three project alternatives, including a “No Project Alternative”, “Alternative 1”, and a “Alternative 2.” No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would result in continued land uses proposed under the existing La Quinta General Plan, for areas within the City limits, and the existing Riverside General Plan and Vista Santa Rosa Community Land Use Concept Plan for areas within the Sphere of Influence. Build out of the No Project Alternative would allow for approximately 326 more residential units, and approximately 481,479 additional square feet of commercial space within the City Limits compared to the Preferred Alternative. The increase in units and square footage would occur over the entire City, and would not significantly change the character or building type of future development. More intense development will marginally increase light and glare impacts, as additional commercial will generate more lighting needed for parking lots and security purposes. The No Project Alternative will, therefore, likely cause slightly higher impacts on aesthetic resources in the City Limits than the Preferred Alternative. Within the Sphere of Influence, the No Project Alternative would result in approximately 9,555 fewer residential units, and approximately 2,429,207 additional square feet of commercial space relative to the Preferred Alternative. The No Project Alternative provides for a wider variety of residential uses than the Preferred Alternative, ranging from Estate Density Residential to High Density Residential. Much of the Sphere of Influence, under the No Project Alternative, is designated as Estate and Very Low Density Residential. Unlike the Preferred Alternative, the No Project Alternative does not provide industrial uses. In regards to scenic vistas, the reduced amount of residential units and lack of industrial uses in the No Project Alternative may beneficially impact scenic vistas, insofar as a lower intensity of residential units will leave larger areas of viewshed. The higher amount of commercial square footage allowed under the No Project Alternative, however, could create greater impact on scenic vistas. Commercial structures tend to be higher and more bulky than residential structures, and such buildings may affect views of the surrounding environment. In terms of visual character, the Sphere of Influence is currently rural and has an agrarian character. The No Project Alternative does provide lower intensity and density residential than the Preferred Alternative, but the higher amount of commercial uses may offset the difference and create a more urban environment. In terms of light and glare, the lower density residential designations may help reduce impacts on light and glare. These impacts, however, may be offset by the higher amounts of commercial Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-19 square footage. As described above, commercial uses increase light and glare associated with parking lots and security. In regards to scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, the No Project Alternative will have the same effect as the Preferred Alternative. Currently, there are no state scenic highways in either the City or the Sphere. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts, or slightly higher impacts, on aesthetic resources than the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 allows for the least amount of development to occur throughout the entire General Plan Update Planning Area. In terms of residential uses, Alternative 1 provides 172 fewer residential units in the City limits, and 10,167 fewer units in the Sphere of Influence than the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 also reduces commercial uses by 456,491 square feet in the City, and 708,498 square feet in the Sphere of Influence. Industrial land uses are similar between the two alternatives. As discussed above, impacts on scenic vistas are related to number of buildings and structures that impede views of mountains, desert, and surrounding landscape. The Alternative 1 reduces the amount of buildings, and therefore will have less impact on the scenic vista than the Preferred Alternative. Visual character will also be preserved under Alternative 1, especially in the Sphere of Influence. The Alternative 1 provides for very low density residential throughout the Sphere of Influence, instead of low density residential proposed under the Preferred Alternative. This lower density residential will help protect the rural visual character that currently exists within the Sphere of Influence. Light and glare impacts will also be reduced under Alternative 1, specifically due to reduced amount of commercial uses proposed under Alternative 1. In regards to scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, the Less Intense Project Alternative will have a similar effect as the Preferred Alternative. Currently, there are no state scenic highways that run through La Quinta. Overall, Alternative 1 creates the least amount of impacts on aesthetic resources over all other Alternatives. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would result in more intense development throughout the General Plan Update Planning Area, especially throughout the Sphere of Influence. Build out of Alternative 2 would allow for approximately 300 more residential units in the City Limits than what is proposed under the Preferred Alternative, and increase commercial uses by 14,915 square feet in the City. In terms of its effect on scenic vistas, Alternative 2 will have a similar, or slightly increased, impact than the Preferred Alternative. Residential uses tend to be smaller scale buildings, so the increased residential will most likely have a limited effect on views of surrounding mountains and desert. Likewise, the increased amount of commercial square footage is expected to have Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-20 only limited impacts on nearby viewsheds. In terms of the visual character, La Quinta is predominantly a residential suburban community, and visual character is characterized by small scale residential buildings intermixed with larger commercial centers. The higher amounts of residential and commercial uses proposed under Alternative 2 will most likely cause similar, or slightly higher, impacts on the visual character compared to the Preferred Alternative. Impacts from light and glare will also be similar, or slightly higher under Alternative 2. The increased amount of commercial square footage may create a slight increase in glare and lighting associated with buildings, parking lots, and security lighting. Alternative 2 would have the greatest impact on aesthetics within the Sphere of Influence, but these impacts will not be significantly increased over the Preferred Alternative. This Alternative allows for 3,655 additional residential units and 363,280 additional square feet of commercial uses over the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 allows for medium to high density residential in the Sphere of Influence, which is not allowed under the Preferred Alternative. This increased amount of residential and commercial development will affect the scenic vista by creating more structures and buildings that may impede views of local mountains, desert, and rural nature of the area. The visual character will also be impacted by Alternative 2. The Sphere of Influence is currently rural, and more intense and higher density development will likely change the area into an urban environment. In regards to light and glare impacts, Alternative 2 would result in more lighting and glare than the Preferred Alternative. The greater amount of residential units and commercial square footage in the Sphere of Influence would result in more lighting from parking lots, commercial buildings, and residential buildings. In regards to scenic resources, such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, the More Intense Project Alternative will have a similar effect as the Preferred Alternative throughout both the City Limit and Sphere of Influence. Currently, there are no state scenic highways in either the City or the Sphere. Overall, Alternative 2 results in a somewhat more significant impact on aesthetic resources than the Preferred Alternative. B. Agricultural Resources The Riverside County Important Farmland Map of 2008 highlights important agricultural lands throughout the region. These important agricultural lands are found throughout the General Plan Update Planning Area, and are most prevalent throughout the Sphere of Influence. The land uses proposed by all four Alternatives will allow urbanization to continue on important farmlands. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would result in new development regulated by the 2002 General Plan for areas within City Limits, the Riverside County General Plan in the north Sphere of Influence area, and the Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Plan in the eastern Sphere of Influence area. In the City, neither the Preferred Alternative nor the No Project Alternative provide agricultural land use designations, but do allow small farming and equestrian related uses in the Very Low Density Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-21 Residential zone. No new farming would be expected in the City under this alternative. Impacts on agricultural resources will be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative. In the northern Sphere of Influence, the No Project Alternative would designate the area Medium Density Residential as opposed to the Low Density Residential designation proposed by the Preferred Alternative. Both land uses promote residential development. Currently, the northern Sphere of Influence is used for small nurseries, residential units, and vacant land. This area is surrounded by residential subdivisions, however, and is likely to develop in a similar fashion. Impacts related to agricultural conversion, therefore, would be similar to those created by the Preferred Alternative. Within the eastern Sphere of Influence, land use designations proposed by the Vista Santa Rosa Community Plan include estate, very low and low density residential lands, with a community center and commercial uses along Airport Boulevard. This area has the potential to experience the greatest impact on agricultural resources. The eastern Sphere of Influence has 7,391 acres of land considered prime farmland, as well as 582 acres currently under Williamson Act contracts. The estate and very low density residential land uses would allow larger lots for equestrian and small agricultural production. The Vista Santa Rosa Community Plan, however, does not allow stand-alone agriculture. The No Project Alternative, therefore, would have slightly less impact on agricultural resources in the eastern Sphere of Influence than the Preferred Alternative. Overall, the agricultural resource impacts are slightly less under the No Project Alternative than the Preferred Alternative, mainly due to limited agricultural activities allowed in the eastern Sphere of Influence under the Vista Santa Rosa Community Plan. Less Intense Project Alternative The Less Intense Project Alternative would reduce residential land use intensity, and commercial acreage throughout the General Plan Update Planning Area. Within the City, impacts on agricultural resources under the Less Intense Project Alternative would be the same as those under the Preferred Alternative. In the northern Sphere of Influence, Alternative 1 provides the same land use designation as the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, impacts on agricultural resources under Alternative 1 are equivalent to the Preferred Alternative in the northern Sphere of Influence. In the eastern Sphere of Influence, Alternative 1 designates all residential lands as Very Low Density Residential rather than the Low Density Residential designation provided under the Preferred Alternative. This lower density residential land use designation may potentially allow small agriculture and equestrian uses on larger lots conducive for small farming operations. Alternative 1 may potentially allow agricultural production on lands considered important for agriculture resources, and protect parcels that are currently under Williamson Act. Therefore, in terms of agricultural resources, Alternative 1 has slightly lower impacts on agricultural resources than the Preferred Alternative. Overall, impacts on agriculture resources under Alternative 1 are slightly less than those under the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-22 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 allows for more intensive land uses throughout the General Plan Update Planning Area. Within the City, impacts on agricultural resources under the More Intense Project Alternative would be similar to those under the Preferred Alternative. In the northern Sphere of Influence, Alternative 2 allows for higher intensity residential uses than provided for under the Preferred Alternative, however both alternatives would prohibit agriculture uses. In the eastern Sphere of Influence, Alternative 2 designates some areas as higher intensity residential and more commercial land is designated, but it is otherwise very similar to the Preferred Alternative. Neither alternative allow agriculture. Overall, impacts on agriculture resources under Alternative 2 are equivalent to those under the Preferred Alternative. C. Air Quality A comprehensive discussion on the potential air quality and GHG impacts for the Preferred Alternative can be found in Section III of this EIR. Also refer to the Air Quality and GHG Report included in Appendix B of this EIR for detailed demand projections and emission tables for each of the Alternatives. The discussion below compares the Preferred Alternative to the other proposed alternatives, and assesses the relative level of impact to air quality. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would result in build out within City limits pursuant to the 2002 General Plan. Under this Alternative the Sphere of Influence would build out as directed by the County’s Vista Santa Rosa Land Use Concept Plan and the County’s General Plan. A discussion of the air quality impacts associated with this level of development and operation are summarized below. Detailed demand and emission projections are included in the Air Quality and GHG Report. Construction impacts for the No Project Alternative are comparable to the construction impacts projected for the Preferred Project Alternative. This is due to the fact that the No Project Alternative results in an intensification of development for commercial land uses, but a reduction in the total number of dwelling units. Although the total acreages of development for the Preferred Alternative and the No Project Alternative are the same, the No Project Alternative will result in approximately 9,228 fewer dwelling units, and an increase in the commercial square footage of about 2.9 million square feet. Therefore, it is assumed that construction activities will result in air quality emissions that are comparable to the emission projections for construction as set forth under the Preferred Alternative discussion, which is expected to exceed established daily thresholds for NOx and ROG. Under the No Project Alternative, natural gas and electricity demands will be higher in the City limits and lower in the Sphere of Influence relative to the Preferred Alternative. Energy and natural gas demands within City limits will be slightly higher under the No Project Alternative Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-23 compared to the Preferred Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, within City limits annual demands are projected be 1,467,168,248 cubic feet for natural gas and 1,121,724,203 kilowatt hours for electricity. For the Sphere of Influence, the No Project Alternative is projected to generate an annual natural gas demand of 622,238,575 cubic feet and an electricity demand of 499,422,871 kwh, which are slightly less than demands for the Preferred Alternative. For the No Project Alternative energy and natural gas demands over the entire Planning Area are projected to be slightly less than demands projected for the Preferred Alternative. The summary table below shows the total emission projections for the No Project Alternative from electricity, natural gas, area sources and moving sources for City limits, the Sphere of Influence and the overall La Quinta Planning Area. As projected, air quality emissions for all criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, Particulates and ROG’s) are projected to exceed established SCAQMD thresholds at operation of the No Project Alternative. Compared to the Preferred Alternative, the No Project Alternative is projected to result in comparable quantities of criteria pollutants from electricity, natural gas, area sources and moving sources. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-24 Table V-13 Cumulative Daily Emissions No Project Alternative (Lbs./day) Stationary Source Emissions Moving Sources Total Emissions Threshold Criteria* Electricity Natural Gas Area Sources Vehicles Total Lbs./Day Lbs./Day City Limits CO 614.64 225.67 7,597.77 8,396 16,834.08 550 NOx 3,534.20 386.70 423.75 779 5,123.15 100 SOx 368.79 0.004 19.55 22 410.40 150 PM10 122.93 0.72 1,078.36 3,790 4,992.01 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 1,038.90 743 1,781.90 55 ROGs 30.73 29.18 4,427.08 947 5,433.50 75 Sphere of Influence CO 273.66 101.31 2,795.99 3,691 6,861.96 550 NOx 1,573.52 164.76 138.74 346 2,222.52 100 SOx 164.19 0.002 7.30 10 181.49 150 PM10 54.73 0.31 403.15 1,684 2,142.19 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 388.42 330 718.42 55 ROGs 13.68 12.38 1,653.17 414 2,092.73 75 Planning Area CO 888.30 326.98 10,393.76 12,087.00 23,696.04 550 NOx 5,107.72 551.46 562.49 1,124.00 7,345.67 100 SOx 532.98 0.01 26.84 32.06 591.89 150 PM10 177.66 1.03 1,481.50 5,474.00 7,134.19 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 1,427.32 1,073.00 2,500.32 55 ROGs 44.41 41.56 6,080.26 1,360.00 7,526.23 75 Source: Air Quality and GHG Report, prepared by Terra Nova, June 2012. All reasonable and feasible mitigation measures as set forth under the Preferred Alternative discussion would be applicable to the No Project Alternative. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The No Project Alternative will also result in the emission of GHG’s through the combustion of fossil fuels during operation of vehicles, the generation of electricity at power plants, combustion of natural gas, and the transportation of water. GHG emission projections for the No Project Alternative are set forth in the table below and are comparable to the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-25 Table V-14 GHG Emissions for the No Project Alternative (million metric tons) Electricity Natural Gas Moving Sources Water Transport Total City Limits 0.492 0.080 0.426 0.0108 1.010 Sphere of Influence 0.219 0.034 0.189 0.004 0.446 Planning Area 0.711 0.114 0.615 0.015 1.456 See Appendix D of the Air Quality and GHG Report for detailed tables. As with the Preferred Alternative, implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan under the No Project Alternative would be sufficient mitigation to reduce potential impacts from greenhouse gases to levels below significance. In the event that lands within the Sphere of Influence were annexed into La Quinta, compliance with the GHG Reduction Plan would be required. Under County jurisdiction lands within the Sphere of Influence have the potential to result in significant impacts from the emission of greenhouse gases. Alternative 1 Construction impacts for Alternative 1 are expected to be slightly less than construction impacts projected for the Preferred Alternative. This is because Alternative 1 consists of less dense land use development compared to the Preferred Alternative. Although the total acreages of vacant land to be developed are the same under the two Alternatives, Alternative 1 will result in approximately 10,399 fewer dwelling units, and a reduction of 1,164,989 square feet of commercial space compared to the Preferred Alternative. Construction activities under Alternative 1 will result in air quality emissions that are slightly reduced compared to the emission projections for construction as set forth under the Preferred Alternative. Nonetheless, established daily thresholds for NOx, ROG, and PM10 are expected to be exceeded from construction of Alternative 1. Under this Alternative, natural gas and electricity demands will be reduced compared to the Preferred Alternative. Within City limits, annual demands for Alternative 1 are projected to be 1,402,741,087 cubic feet for natural gas and 1,059,057,498 kilowatt hours for electricity. For the Sphere of Influence, Alternative 1 is projected to generate an annual natural gas demand of 469,980,612 cubic feet and an electricity demand of 342,918,007 kwh, which are less than demand projections for the Preferred Alternative. Throughout the Planning Area, natural gas demands are projected to be 1,872,721,699 cubic feet per year under Alternative 1, which is substantially lower than the 2,238,326,502 cubic feet projected for the Preferred Alternative. Similarly, the electricity demand for the entire Planning Area, under Alternative 1, is projected to be 1,401,975,505 kilowatt hours, which is a 243,170,095 kilowatt hour decrease from the 1,645,145,600 kilowatt hour demand projected for the Preferred Alternative. The summary table below shows the total emission projections for Alternative 1 from electricity, natural gas, area sources and moving sources for City limits, the Sphere of Influence and the overall La Quinta Planning Area. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-26 Air quality emissions for all criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, Particulates and ROG’s) are projected to exceed established SCAQMD thresholds at build out of Alternative 1. Compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Less Intense Project Alternative is projected to result in reduced emission of criteria pollutants from electricity, natural gas, area sources and moving sources. Nonetheless, all thresholds criteria will be exceeded and impacts to air quality have the potential to be significant. All reasonable and feasible mitigation measures as set forth under the Preferred Alternative discussion would be applied to Alternative 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alternative 1 will result in the emission of greenhouse gases through the combustion of fossil fuels during operation of vehicles, the generation of electricity at power plants, combustion of Table V-15 Cumulative Daily Emissions Alternative 1 (Lbs./day) Stationary Source Emissions Moving Emissions Total Emissions Threshold Criteria* Electricity Natural Gas Area Sources Vehicles Total Lbs./Day Lbs./Day City Limits CO 580.31 212.59 7,463.15 8,308 16,564.05 550 NOx 3,336.77 369.28 415.16 773 4,893.71 100 SOx 348.18 0.004 19.24 22 389.42 150 PM10 116.06 0.69 1,061.42 3,835 5,013.17 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 1,022.56 751 1,773.56 55 ROGs 29.02 27.90 4,348.82 931 5,336.24 75 Sphere of Influence CO 187.90 68.41 2,750.01 3,430 6,435.83 550 NOx 1,080.43 123.34 169.90 324 1,697.17 100 SOx 112.74 0.001 6.96 10 129.71 150 PM10 37.58 0.23 383.08 1,717 2,137.90 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 369.05 335 704.05 55 ROGs 9.40 9.35 1,587.75 361 1,967.49 75 Planning Area CO 768.21 281.00 10,213.16 11,737.50 22,999.87 550 NOx 4,417.19 492.62 585.06 1,096.00 6,590.88 100 SOx 460.92 0.01 26.20 32.00 519.13 150 PM10 153.64 0.92 1,444.50 5,552.00 7,151.07 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 1,391.60 1,086.00 2,477.60 55 ROGs 38.41 37.25 5,936.57 1,291.50 7,303.73 75 Source: Air Quality and GHG Report, prepared by Terra Nova, June 2012. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-27 natural gas, and the transportation of water. GHG emission projections for Alternative 1 are set forth in the table below and are slightly reduced compared to the Preferred Alternative. Table V-16 GHG Emissions for Alternative 1 (million metric tons) Electricity Natural Gas Moving Sources Water Transport Total City Limits 0.465 0.077 0.430 0.011 0.982 Sphere of Influence 0.150 0.026 0.190 0.004 0.370 Planning Area 0.615 0.102 0.620 0.015 1.352 Source: Air Quality and GHG Report, prepared by Terra Nova, June 2012. As with the Preferred Alternative, implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan under Alternative 1 would be sufficient mitigation to reduce potential impacts from greenhouse gases to levels below significance. In the event that lands within the Sphere of Influence were annexed into La Quinta, compliance with the GHG Reduction Plan would be required. Under County jurisdiction lands within the Sphere of Influence have the potential to result in significant impacts from the emission of greenhouse gases. Alternative 2 This Alternative is expected to result in the emission of slightly more pollutants compared to emission projections for the Preferred Alternative. This is because Alternative 2 consists of more dense land use development compared to the Preferred Alternative. Although the total acreages of vacant land to be developed are the same under the two Alternatives, Alternative 2 will result in 3,955 more residential units, and an additional 378,195 square feet of commercial compared to the Preferred Alternative. Construction activities for Alternative 2 will result in emissions that are slightly elevated in comparison to the emission projections for construction set forth under the Preferred Alternative. Established daily thresholds for NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5 are expected to be exceeded from construction of land uses proposed in Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 natural gas and electricity demands will be increased compared to the Preferred Alternative. Annual demands for Alternative 2 within City limits are projected to be 1,441,566,735 cubic feet for natural gas and 1,094,274,318 kilowatt hours for electricity; and for the Sphere of Influence natural gas demands are projected to be 929,123,261 cubic feet and electricity demands are projected to be 637,122,426 kwh. Throughout the Planning Area natural gas demands are projected to be 2,370,689,995 cubic feet per year under Alternative 2, which is 132,363,493 cubic feet more than the 2,238,326,502 cubic feet projected for the Preferred Alternative. Similarly, the electricity demand for the entire Planning Area under Alternative 2 is projected to be 1,731,396,744 kilowatt hours, which is a 86,251,144 kilowatt hour increase relative to the 1,645,145,600 kilowatt hour demand projected for the Preferred Alternative. Air quality emissions for all criteria pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, Particulates and ROG’s) are projected to exceed established SCAQMD thresholds at operation of Alternative 2. Compared to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 is projected to result in a similar level of emissions Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-28 within the City limits, and increased emissions of criteria pollutants from electricity, natural gas, area sources and moving sources within the Sphere of Influence. As seen in the Table below, all threshold criteria will be exceeded and impacts to air quality have the potential to be significant under Alternative 2. Table V-17 Cumulative Daily Emissions Alternative 2 (Lbs./day) Stationary Source Emissions Moving Sources Total Emissions Threshold Criteria* Electricity Natural Gas Area Sources Vehicles Total Lbs./Day Lbs./Day City Limits CO 599.60 219.87 7,574.10 8,573 16,966.50 550 NOx 3,447.71 379.69 419.67 798 5,044.94 100 SOx 359.76 0.004 19.52 23 402.34 150 PM10 119.92 0.71 1,077.36 3,957 5,154.99 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 1,037.92 775 1,812.97 55 ROGs 29.98 28.67 4,416.03 948 5,423.05 75 Sphere of Influence CO 349.11 125.61 5,962.74 5,418 11,855.21 550 NOx 2,007.39 242.53 342.07 502 3,093.91 100 SOx 209.47 0.003 15.38 15 239.92 150 PM10 69.82 0.46 849.35 2,588 3,507.29 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 818.16 506 1,324.24 55 ROGs 17.46 18.48 3,453.99 583 4,072.87 75 Planning Area CO 948.71 345.48 13,536.84 13,990.68 28,821.70 550 NOx 5,455.10 622.22 761.74 1,299.79 8,138.85 100 SOx 569.23 0.01 34.90 38.13 642.26 150 PM10 189.74 1.17 1,926.71 6,544.66 8,662.28 150 PM2.5 N/a N/a 1,856.08 1,281.13 3,137.21 55 ROGs 47.44 47.15 7,870.02 1,531.32 9,495.92 75 Source: Air Quality and GHG Report, prepared by Terra Nova, June 2012. As with the Preferred Alternative, all reasonable and feasible mitigation measures will be applied to Alternative 2 in order to limit emissions from operation. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alternative 2 will result in the emission of greenhouse gases through the combustion of fossil fuels during operation of vehicles, the generation of electricity at power plants, combustion of natural gas, and the transportation of water. GHG emission projections for Alternative 2 are set forth in the table below and are slightly greater than GHG emission projections for the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-29 Table V-18 GHG Emissions for Alternative 2 (million metric tons) Electricity Natural Gas Moving Sources Water Transport Total City Limits 0.480 0.079 0.443 0.011 1.013 Sphere of Influence 0.280 0.051 0.289 0.009 0.628 Planning Area 0.760 0.130 0.732 0.019 1.641 Source: Air Quality and GHG Report, prepared by Terra Nova, June 2012. As with the Preferred Alternative implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan under this Alternative would be sufficient mitigation to reduce potential impacts from greenhouse gases to levels below significance. In the event that lands within the Sphere of Influence were annexed into La Quinta, compliance with the GHG Reduction Plan would be required. Under County jurisdiction lands within the Sphere of Influence have the potential to result in significant impacts from the emission of greenhouse gases. D. Biological Resources The potential impacts to biological resources are primarily associated with land conversion and proposed development that results in the loss of habitat. Although the four Alternatives propose various amounts of growth and types of development, all Alternatives result in the development of approximately 30,957 acres throughout the Planning Area. Development and urbanization of these lands has the potential to result in impacts to biological resources, such as loss or degradation of habitat, incidental take of listed species, and impacts to common and sensitive species. The following discussion analyzes potential impacts to biological resources that may result from implementation of each of the project alternatives. As noted in Section III-D impacts to biological resources are addressed in the Coachella Valley Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), which provides mitigation for incidental take resulting from individual development projects. Mitigation includes payment of per-acre mitigation fees for all new development within the MSHCP planning area, which will apply regardless of the alternative implemented. All four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, Alternative 2, Alternative 1, and the Preferred Alternative, provide land use designations that allow for continued urbanization throughout the Planning Area. Despite the fact that some alternatives propose more intense land uses over others, each of the four alternatives will facilitate development on land that may contain sensitive biological resources. Mitigation measures, comparable to those listed in Section III-D will be required for all new development in order to protect biological resources. These mitigation measures, along with State and Federal regulations pertaining to biological resources, as well as the CV MSHCP are expected to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels for all Alternatives. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-30 E. Cultural Resources The La Quinta General Plan Update Planning Area is rich in cultural resources. Archaeological discoveries have uncovered remnants from the prehistoric Cahuilla tribe. Future development and construction activities will continue to reveal buried cultural resources. Impacts on cultural resources, including historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources, within the General Plan Update Planning Area, will be caused by new development on lands considered culturally sensitive. Section III-E of this EIR describes lands located within the Planning Area that are considered highly sensitive in terms of paleontological sensitivity. These high sensitivity areas include the entire Sphere of Influence, and select areas within the City Limit. It should be noted that portions of the City and eastern Sphere of Influence remain unsurveyed. These areas may contain historic and archaeological resources, and new development projects in these areas will require cultural surveys. All four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative, provide land use designations that allow for continued urbanization throughout the Planning Area. Despite the fact that some alternatives propose more intense land uses over others, each of the four alternatives will facilitate development on culturally sensitive lands. There is not one alternative that provides open space or conservation areas over lands considered culturally significant. Impacts to cultural resources, therefore, are expected to be comparable under each alternative. Mitigation measures, such those in Section III-E., will be required for all new development in order to protect cultural resources. These mitigation measures, along with State and Federal regulations pertaining to cultural resources, are expected to create less than significant impacts on cultural resources. F. Geology & Soils The potential impacts of geology and soils are primarily associated with the region’s seismic activity, which is relative to the number of people impacted by these risks. The four Alternatives propose various amounts of growth and types of development, which increase or decrease impacts related to seismic hazards. The following discussion analyzes potential impacts of geology and soils that may result from implementation of each of the project alternatives. No Project Alternative Build out under the No Project Alternative would result in an increased number of residential units and commercial square footage relative to the Preferred Alternative within the City Limits. The No Project Alternative will expose a greater number of people, dwelling units, and buildings to seismic events and related impacts such as liquefaction, and seismically induced slope instability and inundation compared to the Preferred Alternative. Similarly, a greater number of people and structures will be exposed to impacts associated with soil conditions, including settlement and ground subsidence, rockfall from hillsides, soils expansion, and aerially deposited dust and particulate matter. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-31 For the Sphere of Influence, the No Project Alternative reduces the amount of residential units by almost half compared to the Preferred Alternative. This significantly reduces the number of residents susceptible to seismic hazards and exposure to impacts from soil conditions. As such, the number of people requiring assistance during emergencies and evacuations will be substantially reduced under the No Project Alternative. However, the No Project Alternative will result in an additional 2.43 million square feet of commercial development within the Sphere over what is proposed for the Preferred Alternative. As such, the No Project Alternative has the potential to result in greater impacts to commercial development in the Sphere due to seismic activity. The overall Planning Area under the No Project Alternative is similar to the Preferred Alternative in regards to impacts associated with geology and soils. However, 23,348 fewer residents, 9,229 fewer dwelling units, and an additional 2.91 million square feet of commercial development have the potential to be impacted under the No Project Alternative compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 Build out of Alternative 1 will result in a slight decrease in the number of residential units (172) and commercial square footage (456,491) relative to the Preferred Alternative, within the City Limits. Alternative 1 will expose slightly fewer people, dwelling units, and buildings to seismic events and related impacts such as liquefaction, and seismically induced slope instability and inundation compared to the Preferred Alternative. Similarly, slightly fewer people and structures will be exposed to impacts associated with soil conditions, including settlement and ground subsidence, rockfall from hillsides, soils expansion, and aerially deposited dust and particulate matter under Alternative 1 relative to the Preferred Alternative. For the Sphere of Influence, Alternative 1 reduces the number of residential units by almost half compared to the Preferred Alternative. This significantly reduces the number of residents susceptible to seismic hazards and exposure to impacts from soil conditions. As such, the number of people requiring assistance during an emergency or evacuation will be reduced by 25,724 people under Alternative 1. Similarly, Alternative 1 will result in a decrease of approximately 708,498 square feet of commercial development within the Sphere over what is proposed for the Preferred Alternative. As such, Alternative 1 will result in fewer impacts to commercial development in the Sphere due to seismic activity relative to the Preferred Alternative. The overall Planning Area under Alternative 1 is similar to the Preferred Alternative in regards to impacts associated with geology and soils. However, 26,159 fewer residents, 10,339 fewer dwelling units, and 1.16 million square feet less of commercial development have the potential to be impacted under Alternative 1 compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 Build out of Alternative 2 will result in a slight increase in the number of residential units (300) and a slight increase in the commercial square footage (14,915) relative to the Preferred Alternative, within the City Limits. Alternative 2 will expose slightly more people, dwelling units, and commercial square footage to seismic events and related impacts such as liquefaction, and seismically induced slope instability and inundation compared to the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-32 Similarly, slightly more people will be exposed to impacts associated with soil conditions, including settlement and ground subsidence, rockfall from hillsides, soils expansion, and aerially deposited dust and particulate matter under Alternative 2 relative to the Preferred Alternative. For the Sphere of Influence, Alternative 2 increases the number of residential units by 3,655 units compared to the Preferred Alternative, which increases the number of residents susceptible to seismic hazards and exposure to impacts from soil conditions. As such, the number of people requiring assistance during an emergency or evacuation will increase by 9,246 people under Alternative 2. Similarly, Alternative 2 will result in an increase of approximately 363,280 square feet of commercial development within the Sphere over what is proposed for the Preferred Alternative. As such, Alternative 2 has the potential to result in slightly greater impacts to commercial development in the Sphere due to seismic activity relative to the Preferred Alternative. The overall Planning Area under Alternative 2 is similar to the Preferred Alternative in regards to impacts associated with geology and soils. However, an additional 10,005 residents, 3,955 dwelling units, and 378,195 square feet of commercial development have the potential to be impacted under Alternative 2 compared to the Preferred Alternative. G. Hazards & Hazardous Materials The impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are relative to the number of people impacted by these risks. The four differing Alternatives produce differing amounts of growth and types of development, which may increase or decrease impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. No Project Alternative Build out under the No Project Alternative would result in a slightly higher number of residential units and commercial square footage than the Preferred Alternative within the City Limits. This would allow for a slight increase in population susceptible to hazards and hazardous materials, as well as increased volumes of hazardous materials being generated by both residential and commercial land uses. In the Sphere of Influence, however, the No Project Alternative reduces the number of residential units by almost half of what is proposed by the Preferred Alternative. This significantly reduces the amount of residents susceptible to hazards and hazardous materials, and reduces the number of people needing assistance during emergencies and evacuations. The reduced population, however, is offset by the increased commercial uses proposed under the No Project Alternative. Commercial land uses are almost double that proposed by the Preferred Alternative. Commercial land uses typically generate higher volumes of hazardous materials than residential uses, and also increase the amount of transport of these materials through the streets of the community. The No Project Alternative, however, does not propose industrial uses. Industrial and light manufacturing uses tend to increase the risks associated with hazardous materials. Overall, the No Project Alternative is similar in regards to impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials to the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-33 Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in slightly fewer residential units and less commercial square footage in the City than proposed under the Preferred Alternative. This would slightly reduce impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Alternative 1 would also significantly reduce the amount of residential units over the Preferred Alternative in the Sphere of Influence. Commercial uses are also slightly reduced under Alternative 1. Overall, Alternative 1 would result in the lowest level of impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials, of the Preferred Alternative and the two other Alternatives. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 results in a slight increase in residential units and commercial uses over the Preferred Alternative within the City limits. For the most part, impacts related to hazards and hazardous waste would be similar under both Alternatives within the City limits. Alternative 2, however significantly increases both residential and commercial uses in the Sphere of Influence over the Preferred Alternative. Industrial uses proposed for the Sphere Influence, are nearly the same between the two Alternatives. Therefore, this increase in residential and commercial uses in the Sphere of Influence will increase the number of people at risk from hazardous spills and accidents, and increase the volume of hazardous materials in the area. Alternative 2, therefore, would have more significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, than the Preferred Alternative. Regulations and mitigation measures would be implemented in the same manner as for the Preferred Alternative, however, and impacts would remain less than significant. H. Hydrology The potential impacts to hydrology and drainage are primarily associated with land use conversion and proposed development that results in a loss of, or reduction to permeability. Although the four Alternatives propose various amounts of growth and types of development, all Alternatives result in the development of approximately 30,957 acres throughout the Planning Area. Development and urbanization of these lands has the potential to result in impacts to hydrology due to paving of roads and sidewalks and impermeable building foundations. Water that would have been absorbed into the ground will instead runoff to downstream areas, without mitigation. As noted in Section III-H the regional hydrology and drainage pattern, including flood control structures, are managed and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) and CVWD. All four alternatives, including the No Project Alternative, Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and the Preferred Alternative, provide land use designations that allow for continued urbanization throughout the Planning Area. As discussed below some alternatives propose more intense land uses over others, which results in varying impacts to hydrology. Mitigation measures, comparable to those listed in Section III-H will be required for each of the project alternatives. These mitigation measures, along with local and regional flood control district policies and regulations, are expected to reduce impacts to hydrology to less than significant levels for all Alternatives. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-34 No Project Alternative Implementation of the No Project Alternative has the potential to result in similar hydraulic impacts within City limits as described in Section III under the Preferred Alternative analysis. The overall Planning Area of the No Project Alternative will result in 9,229 fewer residential dwelling units, but an additional 2.9 million square feet of commercial relative to the Preferred Alternative. The No Project Alternative sets forth substantially fewer residential units within the Sphere compared to the Preferred Alternative. As such, impacts to hydrology within the Sphere will likely be somewhat reduced compared to the Preferred Alternative. As with the Preferred Alternative, the No Project Alternative impacts to hydrology will primarily result from the development of impermeable surfaces on currently vacant or undeveloped lands within the Sphere. Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 has the potential to result in similar hydraulic impacts within City limits as described in Section III under the Preferred Alternative analysis. However, due to the reduced level of development proposed under Alternative 1, impacts from flooding are expected to be somewhat reduced compared to the Preferred Alternative. The overall Planning Area of Alternative 1 will result in 10,399 fewer residential dwelling units, and 1.16 million square feet less of commercial space relative to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 sets forth substantially fewer residential units within the Sphere compared to the Preferred Alternative. As such, impacts to hydrology within the Sphere will likely be reduced compared to the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, Alternative 1 will have reduced runoff and flooding, due to the reduced amount of impermeable surfaces that will be developed relative to the Preferred Alternative. As with the Preferred Alternative, hydraulic impacts from Alternative 1 will primarily result from the development of impermeable surfaces on currently vacant or undeveloped lands within the Sphere. Alternative 2 At build out of Alternative 2 impacts to hydrology within City limits will be comparable to those impacts described in Section III under the Preferred Alternative analysis. However, due to the increased level of development proposed under Alternative 2, impacts from flooding are expected to be somewhat increased compared to the Preferred Alternative. The overall Planning Area of Alternative 2 will result in 3,955 additional residential dwelling units, and an additional 378,195 square feet of commercial space relative to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 sets forth 3,655 more residential units within the Sphere compared to the Preferred Alternative. As such, impacts to hydrology within the Sphere will likely be increased compared to the Preferred Alternative. Accordingly, Alternative 2 will result in increased impacts from runoff and flooding, due to the additional impermeable surfaces that will be developed relative to the Preferred Alternative. As with the Preferred Alternative, hydraulic impacts from Alternative 2 will primarily result from the development of impermeable surfaces on currently vacant or undeveloped lands within the Sphere. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-35 I. Land Use and Planning The mix of uses proposed under each of the three Alternatives is analyzed relative to the Preferred Alternative. Briefly, the Preferred Alternative is not expected to divide an established community or conflict with the CV MSHCP. As proposed, the Preferred Alternative is consistent with established land use plans for land use designations proposed within City limits, but is somewhat divergent from the County’s land use plan for the Sphere of Influence. As described in detail in the Land Use and Planning discussion in Section III, land use designations proposed for the Sphere of Influence have the potential to result in significant impacts without mitigation. The City has studied the land use pattern in the Sphere, and has considered several potential annexation proposals in the past. These proposals included analyses relating to the availability and cost of the provision of services in the Sphere. These analyses found that in the eastern Sphere in particular, lands have been encumbered by the County as collateral for a regional bond issue. As a result, there will be no property tax generation to the City from these lands for a number of years. The fiscal analysis concluded that the annexation of property in the Sphere would have a negative fiscal impact on the City. Under all the proposed alternatives, the potential fiscal impact to the City could be significant. The General Plan includes policies that require both the preparation of fiscal impact analyses for annexation proposals, and a Development Agreement in association with annexation. The Development Agreement would establish the parameters for development, and would include mitigation fee payments for projects that are fiscally negative for the City. These Development Agreements would eliminate the potential fiscal impacts to the City under all alternatives. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative includes a wide range of land use designations that have been consolidated into a just a few land uses for the Preferred Alternative. Build out of the No Project Alternative has the potential to result in the development of 43,875 dwelling units, which is 9,229 fewer dwelling units, or a 17% reduction compared to the Preferred Alternative. This is primarily due to the differences in the allowable dwelling unit densities for the Sphere of Influence, which nearly doubles for the Preferred Alternative compared to the No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, 15.28 million square feet of commercial land uses would be developed throughout the Planning Area, which is 2.9 million square feet more than the Preferred Alternative. For comparison purposes, the No Project Alternative proposes slightly more commercial development within City limits and nearly doubles the proposed commercial development within the Sphere of Influence compared to the Preferred Alternative. The exception being that the Preferred Alternative includes 611,408 square feet of industrial/light manufacturing land use, whereas the No Project Alternative does not include any industrial land use designation. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-36 The land uses proposed under the No Project Alternative complement the existing land uses and will not divide an established community. Proposed land uses for the No Project Alternative in City limits are very similar to land uses proposed under the Preferred Alternative. Unlike the Preferred Alternative, the No Project Alternative proposes land use designations for the Sphere of Influence that are consistent with the County’s land use plan, including the Vista Santa Rosa Concept. In addition, the No Project Alternative does not conflict with the established CVMSHCP. Therefore, the No Project Alternative will result in less than significant impacts to land use. Alternative 1 When compared to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1 proposes 10,339 fewer dwelling units, and 26,159 fewer residents would have the potential to be impacted by surrounding land uses. The reduction in dwelling units under Alternative 1, relative to the Preferred Alternative, is due to the different dwelling unit intensities proposed for the Sphere of Influence. The residential land use for the Sphere of Influence under Alternative 1 is primarily very low density residential, which only allows up to two dwelling units per acre, compared to the 4 dwelling units per acre allowed under the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 would result in a reduction of 19% of total residential units, when compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 also proposes a total of 11.2 million square feet of commercial development. The level of development under this scenario is approximately 1.2 million square feet less than the commercial development proposed under the Preferred Alternative. The potential Commercial and Industrial square footage represents a reduction of 9.4% compared to the Preferred Alternative. Land uses proposed under Alternative 1 are consistent with those set forth under the Proposed Alternative, but in less dense intensities. Potential land use impacts under Alternative 1 are expected to be less than significant within City limits and the Sphere of Influence. Land uses proposed under Alternative 1, within City limits, are consistent with the 2002 General Plan land use designations. In addition, land use designations proposed for the Sphere of Influence, under Alternative 1 are consistent with the County’s land use plan including the Vista Santa Rosa Concept. The land uses proposed under Alternative 1 complement existing land uses and would not divide an established community. Proposed land uses for Alternative 1 are consistent with existing land use plans and policies, and impacts are expected to be less than significant for proposed development within City limits and the Sphere of Influence. In addition, Alternative 1 does not conflict with the established CVMSHCP. Therefore, under Alternative 1 impacts to land use and planning are expected to be less than significant. Alternative 2 Under this Alternative, the Planning Area will experience a greater intensity of development compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would allow for the development of up to 57,058 dwelling units, which could accommodate a population size of 144,357 residents at build out. When compared to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 proposes 3,955 additional dwelling units and approximately 10,005 additional residents. Under Alternative 2, a greater Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-37 number of residents, a 7% increase over the Preferred Alternative, would have the potential to be impacted by surrounding land uses. Alternative 2 has the potential to result in the development of up to 12.74 million square feet of commercial, which is an increase of 3% compared to the Preferred Alternative. Proposed commercial development for Alternative 2 complements the existing commercial land uses and is generally consistent with the Preferred Alternative. As with the Preferred Alternative, potential land use impacts under Alternative 2 are expected to be less than significant within City limits and have the potential to result in significant impacts within the Sphere of Influence. Implementation of a master plan for the Sphere of Influence as described in Section III of this EIR, will reduce potential impacts to land use and planning within the Sphere of Influence to less than significant levels. Alternative 2 is similar to the Preferred Alternative relative to potential impacts to land uses. The land uses proposed under Alternative 2 complement the existing land uses and would not divide an established community. In addition, Alternative 2 does not conflict with the established CVMSHCP. With the adoption of a master plan for the Sphere of Influence, potential impacts will be reduced. Implementation of mitigation measures for Alternative 2 will reduce land uses impacts to level below significance. J. Mineral Resources The La Quinta General Plan Update Planning Area falls within the MRZ-1 and MRZ-3 mineral resource zones. More than half of the City, and all of the Sphere of Influence, fall within MRZ-1. This mineral zone includes areas where little likelihood exists for presence of significant mineral resources. Incorporated lands within MRZ-1 are mostly built out, however vacant parcels still exist. The Sphere of Influence is mostly agricultural development, and will most likely develop into non-agricultural uses in the future. Future development within the MRZ-1, however, will have a less than significant impact on mineral resources. The far western portion of incorporated La Quinta falls within MRZ-3, which includes areas containing known or inferred mineral deposits of undetermined mineral resource significance. The majority of the MRZ-3 falls within protected open space, and remaining land is mostly already developed. There are no locally important mineral resource extraction facilities in these areas. Existing land uses under the 2002 General Plan do not allow for mineral extraction under all alternatives. The MRZ-3 zone is the only area where potential mineral resources exists, and these areas are, for the most part, developed or designated as protected as open space. The Preferred Alternative, along with the three other Alternatives, continue to provide open space across much of MRZ-3, and promote similar development patterns across the remaining mineral resource zones. Each Alternative, therefore, will have comparable impacts on mineral resources. The MRZ-3 area is the only area within the Planning Area where significant mineral resources potentially exist, however due to the fact that these areas are protected as open space, or are mostly built out, the impacts on mineral resources by each Alternative is less than significant. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-38 K. Noise As discussed in Section III-K, a comprehensive noise impact study was prepared to analyze potential noise impacts associated with build out of the Preferred Alternative, and to assess the relative noise impacts of each of the other development scenarios. The entire report is included in Appendix F of this EIR. The following table summarizes the results. The study analyzed roadway links in the planning area, and projected CNEL noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway centerline for each project alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-39 Table V-19 Year 2035 Preferred Alternative Noise Contour Comparison CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Roadway Segment No Project Alternative Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Washington St. n/o Fred Waring Dr. 72.7 72.7 72.8 72.8 Washington St. btwn Fred Waring & Miles 73.2 73.3 73.2 73.3 Washington St. btwn Miles & Hwy 111 72.5 72.5 72.5 72.6 Washington St. btwn Hwy 111 & Avenue 48 72.9 73.0 73.0 73.0 Washington St. btwn Avenue 48 & Eisenhower Dr 73.0 72.3 73.0 73.0 Washington St. btwn Eisenhower Dr & Avenue 50 71.5 71.7 71.5 71.6 Washington St. btwn Avenue 50 & Calle Tampico 70.8 70.9 70.8 70.8 Eisenhower Dr. btwn Washington St & Avenue 50 68.1 68.1 68.1 68.1 Eisenhower Dr. btwn Avenue 50 & Calle Tampico 66.7 66.6 66.6 66.6 Avenida Bermudas btwn Calle Tampico & Avenue 52 59.2 59.1 59.1 59.1 Avenida Bermudas btwn Avenue 52 & Calle Durango 63.7 63.6 63.6 63.6 Adams St. btwn Westward Ho Dr & Hwy 111 66.5 66.6 66.6 66.7 Adams St. btwn Hwy 111 & Avenue 48 66.9 66.8 66.8 66.9 Dune Palms Rd. btwn Westward Ho Dr & Hwy 111 65.4 65.5 65.5 65.7 Dune Palms Rd. btwn Hwy 111 & Avenue 48 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.7 Jefferson St. n/o Fred Waring 70.4 70.4 70.5 70.5 Jefferson St. btwn Fred Waring & Miles 71.7 71.8 71.8 71.8 Jefferson St. btwn Miles & Westward Ho Dr 72.2 72.2 72.3 72.3 Jefferson St. btwn Westward Ho Dr & Hwy 111 72.2 72.2 72.3 72.3 Jefferson St. btwn Hwy 111 & Avenue 48 72.1 72.1 72.2 72.3 Jefferson St. btwn Avenue 48 & Avenue 50 72.6 72.7 72.7 72.8 Jefferson St. btwn Avenue 50 & Avenue 52 71.1 71.1 71.1 71.3 Jefferson St. btwn Avenue 52 & Avenue 54 70.6 70.7 70.6 70.7 Madison St. btwn Avenue 50 & Avenue 52 70.5 70.4 70.5 70.5 Madison St. btwn Avenue 54 & Airport Blvd 71.9 72.0 71.9 72.0 Madison St. btwn Airport Blvd & Avenue 58 70.7 70.8 70.7 70.8 Madison St. btwn Avenue 58 & Avenue 60 68.0 68.2 68.1 68.2 Monroe St. btwn Avenue 52 & Avenue 54 70.3 70.4 70.3 70.4 Monroe St. btwn Avenue 54 & Airport Blvd 70.5 70.6 70.4 70.7 Jackson St. btwn Avenue 54 & Airport Blvd 70.1 70.0 69.9 70.1 Jackson St. btwn Airport Blvd & Avenue 58 70.2 70.2 70.0 70.4 Jackson St. btwn Avenue 58 & Avenue 60 69.3 69.5 69.5 69.7 Jackson St. btwn Avenue 60 & Avenue 62 68.0 68.3 68.2 68.4 Van Buren St. btwn Avenue 52 & Avenue 54 69.8 70.0 69.6 70.2 Van Buren St. btwn Avenue 54 & Airport Blvd 69.1 69.0 68.8 69.1 Van Buren St. btwn Airport Blvd & Avenue 58 69.4 69.3 69.2 69.4 Van Buren St. btwn Avenue 58 & Avenue 60 69.5 69.4 69.3 69.3 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-40 Table V-19 Year 2035 Preferred Alternative Noise Contour Comparison CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Roadway Segment No Project Alternative Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Van Buren St. btwn Avenue 60 & Avenue 62 66.0 65.8 65.7 65.8 Harrison St. btwn Airport Blvd & Avenue 58 73.4 73.7 73.6 73.8 Avenue 44 e/o Washington St 71.9 72.0 72.0 72.1 Miles Ave. e/o Washington St 66.5 66.6 66.5 66.6 Hwy 111 e/o Washington St 75.5 75.4 75.5 75.6 Hwy 111 e/o Adams St 74.3 74.2 74.6 74.7 Hwy 111 e/o Dune Palms 75.2 75.2 75.2 75.4 Avenue 48 e/o Washington St 67.0 67.0 67.0 67.1 Avenue 48 w/o Jefferson St 70.1 70.0 70.1 70.1 Avenue 50 e/o Washington St 64.4 64.4 64.4 64.4 Avenue 50 w/o Jefferson St 67.2 67.0 67.1 67.1 Avenue 50 e/o Jefferson St 69.6 69.7 69.7 69.7 Calle Tampico btwn Eisenhower Dr & Avenida Bermudas 61.9 61.9 61.9 61.9 Calle Tampico btwn Avenida Bermudas & Washington St 64.7 64.7 64.7 64.7 Avenue 52 w/o Washington St 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 Avenue 52 w/o Jefferson St 70.0 70.1 70.0 70.1 Avenue 52 e/o Jefferson St 69.7 69.7 69.6 69.8 Avenue 52 e/o Madison St 69.2 69.2 69.3 69.3 Avenue 54 e/o Jefferson St 69.8 69.9 69.8 70.0 Avenue 54 w/o Madison St 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.4 Airport Blvd. e/o Madison St 67.3 67.3 67.0 67.4 Avenue 58 w/o Monroe St 63.3 63.8 63.4 63.9 Avenue 58 e/o Monroe St 65.6 66.0 65.6 66.1 Avenue 60 e/o Madison St 63.5 64.9 64.6 65.1 Avenue 60 e/o Monroe St 65.0 65.3 65.0 65.4 Avenue 62 btwn Madison St & Monroe St 64.2 64.3 64.1 64.4 Avenue 62 e/o Monroe St 67.5 67.5 67.4 67.4 Avenue 62 e/o Jackson St 63.4 63.7 63.6 63.6 Avenue 62 e/o Van Buren St 59.9 60.1 59.9 59.8 Source: City of La Quinta General Plan Update Noise Element Technical Report”, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., June 3, 2011 1. A significant impact is considered both a level above 65 dBA CNEL and an increase greater than 3.0 dBA. Noise levels along approximately 55 roadway segments in the Planning Area are projected to exceed the 65 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline at build out of the Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Section III-K, the Preferred Alternative is not expected to result in increases in noise levels over existing conditions that are perceptible (equal to or greater than 3 dBA) along any roadway segments in the planning area. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-41 No Project Alternative As shown in the table above, noise levels along approximately 54 roadway segments in the Planning Area are projected to exceed the 65 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline at build out of the No Project Alternative. This is only one road segment less than the Preferred Alternative. Noise levels along 21 evaluated roadway segments under the No Project Alternative are expected to be less than the Preferred Alternative. These noise reductions are less than 3 dBA, which are barely perceptible to the human ear. Noise levels along 4 roadway segments are expected to be greater than the Preferred Alternative, however, these differences are still less than 3 dBA, which are considered imperceptible. Finally, noise levels along 23 roadway segments at build out of the No Project Alternative are expected to be the same as those projected for the Preferred Alternative. Overall, the noise levels for the No Project Alternative are similar to noise levels projected under the Preferred Alternative. The same mitigation measures, including requirements for acoustical analysis for project occurring along impacted roadways, would apply for all alternatives, and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Alternative 1 The Alternative 1 is expected to increase average noise levels by approximately 0.04 dBA CNEL over the No Project Alternative. Along 29 roadway segments, increased noise levels are expected to be higher than the No Project Alternative, however this noise increase will be less than 3 dBA, which is imperceptible to land uses. As compared with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1 is expected to decrease average noise levels by approximately 0.02 dBA CNEL. Along 26 roadway segments, Alternative 1 will result in noise levels that are less than those projected for the Preferred Alternative, however these noise level changes are less than 3 dBA, which are considered imperceptible. Alternative 1 will result in noise levels that are the same along 22 of the evaluated roadway segments compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 will result in noise levels that are higher along 18 of the evaluated roadway segments compared to the Preferred Alternative. Along all roadway segments, decreased noise levels are expected to be imperceptible compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 is expected to result in increased noise levels along 8 roadway segments as compared with the Preferred Alternative. Of these, increases along one of the roadway segments would be considered potentially audible. The same mitigation measures, including requirements for acoustical analysis for project occurring along impacted roadways, would apply for all alternatives, and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 will result in an average increase of approximately 0.1 dBA CNEL over the No Project Alternative. Alternative 2 is projected to result in a maximum increase in noise level of only 1.5 dBA CNEL over the No Project Alternative, which includes the location along Avenue 60, east of Madison Street. Along 47 roadway segments, increased noise levels are expected to be higher than the No Project Alternative, however this noise increase will be less than 3 dBA, which is imperceptible to land uses. Alternative 2 is expected to result in noise impacts that are the same as those of the No Project Alternative along 16 of roadway segments evaluated, and decreased noise levels along 3 roadway segments. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-42 Compared to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 is expected to result in noise impacts that are similar to the Preferred Alternative along 23 of roadway segments evaluated. Noise levels along 38 roadway segments under Alternative 2 are projected to exceed those of the Preferred Alternative, which includes a noise level increase of 0.7 dBA along Washington Street, between Avenue 48 and Eisenhower Drive. Noise levels that are less than those expected by the Preferred Alternative are projected along 5 roadway segments, however, the differences are expected to be imperceptible. Noise increases equal to or greater than 3 dBA more than the Preferred Alternative are not projected to occur along any of the evaluated roadway segments. Therefore, the noise impacts associated with Alternative 2 are similar to the Preferred Alternative. The same mitigation measures, including requirements for acoustical analysis for project occurring along impacted roadways, would apply for all alternatives, and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Overall, noise impacts will be less, when compared to the Preferred Alternative, under the No Project Alternative and Alternative 1, although the difference is not expected to be significant. Under Alternative 2, noise levels will be only marginally higher. Increases in noise levels are not expected to exceed 3 dBA among each Alternative, which is considered imperceptible and insignificant. For all the alternatives, the mitigation measures included in Section III-L would be required, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels at build out. L. Population and Housing Impacts associated with population and housing as a result of implementation of the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section III-L. Implementation of the General Plan Update will result in growth that is consistent with growth projections within City limits, but has the potential to increase the projected population and housing unit development within the Sphere of Influence relative to existing growth projections. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative has the potential to induce substantial growth and result in significant impacts. In order to reduce potential impacts from growth and development within the Sphere of Influence, a master plan will be prepared. Adoption of such a Plan is expected to be sufficient to mitigate potential impacts from growth and development in the Sphere of Influence. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative has the potential to result in the development of 43,875 dwelling units and support 111,004 residents, which is 9,228 fewer dwelling units and 23,348 fewer residents compared to the Preferred Alternative. The No Project Alternative would allow for a total of 15.28 million square feet of commercial land uses, which is 2.91 million square feet greater than the Preferred Alternative, or an increase of 24%. The No Project Alternative is consistent with current growth projections and will result in less than significant impacts to population and housing. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-43 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 proposes 10,339 fewer dwelling units and 26,159 fewer residents compared to the Preferred Alternative. The reduction in dwelling units under Alternative 1, relative to the Preferred Alternative, is due the different dwelling unit densities proposed for the Sphere of Influence. Alternative 1 proposes 11,333 units compared to the 21,500 dwelling units proposed under the Preferred Alternative, and results in nearly doubling the potential build out population for the Sphere of Influence (a population of 28,672 under Alternative 1, compared to 54,396 under the Preferred Alternative). Alternative 1 would result in a reduction of 19% of total residential units, when compared to the Preferred Alternative. Thus, Alternative 1 is consistent with existing growth projections and impacts are expected to be less than significant. Alternative 2 The Planning Area will experience a greater intensity of development under the More Intense Alterative when compared to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would allow for the development of up to 57,058 dwelling units, which could accommodate a population size of 144,357 residents at build out, consisting of 80,715 people within City limits and 63,642 people within the Sphere of Influence. When compared to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 proposes 3,955 additional dwelling units and approximately 10,005 additional residents. As with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 is consistent with growth projections within City limits, but exceeds growth projections in the Sphere of Influence. Due to the projected population size for the Sphere of Influence the More Intense Project Alternative has the potential to result in significant impacts to population and housing. In order to mitigation potential impacts and achieve levels below significance, a master plan will be prepared. As described under the Preferred Alternative, adoption of such a Plan is expected to be sufficient to mitigate potential impacts from growth and development in the Sphere of Influence to levels below significance. M. Public Service and Utilities 1. Schools The estimated student enrollment at build out of each project alternative is shown in the following tables. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-44 Table V-20 Potential School Enrollment at General Plan Build Out , No Project Alternative Grade Level Max. Student Projected Enrollment Build out Units Generation Rate Elementary (K-6) Single Family 34,798 0.214 7,447 Multi-Family 9,076 0.1267 1,150 Elementary Subtotal 8,597 Middle (7-8) Single Family 34,798 0.1093 3,803 Multi- Family 9,076 0.0522 474 Middle School Subtotal 4,277 High School (9-12) Single Family 34,798 0.1427 4,966 Multi-Family 9,076 0.0543 493 High School Subtotal 5,459 Total 43,875 18,333 Source: Terra Nova Staff Estimates based on Student Generation Rates, Desert Sands Unified School District Master Facilities Plan, October 2008. Table V-21 School Enrollment at General Plan Build Out, Alternative 1 Grade Level Max. Student Projected Enrollment Build out Units Generation Rate Elementary (K-6) Single Family 36,636 0.214 7,840 Multi-Family 6,128 0.1267 776 Elementary Subtotal 8,617 Middle (7-8) Single Family 36,636 0.1093 4,004 Multi- Family 6,128 0.0522 320 Middle School Subtotal 4,324 High School (9-12) Single Family 36,636 0.1427 5,228 Multi-Family 6,128 0.0543 333 High School Subtotal 5,561 Total 42,764 18,501 Source: Terra Nova Staff Estimates based on Student Generation Rates, Desert Sands Unified School District Master Facilities Plan, October 2008. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-45 Table V-22 School Enrollment at General Plan Build Out Alternative 2 Grade Level Max. Student Projected Enrollment Build out Units Generation Rate Elementary (K-6) Single Family 45,032 0.214 9,637 Multi-Family 12,026 0.1267 1,524 Elementary Subtotal 11,161 Middle (7-8) Single Family 45,032 0.1093 4,922 Multi- Family 12,026 0.0522 628 Middle School Subtotal 5,550 High School (9-12) Single Family 45,032 0.1427 6,426 Multi-Family 12,026 0.0543 653 High School Subtotal 7,079 Total 57,058 23,789 Terra Nova Staff Estimates based on Student Generation Rates, Desert Sands Unified School District Master Facilities Plan, October 2008. Comparable tables for the Preferred Alternative, shown in Section III-M, estimate a build out student population of 23,294 in the City and Sphere combined. At build out, the No Project Alternative is expected to generate 18,333 students, which equates to 21.3% fewer students than the Preferred Alternative. By comparison, Alternative 2 would generate 23,789 students, or an increase of approximately 2.1% students over the Preferred Alternative. Estimated student generation associated with Alternative 1 will be 18,501 students, or approximately 20.6% less than the Preferred Alternative. Student generation within the Sphere is included in these estimates. Based on these figures, the student population in the Sphere would be expected to account for between 28.5% and 43.5% of the total student population for the respective alternatives. The highest number of students will be generated by Alternative 2. Therefore, this alternative is expected to result in the greatest impact on public schools serving the Planning Area. Based on these estimates, it is anticipated that the No Project and Alternative 1 would result in the least impact on school enrollment. Student enrollment will depend on actual development, and in any case will gradually increase as new development facilitated by implementation of the proposed General Plan builds out. As noted in Section III-M, future development will be required to offset potential impacts by paying statutory developer fees. These fees will be required of any of the development scenarios, and are expected to mitigate potential impacts to public schools to less than significant levels. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-46 2. Libraries Based on the County Library System’s unadopted target of 2 volumes per capita, the estimated build out population of 134,352 in the planning area will require 268,704 volumes at build out of the Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Section III-M for the Preferred Alternative, each of the alternatives will generate Developer Impact Fees (DIF) as new units are constructed to offset increased demands associated with library facilities and services. These are one-time fees, and will only be assessed at the time these units are built. DIF fees for the Preferred Alternative were estimated to be approximately $10.2 million. Estimated fees for each Alternative are presented below. Under any of the development scenarios, growth will occur gradually, thus incrementally increasing demand on library services and facilities. To assure that there continue to be adequate library services and facilities to serve the community, the City of La Quinta and Riverside County will need to continue to monitor library use. Mitigation measures set forth in Section III- M reduce impacts to libraries to levels below significance for all of the project alternatives. As previously described, fiscal analyses have found that in the eastern Sphere in particular, lands have been encumbered by the County as collateral for a regional bond issue. As a result, there will be no property tax generation to the City from these lands for a number of years. The fiscal analysis concluded that the annexation of property in the Sphere would have a negative fiscal impact on the City. The General Plan includes policies that require both the preparation of fiscal impact analyses for annexation proposals, and a Development Agreement in association with annexation. The Development Agreement would establish the parameters for development, and would include mitigation fee payments for projects that are fiscally negative for the City. These Development Agreements would eliminate the potential fiscal impacts to the City under all Alternatives. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative is expected to generate a build out population of approximately 111,004. Applying the County’s unadopted standard of 2 volumes per capita, at build out approximately 222,008 volumes would be required to serve the population. Population within the City limits accounts for 161,566 volumes, and population within the Sphere accounts for 60,442 volumes within Sphere areas. The No Project Alternative would generate a similar demand for new library services. The No Project would require approximately 17.4% fewer volumes than the Preferred Alternative. Based on current fees, new residential development under the No Project Alternative will generate approximately $6.9 million in library fees. Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, which is expected to result in a build out population of 108,193 approximately 216,386 volumes would be needed. Of these, 159,040 would be required for the population in the City limits, and 57,344 for the population in the Sphere. The Alternative 1 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-47 would generate a similar demand for new library services. Alternative 1 will generate a demand for approximately 19.5% fewer volumes relative to the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 will generate approximately $6.53 million in DIF fees due to the proposed development set forth under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 At build out it is estimated Alternative 2 will result in a population of 144,357 persons. This level of development would require 288,714 volumes, of which 161,430 would be needed for population in the City limits, and 127,284 for the Sphere. Alternative 2 would require approximately 7.4% more volumes than would the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 will generate approximately $11.57 million in DIF fees due to the proposed development set forth under this alternative. 3. Law Enforcement The greatest level of additional demand for police services will be generated by Alternative 2, followed by the Preferred Alternative. The Less Intense and No Project Alternatives, respectively, will place the least additional demand on police services. The City will incur additional costs for the provision of these services, regardless of the alternative. The need for additional police staffing will occur gradually as development builds out in the Planning Area. Section III-M sets forth mitigation measures that are intended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels for all alternatives. As previously described, fiscal analyses have found that in the eastern Sphere in particular, lands have been encumbered by the County as collateral for a regional bond issue. As a result, there will be no property tax generation to the City from these lands for a number of years. The fiscal analysis concluded that the annexation of property in the Sphere would have a negative fiscal impact on the City. The General Plan includes policies that require both the preparation of fiscal impact analyses for annexation proposals, and a Development Agreement in association with annexation. The Development Agreement would establish the parameters for development, and would include mitigation fee payments for projects that are fiscally negative for the City. These Development Agreements would eliminate the potential fiscal impacts to the City under all Alternatives. No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the build out population will be approximately 111,004. Although, as discussed in Section III-M, there is no adopted staff-to-population standard in La Quinta, Riverside County Sheriff’s Department strives for a ratio of approximately 1 officer per 1,000 population. Based on this ratio, 111 police officers will be required to serve the build out population, of which 81 will be associated with increased population in the City and 30 with the Sphere. Compared with the Preferred Alternative, the No Project Alternative requires 23 fewer Officers. This represents a decrease of approximately 17.2%. