1 Riv Cnty Board Resolution Nos. 88-483 & 88-521 re: SP 218 (1988)PART 1
BOARD RESOLUTION
Board of Supervisors
CountX of Riverside
D 'J
!L y
>z
o=)
¢o
}U
z
0O
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
m 26
co
rn2 TZ
�2
C.`
0
RESOLUTION NO. 88-483
ADOPTING
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218
(Rancho La Quinta)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450
et seg., a public hearing was held before the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors in Riverside, California on September 13, 1988, to consider
Specific Plan No. 218 (Rancho La Quinta); and,
WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the Riverside County Rules to Implement the Act have been met,
and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 232, prepared in connection with the
specific plan, is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant
effects of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or
substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the
above -referenced Act and Rules; and,
WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and
documentation presented by the public and affected government agencies; now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Riverside, in regular session assembled on October
4, 1988, that the following environmental impacts are associated with the
proposed specific plan and each of said impacts will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the identified mitigation measures:
CL
a
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY
1. Impact:
Construction of the residential, commercial,
golf courses and ancillary facilities
associated with the proposed specific plan
will not substantially alter the topography
of the site. Minor grading, including
elevation differentials of less than ten (10)
feet, will result in minimal landform
alterations. No significant impact will
occur to either landform or topography.
2. Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are recommended or
required.
B. SEISMIC SAFETY SLOPES
AND EROSION
1. Impact:
Potential impacts associated with geology and
soils are related primarily to seismically
induced effects, erosion and the stability of
surficial deposits.
2. Mitigation:
Site specific geotechnical investigations
shall be conducted by a qualified consultant
prior to issuance of building permits. The
applicant will incorporate these
recommendations in the final project design,
including all mitigation measures developed
by the geotechnical consultant.
FAI
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. FLOODING AND WATER QUALITY
1. Impact•
2. Mitigation:
D. NOISE
1. Impact:
2, Mitigation:
Change of on -site water quantity and quality
create potential impacts but are not
considered significant. No significant
impacts are expected to occur from the use of
ground water aquifers by the proposed
development. The proposed project would
contribute to the overall regional increase
in the degradation of water quality. These
impacts are not considered significant,
however, due to the- relatively small
quantities involved, and the on -site
solutions of the development' -plan.
The applicant will utilize water conservation
efforts and minimize run-off through project
design.
Certain portions of the project would likely
be exposed to noise levels greater than the
County's noise guidelines of 65dB(A) CNEL
exterior and 45dB(A) CNEL interior.
Mitigation measures will include building
setbacks, earthen berms, masonry walls and/or
a combination of methods. The mitigation
measures shall be subject to review and
approval by the County. Adoption of these
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
measures will ensure that all on -site noise
impacts are reduced to a level of
insignificance.
E. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact:
The construction -related emissions and
fugitive dust associated with site
preparation and construction are considered
short-term adverse effects. Upon completion
ro osed
and operation of the p project, air
p p Ject
quality in the project area will be directly
affected by motor vehicle (mobile) emissions
from project traffic, and indirectly
influenced by power plant pollutants
(stationary emissions) emitted to service the
project. `Total projected emissions from the
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan would not
significantly contribute to the total
emissions burden within the Riverside County
basin. The project is within the SCAG
population forecasts, which is the basis for
SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan.
Consequently, the proposed project would not
be a significant contributor to air quality
degradation in the project vicinity although
it would incrementally contribute to the
degradation of air quality in the local air
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
f
28
basin. Measures will be incorporated into i
the project design to further reduce
projected emissions and comply with County of
Riverside General Plan air quality
guidelines.
2. Mitigation: Construction produced fugitive dust and other
pollutants will be reduced by watering
surfaces and planting ground cover as soon as
feasible after grading. Project generated
emissions will be reduced through
incorporating transit facilities, energy
efficient buildings, and. solar design
features. In addition, efficient traffic
patterns will minimize unnecessary automobile
idling and the associated emissions. For
commercial developments with 100 or more
employees, SCAQMD requires a reduction in
vehicle trips by encouraging employee
carpooling.
F. WATER AND SEWER QUALITY
1. Impact: The project will require the extension of
domestic water facilities from the nearby PGA
West development; an expansion of the
Midvalley Sewage Treatment Plant; and some
additional on -site and off -site improvements
to adequately provide water and sewer service
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Mitigation:
G. AGRICULTURE
to the site. Coachella Valley Water District'
(CVWD) does not foresee any adverse impacts,
provided that participation in the fair -share
funding of those additional facilities is
implemented by the developer to CVWD
requirements.
Although no impacts are identified in Phase
One of the development plan, the developer
must financially contribute through
development fees applicable at the time of
construction to increase treatment plant
capacity proportionally to the project's
contribution to the load on'the facility. In
addition, the developer must construct all
on -site facilities to standards established
by the CVWD. Facilities will be constructed
in accordance with identified needs and
phasing of the development.
1. Impact: Implementation of the project would remove
710 acres from existing agriculture
production and would result in the loss of
1,140 acres of prime agricultural land. From
a regional perspective, the project site
represents approximately one percent of prime
agricultural land in the Coachella Valley.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Loss of productive agricultural land and
designated prime agricultural land represents
an incremental decrease in agriculture in the
Coachella Valley but does not represent a
significant adverse impact.
2. Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
H. WILDLIFE/VEGETATION
1. Impact:
Impacts from the project are not considered
significant; however, adverse impacts could
occur to potential flat -tailed horned lizard
and Crissal thrasher habitats in the mesquite
thickets.
2. Mitigation:
A spring survey for the flat -tailed horned
lizard is recommended in potential habitat in
the northwestern portion of the site prior to
development in that portion of the site. If
individuals are located within this area,
contribution to a habitat retention program
would be recommended. Impacts to natural
mesquite thicket will be reduced by
incorporation of mesquite in the landscape
palette where feasible.
1. UTILITIES
1. Impact: The proposed project will not have a
significant adverse impact on local
utilities, provided conservation standards
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are implemented into the design of the
project.
2. Mitigation: Conservation measures will be incorporated
into the design of the project. Further
mitigation measures will not be required.
J. HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC RESOURCES
1. Impact: Potential adverse impacts could occur to
cultural resources on the project site.
Indirect impacts to resources in the vicinity
are potentially adverse, though not
significant.
2. Mitigation: A qualified archaeologist will be retained
for monitoring during grading in areas
identified as a cultural resource within• the
project boundary.
K. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
1. Impact: Mesquite thickets in the undisturbed areas of
the project site are a declining habitat in
need of conservation. Loss of this habitat
would result in an adverse impact.
2. Mitigation: The loss of open space in the area is
mitigated by designating 32 percent of the
site as open space. Loss of the mesquite
thicket habitat will be mitigated by the
developer through a revegetation plan
utilizing mesquite in the design of the golf
course when the golf course is developed.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L. CIRCULATION
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Potential project -related traffic.impacts are
identified, including unacceptable levels of
service on Monroe Street, and the
intersections of Avenue 58/Madison Street,
Avenue 58/Monroe Street, Avenue 58/Jackson
Street, Avenue 6O/Monroe Street and Avenue
60/Jackson Street. These traffic impacts
will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the phased implementation
of certain roadway improvements which are
itemized in detail in the mitigation section.
Measures are proposed which will mitigate
project -related traffic impacts to below a
level of significance— These measures
include improvements to Circulation Element
roads as identified in the Riverside County
General Plan Circulation Element, as amended
at the time of building permit issuance,
intersection improvements and signalization
where warranted, appropriate treatment of
entries to the project site to avoid sight
distance constraints, appropriate
construction of internal roads to County
standards, appropriate access for golf carts
and conformance with all applicable building
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26'
27
28
and construction codes of the County Road
Department.
M. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY
1. Impact: The project will include residential,
2. Mitigation:
IN. SOLID WASTE
commercial and open space uses. The
development will include similar types of
land uses as are being constructed on the
adjacent PGA West project. Minimal landform
alteration would occur, because of the
limited topographic relief over the project
site. If the project complies with the
design guidelines promulgated in the Specific
Plan, no significant aesthetic or visual
quality impacts will occur.
The developer will be required to implement
the guidelines and policies of the Specific
Plan upon construction of the development.