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-48 Alternative 1 At build out the population associated with Alternative 1 will be of 108,193. This level of development will generate demand for 109 police officers, or approximately 18.7% less than the Preferred Alternative. Approximately 80 police officers would be required based on the estimated build out population in the City, and 29 would be required in the Sphere. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 will result in a build out population of 144,357, thus requiring 145 police officers. This represents an increase of 11 officers, or an approximately 8.2% increase over the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 build out population in the City would require approximately 81 officers, and the Sphere would require approximately 64 officers in the total increase in staffing. 4. Fire Protection As discussed in Section III-M, fire protection services are provided to the Planning Area by the Riverside County Fire Department. The County is in the process of evaluating and updating the standards by which it determines the need for additional fire staffing, equipment and facilities. Currently there are three fire stations in La Quinta, with stations in neighboring cities also available to serve the Planning Area as needed. Based on projected build out population, it is expected that Alternative 2 will generate the greatest increased demand for fire protection services, while Alternative 1 will result in the least additional demand. Regardless of the development scenario that is implemented, additional fire protection services will be required, including personnel and equipment, and may necessitate the construction of additional fire stations. The County monitors growth within the jurisdictions it serves, and future development projects will continue to be subject to Fire Department review to ensure the adequate provision of fire protection services. Mitigation measures are set forth in Section III-M that will apply to any of the alternatives, and will reduce potential impacts associated provision of fire services to less than significant levels. As previously described, fiscal analyses have found that in the eastern Sphere in particular, lands have been encumbered by the County as collateral for a regional bond issue. As a result, there will be no property tax generation to the City from these lands for a number of years. The fiscal analysis concluded that the annexation of property in the Sphere would have a negative fiscal impact on the City. The General Plan includes policies that require both the preparation of fiscal impact analyses for annexation proposals, and a Development Agreement in association with annexation. The Development Agreement would establish the parameters for development, and would include mitigation fee payments for projects that are fiscally negative for the City. These Development Agreements would eliminate the potential fiscal impacts to the City under all Alternatives. 5. Electricity Projected electric power demand for the Planning Area has been estimated based on historical usage factors in La Quinta provided by IID, applied to residential, commercial, and industrial Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-49 development in the Planning Area. The following are electric consumption estimates at build out for each project alternative. No Project Alternative City Limits: 1,121,724,203 kilowatt hour/year Sphere: 499,422,871 kilowatt hour/year Planning Area: 1,621,147,074 kilowatt hour/year Alternative 1 City Limits: 1,059,057,498 kilowatt hour/year Sphere: 342,918,007 kilowatt hour/year Planning Area: 1,401,975,505 kilowatt hour/year Alternative 2 City Limits: 1,094,274,318 kilowatt hour/year Sphere: 637,122,426 kilowatt hour/year Planning Area: 1,731,396,774 kilowatt hour/year Existing and future residential, commercial and industrial development in the planning area under the Preferred Alternative is expected to generate demand for 1,645,145,600 kilowatt-hours per year at build out. By comparison, the No Project Alternative is expected to generate approximately 1.5% less demand for electricity than the Preferred Alternative. The Alternative 1 is expected to generate approximately 14.8% less demand, while Alternative 2 will generate approximately 5% greater demand than the Preferred Alternative. Estimates include both the City limits and the Sphere. Impacts will be less than significant for any of the development scenarios. 6. Natural Gas In Section III-M, it is estimated that development facilitated by the Preferred Alternative will consume approximately 2,238,326,502 cubic feet/year of natural gas at build out. The following estimates potential demand for natural gas for each of the project alternatives. No Project Alternative City Limits: 1,467,168,248 cubic feet/year Sphere: X cubic 622,238,575 cubic feet/year Planning Area: 2,089,406,823 cubic feet/year Alternative 1 City Limits: 1,402,741,087 cubic feet/year Sphere: 469,980,612 cubic feet/year Planning Area: 1,872,721,699 cubic feet/year Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-50 Alternative 2 City Limits: 1,441,566,735 cubic feet/year Sphere: 929,123,261 cubic feet/year Planning Area: 2,370,689,995 cubic feet/year Based on the above estimates, all development associated with Alternative 2, including the City and Sphere, will consume approximately 5.6% more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative. Comparatively, the Less Intense will consume approximately 10.4% less than the Preferred Alternative, and the No Project approximately 6.7% less. Of all the alternatives, the lowest natural gas consumption will result from Alternative 1. For any of the project alternatives, build out will occur gradually over time as development occurs. All alternatives will result in less than significant impacts. 7. Domestic Water Services An increase in demand on water resources will result from future development associated with any of the project alternatives. Each will require the construction and expansion of facilities and infrastructure to serve new development. The analysis provided in Section III-M considers in detail the existing conditions associated with water resources and water quality. It also discussed potential impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Estimated water consumption for each alternative is shown in Section V-P below. 8. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Potential wastewater generation in the Planning Area is estimated for the Preferred Alternative in Section III-M. The estimated wastewater generation for the Preferred Alternative at build out is projected to be approximately 4.4 million gallons per day within City limits and 3.0 million gallons per day within the Sphere. Thus, the total wastewater generation within the Planning Area is estimated to be 7.4 million gallons per day. The wastewater generation rate for each Alternative is assumed to be equal to the potable water demand that is projected to be generated, see Table V-23 through V-25. These projections assume an average water demand of approximately 69.3 gallons per capita per day in 2010 and are projected to average 55.44 gpcd at build out. Based on these assumptions, the estimated wastewater generation for each of the alternatives at build out is shown below. No Project Alternative City: 4,478,610 gallons/ day Sphere: 1,675,452 gallons/day Planning Area: 6,154,062 gallons/day Alternative 1 City: 4,408,589 gallons/ day Sphere: 1,589,576 gallons/day Planning Area: 5,998,165 gallons/day Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-51 Alternative 2 City: 4,474,840 gallons/ day Sphere: 3,528,312 gallons/day Planning Area: 8,003,152 gallons/day The highest volume of wastewater generation is expected to result from Alternative 2, approximately 7% more than the Preferred Alternative. The least wastewater generation is expected for Alternative 1; this alternative will generate 19.5% less than the Preferred Alternative. The No Project Alternative will generate approximately 17.4% less wastewater than the Preferred Alternative. The greatest demand on wastewater collection and treatment facilities will come from Alternative 2. The least wastewater-generating alternatives are the No Project and Alternative 1s. Regardless of which alternative is implemented, future development will place additional demands on these facilities. The City and Coachella Valley Water District will need to continue to monitor growth and plan for new facilities. Potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels with the application of mitigation measures set forth in Section III-M; these measures will apply to any of project alternatives. 11. Solid Waste Management Section III-M provides estimates of solid waste generation for the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is estimated to generate approximately 139,181.08 tons of solid waste annually at build out. Estimated solid waste for each of the project alternatives at General Plan build out is shown in the following tables. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-52 Table V-23 Estimated Solid Waste Generation for La Quinta Planning Area No Project Land Use Type Generation Rate Unit Type Units (DU/Sq. Ft.) Annual Tons of Solid Waste Single Family 2.0400 tons/unit/year 34,798 70,988.74 Multi Family 1.1700 tons/unit/year 9,076 10,619.15 Retail/Commercial1 0.0024 tons/sf/year 15,275,317 36,660.76 Industrial 0.0108 tons/sf/year 0 0.00 Total 118,268.65 1Assumes development of all General, Tourist and Village Commercial based on retail/commercial factor. Source: Terra Nova staff estimates based on California Integrated Waste Management Board compilation of waste generation rates. Rates used are from Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department, “Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments of Solid Waste Impacts”, September 1992, and “DEIR for North Hills Development in Santa Clarita”, December 1991. Table V-24 Solid Waste Generation for Planning Area Alternative 1 Land Use Type Generation Rate Unit Type Units (DU/Sq. Ft.) Annual Tons of Solid Waste Single Family 2.04 tons/unit/year 36,636 74,737.44 Multi Family 1.17 tons/unit/year 6,128 7,169.76 Retail/Commercial1 0.0024 tons/sf/year 11,199,642 26,879.14 Industrial 0.0108 tons/sf/year 611,393 6,603.04 Total 115,389.39 1 Assumes development of all General, Tourist and Village Commercial based on retail/commercial factor. Source: Terra Nova staff estimates based on California Integrated Waste Management Board compilation of waste generation rates. Rates used are from Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department, “Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments of Solid Waste Impacts”, September 1992, and “DEIR for North Hills Development in Santa Clarita”, December 1991.. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-53 Table V-25 Solid Waste Generation for Planning Area Alternative 2 Land Use Type Generation Rate Unit Type Units (DU/Sq. Ft.) Annual Tons of Solid Waste Single Family 2.0400 tons/unit/year 45,032 91,865.28 Multi Family 1.1700 tons/unit/year 12,026 14,070.42 Retail/Commercial1 0.0024 tons/sf/year 12,742,826 30,582.78 Industrial 0.0108 tons/sf/year 611,393 6,603.04 Total 143,121.53 1Assumes development of all General, Tourist and Village Commercial based on retail/commercial factor. Source: Terra Nova staff estimates based on California Integrated Waste Management Board compilation of waste generation rates. Rates used are from Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department, “Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments of Solid Waste Impacts”, September 1992, and “DEIR for North Hills Development in Santa Clarita”, December 1991. The tables above show estimates for existing and future development within the City and Sphere. Based on these estimates, it is expected that the No Project alternative will generate approximately 15.0% less solid waste than the Preferred Alternative. The Less Intense will generate approximately 17.1% less than the Preferred; the More Intense will generate approximately 2.8% more solid waste than the Preferred Alternative. It should be noted that although each of the development scenarios will contribute to the waste stream, the mitigation measures set forth in Section III-M are applicable to any of the alternatives. With the implementation of these measures, potential impacts are expected to be reduced to less than significant levels, regardless of the alternative that is implemented. N. Recreational Resources The City of La Quinta has established criteria, based on the Quimby Act, for dedicating land for parks or payment of in lieu fees for new recreational resources. Residential projects containing more than five parcels are required to pay a park development fee or dedicate three acres of land for parks per one thousand people in a new subdivision. Under the Preferred Alternative, build out of the General Plan Update will result in a population of 79,956 people and require 240 acres of parks and recreational facilities within the city limits. Within the Sphere of Influence, build out under the Preferred Alternative will create a population of 54,396 people, and require 163 acres of parks and recreational facilities. In total, the Preferred Alternative will create a population of 134,352 at build out, and will require the development of 403 acres of recreational resources. No Project Alternative Build out under the No Project Alternative is expected to provide 31,930 residential units, and create a population of 80,783 within the City. Under these circumstances, the No Project Alternative will require approximately 242 acres or parkland in the City. This represents less Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-54 than 1% increase in both population and the amount of parkland needed in the City over the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the impact on recreational resources under the No Project Alternative will be slightly higher than the Preferred Alternative within the City Limit. In regards to the Sphere of Influence, the No Project Alternative is expected to provide 11,945 dwelling units, creating a population of 30,221 people. The Sphere of Influence will require approximately 91 acres of parkland and recreational opportunities. This represents a 43% decrease in population and recreational demand over the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, impacts on recreational resources under the No Project Alternative will be significantly less than the Preferred Alternative within the Sphere of Influence. Overall, the No Project Alternative will create a population of 111,004, and will require 333 acres set aside for recreational resources. The No Project Alternative, therefore, will have slightly less impact on recreational resources than the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 is expected to provide for 31,431 residential units, and create a total population of 79,520 within the City. This will create a need for 239 acres of parks and recreation resources. This represents a less than 1% decrease in population and recreational resource demand over the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 1 will, therefore, have slightly lower impacts on recreational resources than the Preferred Alternative within the City. Within the Sphere of Influence, Alternative 1 is expected to provide 11,333 residential units, creating a population of 28,672 people. This will require 86 acres of parkland and recreational resources. This represents a 47% decrease in population and recreation resource demand over the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to recreational resources under Alternative 1, therefore, will be lower than the Preferred Alternative within the Sphere of Influence. Overall, Alternative 1 will create a population of 108,193, and will require 325 acres to be set aside for recreational resources. Alternative 1, therefore, will have the lowest impact on recreational resources than all the alternatives. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 is expected to provide 31,903 residential units, creating a population of approximately 80,715 people in the City. This population will require 242 acres to be set aside for parks and recreation. This represents a less than 1% increase in population and recreational resource demand over the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the impact on recreational resources under Alternative 2 will be only marginally higher than the Preferred Alternative within the City. In regards to the Sphere of Influence, Alternative 2 is expected to provide up to 25,155 residential units, creating a population of 63,642 people. This population will require 191 acres of parkland and recreational resources. This represents a 17% increase in population and recreation resource demand over the Preferred Alternative. Impacts to recreational resources under Alternative 2, therefore, will be slightly higher than the Preferred Alternative within the Sphere of Influence. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-55 Overall, Alternative 2 will create a population of 144,357, and will require 433 acres set aside for recreational resources. Alternative 2, therefore, will have greater impact on recreational resources than the Preferred Alternative. O. Transportation/Traffic The purpose of this discussion is to analyze and compare the traffic impacts associated with each of the alternative projects. A discussed at the beginning of this section, the No Project Alternative is the build out of the current City General Plan. This analysis also examines the consequences of two other alternative land use allocation models. The Preferred Alternative calls for 53,103 dwelling units and 12.4 million square feet of commercial and industrial. The socio- economic data for the Preferred Alternative total 134,352 residents and 33,780 jobs. Also see Section III-O of this EIR for a detailed analysis of the transportation consequences of the Preferred Alternative. Table V-26 provides a summary of the Preferred Land Use Plan, 2002 General Plan, Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 attributes. Table V-26 Comparison of Land Use Alternatives Attribute Preferred Alternative No Project Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Total Population 134,352 111,004 108,193 144,357 Total Employment 33,780 32,041 32,194 34,507 Total Intersection Delay (a.m. peak hour) 4,919.3 4,502.2 4,721.1 5,045.4 Total Intersection Delay (p.m. peak hour) 7,802.0 7,571.8 7,673.2 7,907.9 Notes: Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds) Build out of this Preferred Alternative is forecast to result in peak season cumulative intersection delays, at the 37 study intersections, totaling 4,919 seconds during the a.m. peak period and 7,802 seconds during the p.m. peak period. Please note that this analysis for all alternatives assumes the build out of roadway improvements set forth in the 2002 General Plan. No Project Alternative Build out of the No Project (2002 General Plan) Alternative would result in total a.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections that are approximately 3% lower than result from build out of the Preferred Alternative. The 2002 General Plan total p.m. peak hour volumes are forecast to be approximately 1% lower than the Preferred Alternative. The total a.m. peak hour delay at the study intersections in the 2002 General Plan is forecast to be approximately 8% lower than the Preferred Alternative. The total p.m. peak hour delay at the study intersections in the 2002 General Plan is forecast to be approximately 3% lower than the Preferred Land Use Plan, with 4,502.2 seconds of delay during the AM peak and 7,571.8 seconds of delay during the PM peak. Detailed forecast year 2035 with the No Project Alternative levels Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-56 of service at the study intersections are shown in Table V-27. Measured as a function of intersection delay, the No Project Alternative is modestly (2.9%) superior to the Preferred Alternative and superior to both Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 1 Upon build out of Alternative 1, total a.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections are forecast to be approximately 2% lower than in the Preferred Alternative. The Alternative 1 total p.m. peak hour volumes are forecast to be approximately 1% lower than the Preferred Alternative. The total a.m. peak hour delay at the study intersections in Alternative 1 is forecast to be approximately 4% lower than the Preferred Alternative. The total p.m. peak hour delay at the study intersections in Alternative 1 is forecast to be approximately 2% lower than the Alternative, with 4,721.1 seconds of delay during the AM peak and 7,673.2 seconds of delay during the PM peak. Detailed forecast year 2035 with Alternative 1 levels of service at the study intersections are shown in Table V-28. below. Measured as a function of intersection delay, Alternative 1 is modestly (1.6%) superior to the Preferred Alternative, inferior to the No Project Alternative and superior to Alternative 2. Alternative 2 Upon build out of Alternative 2 total a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections are both forecast to be approximately 1% higher than the Preferred Alternative. The total a.m. peak hour delay at the study intersections in Alternative 2 is forecast to be approximately 3% higher than the Preferred Alternative. The total p.m. peak hour delay in Alternative 2 is forecast to be approximately 1% higher than the Preferred Alternative, with 5,045.4 seconds of delay during the AM peak and 7,907.9 during the PM peak. Detailed forecast year 2035 with Alternative 2 levels of service at the study intersections are shown in Table V-29. below. Measured as a function of intersection delay, Alternative 2 is modestly (1.3%) inferior to the Preferred Alternative, and inferior to the No Project Alternative and Alternative 1. Alternatives Impact Summary The analysis of overall intersection delays is an effective measure of the relative environmental superiority or inferiority of the various land use alternatives analyzed. As is evident from the above analysis, the project alternatives vary by less that 4% and less in most cases. While the No Project Alternative is superior to the others, this alternative does not achieve the goals and objectives of the project as well as the Preferred Alternative. In all cases, impacts associated with traffic would be significant and unavoidable. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-57 Table V-27 No Project Alternative Forecast Year 2035 Peak Season With Adopted General Plan Network Modified * Peak Hour Intersection LOS Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (Sec) V/C LOS Delay (Sec) V/C 1. Washington St & Fred Waring Dr Signal F 95.7 1.181 F 160.2 1.456 2. Washington St & Miles Ave Signal D 43.3 0.964 F 111.9 1.264 3. Washington St & Channel Dr Signal B 13.3 0.677 C 24.2 0.876 4. Washington St & Hwy 111 Signal F 89.0 1.161 F 159.4 1.405 5. Washington St & Ave 48 Signal F 92.1 1.160 D 50.1 1.037 6. Washington St & Eisenhower Dr Signal D 37.1 0.860 D 36.9 0.882 7. Washington St & Ave 50 Signal F 84.1 1.048 F 204.0 1.411 8. Washington St & Calle Tampico Signal B 19.7 0.522 C 23.1 0.527 9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal F 110.1 1.160 F 99.8 1.111 10. Eisenhower Dr & Calle Tampico Signal C 22.5 0.385 C 24.5 0.440 11. Avenida Bermudas & Ave 52 Signal C 26.8 0.679 C 26.9 0.223 12. Adams St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 47.0 0.988 E 78.3 1.125 13. Adams St & Miles Ave Signal C 33.8 0.724 E 73.8 1.071 14. Adams St & Hwy 111 Signal C 33.1 0.731 D 37.9 0.886 15. Adams St & Ave 48 Signal D 44.5 0.884 E 64.5 1.009 16. Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 28.0 0.741 F 85.5 1.178 17. Dune Palms Rd & Miles Ave Signal D 35.7 0.710 D 49.3 0.947 18. Dune Palms Rd & Westward Ho Dr Signal C 31.1 0.706 D 40.8 0.936 19. Dune Palms Rd & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.0 0.642 D 45.5 0.970 20. Dune Palms Rd & Ave 48 Signal D 38.0 0.826 E 59.1 1.024 21. Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 37.7 0.857 E 56.8 1.070 22. Jefferson St & Hwy 111 Signal D 36.0 0.818 F 89.7 1.120 23. Jefferson St & Ave 48 Signal D 52.0 0.995 F 86.8 1.170 24. Jefferson St & Ave 49 Signal B 18.1 0.613 B 16.4 0.693 25. Jefferson St & Ave 50 Signal D 51.0 0.995 F 107.3 1.261 26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Roundabout B 14.4 - F 153.5 - 27. Jefferson St & Ave 54 AWSC F 385.0 2.262 F 570.7 2.690 28. Madison St & Ave 50 AWSC F 454.5 2.497 F 732.1 3.231 29. Madison St & Ave 52 AWSC F 382.3 2.313 F 580.8 2.821 30. Madison St & Ave 54 AWSC F 513.0 3.475 F 747.5 4.778 31. Madison St & Ave 58 AWSC F 289.7 1.936 F 569.2 2.787 32. Madison St & Ave 60 AWSC F 158.1 1.492 F 290.6 1.976 33. Monroe St & Ave 52 AWSC F 336.5 2.052 F 582.6 2.703 34. Monroe St & Ave 54 AWSC F 442.0 2.563 F 628.1 3.024 35. Monroe St & Ave 58 AWSC F 261.4 1.957 F 437.0 2.432 36. Monroe St & Ave 60 AWSC F 82.0 1.224 F 310.2 1.861 37. Monroe St & Ave 62 AWSC D 31.6 0.880 F 156.8 1.435 Total Delay (sec) 4,502.2 7,571.8 Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology; AWSC = All-way Stop-controlled. BOLD indicates unsatisfactory level of service. LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. *Washington Street downgraded to a 6-lane facility from Highway 111 to Avenue 48. No other modifications to the currently adopted General Plan roadway network were made. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-58 Table V-28 Alternative 1 Forecast Year 2035 Peak Season With Adopted General Plan Network Modified * Peak Hour Intersection LOS Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (Sec) V/C LOS Delay (Sec) V/C 1. Washington St & Fred Waring Dr Signal F 98.5 1.202 F 160.4 1.445 2. Washington St & Miles Ave Signal D 44.8 0.972 F 104.7 1.239 3. Washington St & Channel Dr Signal B 13.3 0.677 C 24.2 0.877 4. Washington St & Hwy 111 Signal F 88.5 1.149 F 163.5 1.409 5. Washington St & Ave 48 Signal F 88.9 1.150 D 54.2 1.050 6. Washington St & Eisenhower Dr Signal D 35.8 0.851 D 35.3 0.871 7. Washington St & Ave 50 Signal E 76.8 1.026 F 229.7 1.476 8. Washington St & Calle Tampico Signal B 19.7 0.526 C 23.2 0.513 9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal F 113.9 1.168 F 96.2 1.093 10. Eisenhower Dr & Calle Tampico Signal C 22.5 0.383 C 24.7 0.436 11. Avenida Bermudas & Ave 52 Signal C 26.4 0.679 C 26.9 0.221 12. Adams St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 47.5 1.006 F 83.8 1.140 13. Adams St & Miles Ave Signal C 34.1 0.729 F 82.1 1.110 14. Adams St & Hwy 111 Signal C 33.1 0.735 D 36.7 0.877 15. Adams St & Ave 48 Signal D 44.1 0.880 D 54.3 0.947 16. Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 28.8 0.816 F 84.4 1.173 17. Dune Palms Rd & Miles Ave Signal D 35.9 0.715 D 46.7 0.925 18. Dune Palms Rd & Westward Ho Dr Signal C 31.4 0.725 D 45.6 0.969 19. Dune Palms Rd & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.1 0.651 D 47.2 0.984 20. Dune Palms Rd & Ave 48 Signal D 37.8 0.824 E 75.6 1.085 21. Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 37.6 0.852 D 50.0 1.016 22. Jefferson St & Hwy 111 Signal D 36.3 0.844 F 90.9 1.132 23. Jefferson St & Ave 48 Signal E 56.1 1.028 F 81.3 1.148 24. Jefferson St & Ave 49 Signal B 17.9 0.634 B 16.1 0.686 25. Jefferson St & Ave 50 Signal D 50.4 0.990 F 101.1 1.228 26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Roundabout C 18.7 - F 143.6 - 27. Jefferson St & Ave 54 AWSC F 377.9 2.095 F 584 2.786 28. Madison St & Ave 50 AWSC F 456 2.566 F 707.5 3.162 29. Madison St & Ave 52 AWSC F 386.5 2.243 F 559 2.764 30. Madison St & Ave 54 AWSC F 555 3.772 F 717.2 4.572 31. Madison St & Ave 58 AWSC F 316.6 1.839 F 568.9 2.677 32. Madison St & Ave 60 AWSC F 250.5 2.45 F 460.8 3.284 33. Monroe St & Ave 52 AWSC F 345.5 2.012 F 586.7 2.82 34. Monroe St & Ave 54 AWSC F 453.1 2.468 F 615.6 3.005 35. Monroe St & Ave 58 AWSC F 261 1.846 F 437.7 2.552 36. Monroe St & Ave 60 AWSC F 112.4 1.352 F 305.3 1.975 37. Monroe St & Ave 62 AWSC E 35.7 0.907 F 148.1 1.401 Total Delay (sec) 4,721.1 7,673.2 Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology; AWSC = All-way Stop-controlled. BOLD indicates unsatisfactory level of service. LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. *Washington Street downgraded to a 6-lane facility from Highway 111 to Avenue 48. No other modifications to the currently adopted General Plan roadway network were made. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-59 Table V-29 Alternative 2 Forecast Year 2035 Peak Season With Adopted General Plan Network Modified * Peak Hour Intersection LOS Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay (Sec) V/C LOS Delay (Sec) V/C 1. Washington St & Fred Waring Dr Signal F 102.0 1.227 F 171.6 1.476 2. Washington St & Miles Ave Signal D 49.2 0.997 F 109.6 1.251 3. Washington St & Channel Dr Signal B 13.3 0.677 C 24.5 0.880 4. Washington St & Hwy 111 Signal F 95.3 1.191 F 161.1 1.410 5. Washington St & Ave 48 Signal F 96.7 1.178 D 50.8 1.040 6. Washington St & Eisenhower Dr Signal D 38.1 0.867 D 37.4 0.887 7. Washington St & Ave 50 Signal F 86.2 1.060 F 202.9 1.408 8. Washington St & Calle Tampico Signal B 19.4 0.530 C 22.9 0.523 9. Washington St & Ave 52 Signal F 131.7 1.220 F 101.4 1.106 10. Eisenhower Dr & Calle Tampico Signal C 22.6 0.386 C 24.6 0.439 11. Avenida Bermudas & Ave 52 Signal C 26.0 0.678 C 26.9 0.221 12. Adams St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 50.8 1.043 F 83.0 1.141 13. Adams St & Miles Ave Signal C 35.0 0.746 E 75.7 1.077 14. Adams St & Hwy 111 Signal C 33.6 0.750 D 38.0 0.888 15. Adams St & Ave 48 Signal D 48.1 0.909 E 63.2 1.005 16. Dune Palms Rd & Fred Waring Dr Signal C 29.7 0.839 F 97.2 1.223 17. Dune Palms Rd & Miles Ave Signal D 36.5 0.733 D 51.5 0.964 18. Dune Palms Rd & Westward Ho Dr Signal C 32.1 0.748 D 44.0 0.962 19. Dune Palms Rd & Hwy 111 Signal C 32.5 0.659 D 45.1 0.962 20. Dune Palms Rd & Ave 48 Signal D 39.8 0.844 E 64.1 1.048 21. Jefferson St & Fred Waring Dr Signal D 38.9 0.886 E 66.9 1.129 22. Jefferson St & Hwy 111 Signal D 36.7 0.847 F 93.0 1.161 23. Jefferson St & Ave 48 Signal E 64.0 1.075 F 96.6 1.219 24. Jefferson St & Ave 49 Signal B 17.8 0.654 B 16.4 0.700 25. Jefferson St & Ave 50 Signal E 56.1 1.028 F 112.1 1.276 26. Jefferson St & Ave 52 Roundabout D 29.3 - F 156.7 - 27. Jefferson St & Ave 54 AWSC F 405.1 2.166 F 577.2 2.635 28. Madison St & Ave 50 AWSC F 485.3 2.664 F 760.4 3.203 29. Madison St & Ave 52 AWSC F 424.4 2.346 F 579.8 2.818 30. Madison St & Ave 54 AWSC F 588.1 3.908 F 747.4 4.793 31. Madison St & Ave 58 AWSC F 339.9 1.942 F 590.7 2.719 32. Madison St & Ave 60 AWSC F 259.8 2.467 F 475.2 3.379 33. Monroe St & Ave 52 AWSC F 375.7 2.097 F 585.6 2.714 34. Monroe St & Ave 54 AWSC F 488.1 2.579 F 635 3.033 35. Monroe St & Ave 58 AWSC F 258.5 1.81 F 429.1 2.529 36. Monroe St & Ave 60 AWSC F 127.2 1.439 F 335.3 2.015 37. Monroe St & Ave 62 AWSC D 31.9 0.863 F 155 1.391 Total Delay (sec) 5,045.4 7,907.9 Notes: HCM 2000 Operations Methodology; AWSC = All-way Stop-controlled. BOLD indicates unsatisfactory level of service. LOS = Level of Service, Delay = Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds), V/C = Volume-to-Capacity Ratio. *Washington Street downgraded to a 6-lane facility from Highway 111 to Avenue 48. No other modifications to the currently adopted General Plan roadway network were made. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-60 P. Water Resources & Quality Section III-P of this EIR analyzes potential impacts to water resources and water quality that may arise from implementation of the La Quinta General Plan. As described therein, adherence to regional, state, and federal standards and regulation as well as the implementation of mitigation measures, impacts to water resources and quality will be reduced to levels below significance. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with recharge. Sections III-H and V-H, hydrology, further address water resources as they relate to drainage and stormwater flows. As described in Section III-P, build out of the Preferred Alternative is projected to generate a water demand of 37,783 acre-feet within City limits and 16,684 acre-feet within the Sphere. As such, the entire Planning Area is projected to generate a build out water demand of 54,467 acre- feet per year under the Preferred Alternative. At build out of the Preferred Alternative, land uses within City limits will generate an annual water demand of 0.47 acre-feet per person, or approximately 420 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), and land uses within the Sphere will generate approximately 0.31 acre-feet per year per person, or 277 gallons per day per capita. To estimate the water demand generated by each of the Alternatives, a water demand factor for each land use type by unit, square feet, or acreage was derived from Appendix A of the Water Supply Study and applied accordingly to each land use type set forth under each Alternative. Detailed calculations to estimate the water demand generated by each Alternative is provided below. No Project Alternative Impacts to water resources and water quality under the No Project Alternative will be similar to the Preferred Alternative. Within City limits, the No Project Alternative proposes an additional 327 dwelling units and an additional 481,479 square feet of commercial relative to what is proposed under the Preferred Alternative. As such, there is the potential for slightly more impacts to water resources and quality under the No Project Alternative within City limits. The Sphere for the No Project Alternative proposes 9,555 fewer dwelling units and an additional 2.4 million square feet of commercial relative to what is proposed under the Preferred Alternative. As such, there is the potential for slightly less impacts to water resources and quality under the No Project Alternative within the Sphere. Mitigation measures and adherence to water quality standards and regulation will assure that impacts are reduced to less than significant impacts. As seen in the Table below, the No Project Alternative is projected to generate an annual water demand of 37,770 acre-feet at build out within City limits and 8,416 acre-feet within the Sphere. This equates to a per capita water demand of 0.47 acre-feet (420 gpcd) within City limits and 0.28 acre-feet (250 gpcd) within the Sphere. As proposed, the No Project Alternative will generate a water demand that is comparable to what is projected for the City limits and half of what is projected for the Sphere relative to the Preferred Alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-61 Table V-30 No Project Alternative Water Demand Landscaping (Acre-feet) Potable (Acre-feet) Total Water Demand (Acre-feet) City Limits Low Density Residential 9,549 5,040 14,588 Medium/High Density Residential 1,398 946 2,345 Commercial 521 1,426 1,947 Major Community Facilities 218 68 286 Open Space - Natural N/A N/A N/A Open Space- Recreation 18,971 N/A 17,682 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 922 N/A 922 City Limit Total 37,770 Sphere Low Density Residential 4,799 1,324 6,123 Medium/High Density Residential 406 577 983 Commercial/Industrial 297.90 582.74 881 Major Community Facilities 74.53 31.29 106 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 324.17 N/A 324 Sphere Total 8,416 Planning Area Low Density Residential 14,348 6,363 20,711 Medium/High Density Residential 1,804 1,523 3,327 Commercial/Industrial 819 2,009 2,827 Major Community Facilities 292 100 392 Open Space - Natural N/A N/A N/A Open Space- Recreation 18,971 N/A 17,682 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 1,247 N/A 1,247 Planning Area Total 46,186 Alternative 1 Impacts to water resources and water quality under Alternative 1 will be similar to the Preferred Alternative. Within City limits, Alternative 1 proposes 172 fewer dwelling units and a reduction of 456,491 square feet of commercial relative to what is proposed under the Preferred Alternative. As such, slightly decreased impacts to water resources and quality are expected to occur under Alternative 1 within City limits. The Sphere for Alternative 1 proposes 10,167 fewer dwelling units and a reduction of 708,498 square feet of commercial relative to what is proposed under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, there is the potential for slightly less impacts to water resources and quality under Alternative 1 within the Sphere. Mitigation measures and adherence to water quality standards and regulation will assure that impacts are reduced to less than significant impacts. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-62 The table below shows the projected water demand that will be generated at build out of Alternative 1. Within City limits, the annual water demand is projected to be 37,578 acre-feet, which is comparable to the water demands generated by the Preferred Alternative. Within the Sphere the annual water demand under Alternative 1 is projected to be 9,183 acre-feet per year, which is 45% less than what is projected under the Preferred Alternative. Water demands of Alternative 1 are projected to generate a per capita water demand of 0.47 acre-feet per year (420 gpcd) for City limits and 0.32 acre-feet per year (282 gpcd) for the Sphere. Table V-31 Alternative 1 Water Demand Landscaping (Acre-feet) Potable (Acre-feet) Total Water Demand (Acre-feet) City Limits Low Density Residential 9,127 4,817 13,944 Medium/High Density Residential 1,572 1,064 2,637 Commercial 472 1,294 1,766 Major Community Facilities 477 150 626 Open Space - Natural N/A N/A N/A Open Space- Recreation 17,682 N/A 17,682 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 922 N/A 922 City Limit Total 37,578 Sphere Low Density Residential 6,544 1,805 8,349 Medium/High Density Residential 6 8 13 Commercial/Industrial 152 298 450 Major Community Facilities 32 14 46 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 324 N/A 324 Sphere Total 9,183 Planning Area Low Density Residential 15,671 6,622 22,294 Medium/High Density Residential 1,578 1,072 2,650 Commercial/Industrial 624 1,591 2,216 Major Community Facilities 509 163 673 Open Space - Natural N/A N/A N/A Open Space- Recreation 17,682 N/A 17,682 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 1,247 N/A 1,247 Planning Area Total 46,760 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-63 Alternative 2 Impacts to water resources and water quality under Alternative 2 will be similar to the Preferred Alternative. Within City limits, Alternative 2 proposes 300 additional dwelling units and an addition of 14,915 square feet of commercial relative to what is proposed under the Preferred Alternative. As such, slightly greater impacts to water resources and quality are expected to occur under Alternative 2 within City limits. The Sphere for Alternative 2 proposes 3,655 additional dwelling units and an additional 363,280 square feet of commercial relative to what is proposed under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, there is the potential for slightly greater impacts to water resources and quality under Alternative 2 within the Sphere. Mitigation measures and adherence to water quality standards and regulation will assure that impacts are reduced to less than significant impacts. As seen in the Table below, Alternative 2 is projected to generate an annual water demand of 37,919 acre-feet at build out within City limits and 16,846 acre-feet within the Sphere. This equates to a per capita water demand of 0.47 acre-feet (420 gpcd) within City limits and 0.27 acre-feet (241 gpcd) within the Sphere. As proposed, Alternative 2 will generate a water demand that is comparable to what is projected under the Preferred Alternative for City limits and the Sphere. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-64 Table V-32 Alternative 2 Water Demand Landscaping (Acre-feet) Potable (Acre-feet) Total Demand (Acre-feet) City Limits Low Density Residential 9,268 4,892 14,160 Medium/High Density Residential 1,593 1,078 2,671 Commercial 497 1,360 1,857 Major Community Facilities 477 150 626 Open Space - Natural N/A N/A N/A Open Space- Recreation 17,684 N/A 17,682 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 922 N/A 922 City Limit Total 37,919 Sphere Low Density Residential 11,186 3,086 14,272 Medium/High Density Residential 649 922 1,571 Commercial/Industrial 214 419 632 Major Community Facilities 32 14 46 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 324 N/A 324 Sphere Total 16,846 Planning Area Low Density Residential 20,455 7,977 28,432 Medium/High Density Residential 2,242 2,000 4,242 Commercial/Industrial 711 1,779 2,489 Major Community Facilities 509 163 673 Open Space - Natural N/A N/A N/A Open Space- Recreation 17,684 N/A 17,682 Streets, Sidewalks, Medians 1,247 N/A 1,247 Planning Area Total 54,764 Environmentally Superior Alternative E. CEQA requires that the analysis of alternatives include a conclusion as to which alternative is environmentally superior. Based on the analysis in this Section of the EIR, and when compared to that provided in Section III, all the alternatives will have similar impacts on aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and hydrology. Impacts associated with issue areas directly tied to development, including air quality, noise, public facilities, water resources and traffic, will be lower under the No Project Alternative and Alternative 1, and equal or higher under the Alternative 2. For air quality impacts, where the impacts have been determined to remain significant and unavoidable under the Preferred Alternative, even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, none of the alternatives would reduce all these impacts to less than significant levels. The No Project (2002 General Plan) alternative, would have the least Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-65 significant amount of emissions, but would still have significant impacts to air quality. As regards GHG impacts, the No Project alternative has the greatest potential for impacts, since it is the only alternative where the City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan would not be implemented, since annexation would not occur. All other alternatives would reduce GHG impacts to less than significant levels with implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. Traffic impacts remain significant and unavoidable under the Preferred Alternative. Traffic impacts associated with all the alternatives would result in significant and unavoidable impacts under all alternatives, although the No Project Alternative would be marginally better than the others. In the overall, the No Project Alternative would have lesser impacts on the environment, and would represent the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative can be considered in this case, because it would result in development under the 2002 General Plans of the City and the County, and is not a No Project/No Development alternative. However, the General Plan Update was undertaken because the 2002 General Plan no longer meets the community’s needs and goals. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would no meet the Project Objectives established in this Section. Alternative 1 would be the next most superior alternative. Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-1 V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................ V-1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. V-1 A. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... V-3 B. ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS .................................................................... V-5 C. 1. No Project Alternative .............................................................................................................................. V-5 2. Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................................... V-10 3. Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................................... V-14 ALTERNATIVE PROJECTS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... V-18 D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................ V-64 E. Table V-1 Preferred Alternative Build Out Summary: City Limits ........................................... V-2 Table V-2 Preferred Alternative Build Out Summary: Sphere of Influence .............................. V-2 Table V-3 Preferred Alternative Build Out Summary: Entire Planning Area ............................ V-3 Table V-4 No Project Alternative Build Out Summary: City Limits Only ................................ V-7 Table V-5 No Project Alternative Build Out Summary: Sphere-of-Influence ........................... V-8 Table V-6 No Project Alternative Build Out Summary: Planning Area Total ........................... V-9 Table V-7 Alternative 1 Build Out Summary: City Limits Only ............................................. V-10 Table V-8 Alternative 1 Build Out Summary: Sphere-of-Influence ........................................ V-11 Table V-9 Alternative 1 Build Out Summary: Planning Area Total ........................................ V-12 Table V-10 Alternative 2 Build Out Summary: City Limits Only ........................................... V-14 Table V-11 Alternative 2 Build Out Summary: Sphere-of-Influence ...................................... V-15 Table V-12 Alternative 2 Build Out Summary: Planning Area Total ...................................... V-16 Table V-13 Cumulative Daily Emissions No Project Alternative (Lbs./day) .......................... V-24 Table V-14 GHG Emissions for the No Project Alternative .................................................... V-25 Table V-15 Cumulative Daily Emissions Alternative 1 (Lbs./day) .......................................... V-26 Table V-16 GHG Emissions for Alternative 1 ......................................................................... V-27 Table V-17 Cumulative Daily Emissions Alternative 2 (Lbs./day) ......................................... V-28 Table V-18 GHG Emissions for Alternative 2 ......................................................................... V-29 Table V-19 Year 2035 Preferred Alternative Noise Contour Comparison ............................... V-39 Table V-20 Potential School Enrollment at General Plan Build Out , No Project Alternative V-44 Table V-21 School Enrollment at General Plan Build Out, Alternative 1 ................................ V-44 Table V-22 School Enrollment at General Plan Build Out Alternative 2 ................................. V-45 Table V-23 Estimated Solid Waste Generation for La Quinta Planning Area No Project ....... V-52 Table V-24 Solid Waste Generation for Planning Area Alternative 1 ..................................... V-52 Table V-25 Solid Waste Generation for Planning Area Alternative 2 ..................................... V-53 Table V-26 Comparison of Land Use Alternatives .................................................................. V-55 Table V-27 No Project Alternative Forecast Year 2035 Peak Season ...................................... V-57 Table V-28 Alternative 1 Forecast Year 2035 Peak Season ..................................................... V-58 Table V-29 Alternative 2 Forecast Year 2035 Peak Season ..................................................... V-59 Table V-30 No Project Alternative Water Demand .................................................................. V-61 Table V-31 Alternative 1 Water Demand ................................................................................. V-62 Table V-32 Alternative 2 Water Demand ................................................................................. V-64 Exhibit V-1 No Project Alternative Land Use Map .................................................................... V-6 Exhibit V-2 Alternative 1 Land Use Map ................................................................................. V-13 Exhibit V-3 Alternative 2 Land Use Map ................................................................................. V-17 Terra Nova/La Quinta General Plan EIR Section V. Project Alternatives V-2