1. Impacts: The County does not foresee any problems with
accommodating the solid waste to be generated
by the project in the Coachella Valley
Landfill; therefore, no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
2. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
l
r' 28
0. FIRE AND SHERIFF SERVICES
1. Impact:
2. Miti ation•
P. SCHOOLS
1. Impact•
2. Mitigation:
Q. PARKS AND RECREATION
The proposed project is not expected to
create any adverse impacts to fire services
in the area. Implementation of the proposed
project will not create an adverse impact on
Sheriff services in the area.
The project will incorporate all requirements
of the Fire Department, and Sheriff
Department through project design.
The proposed development will generate
approximately 300 school age children.
Mitigation measures include- developer fees
per square foot for residential development
and commercial development or school sites
designated in lieu of the developer's fees.
Developer's fees and/or school site
designation would be required of the
developer prior to building permit issuance
and would reduce impacts to a level of
insignificance.
1. Impact: The proposed project designates approximately
40 acres of the site for public uses.
Approximately 380 acres of golf courses are
also proposed. The County of Riverside Parks
11
I r,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Department requires a minimum of 61 acres
designated for parks and recreation. The
proposed parks will implement design
standards incorporated in the Specific Plan.
2. Mitigation: The combination of designated parkland and
golf course mitigates impacts to a level of
insignificance, no further mitigation is
required.
R. LIBRARIES
1. Impact:
The new library being constructed in La
Quinta will serve 5,000 to 9,000 people. The
proposed Rancho La Quinta development, at
full build -out, is expected to house
approximately 13,260 people creating an
adverse, but mitigable impact to the library
system.
2. Mitigation:
To mitigate impacts on library services by
the proposed project to a level of
insignificance, a developer fee will be
required to obtain building permits.
Designation of a library site within the
proposed development in lieu of development
fees by the developer may alternatively be
required to mitigate adverse impacts to the
library system.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S. HEALTH SERVICES
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
T. AIRPORTS
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
U. FISCAL IMPACT
1. Impact'
Because the two outpatient clinics, located
in Palm Desert and La Quinta, relieve much of
the dependency on the hospital in Indio, no
health service related impacts are expected
to occur.
No adverse impacts are expected to occur to
health services in the area; therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
In the future, population -generated from the
project may contribute to an increase in
Coachella Valley's aviation needs. Expansion
of the Thermal Airport resulting from
regional growth in the Coachella Valley would
likely not affect the project's noise or
safety environment, and no adverse impacts
are anticipated.
No mitigation measures are required.
The projected County costs for the proposed
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan exceed County
revenue because a portion of the revenue
would be provided to the Redevelopment
Project Agency. At build -out, however, the
total revenue is expected to be greater than
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
nine million dollars, whereas the total net
County cost is projected to be less than six
million. Therefore, the Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan is projected to have an overall
positive fiscal impact when the County and
Redevelopment Agency are considered together.
2. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are necessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that Specific Plan
No. 218 will implement applicable elements of the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan as follows:
A. Land Use Element: The Riverside_ County Comprehensive General Nian
recognizes the project area as transitioning from agriculture land uses to
urban land uses and economic base and that this area can -be expected to
i 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 B.
23
24
25
26
27
28
experience increased urbanization. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan
project is located within the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning E
Area. The site is located approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast of the
La Quinta City limits. Desert communities of Cathedral City, Rancho
Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, Indio and Coachella are located within
30 miles of the proposed development. Densities and land uses proposed by
Specific Plan No. 218 are similar and consistent with those in the
development to the northwest of Oak Tree/West and PGA West Specific Plans.
Administrative Element: The project provides a fiscal impact report and
time frames for development, pursuant to the land use policies of the
Administrative Element. When the County and Redevelopment Agency are
considered together, the fiscal impact analysis projects a positive impact
on County services at project build -out.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Public Facilities and Services Element: The project contains a
comprehensive public services and facilities program for circulation,
water, sewer, fire protection and other services. An urban level of
infrastructure is presently within reach of the subject site and in those
instances where present capacities of public utility services and
infrastructures are inadequate the applicant and County will cooperate in
the formation of any special assessment district, community facilities
district or alternate financing mechanisms to pay for the construction
and/or maintenance and operation of public infrastructure facilities
required to serve the project. Further, to the extent necessary, the
applicant will build wells, reservoirs, transmission mains and/or booster
stations or dedicate lands for the same to serve the project.
D. Housing Element: The proposed Specific Plan will provide 4,262
residential units with a variety of product types. The project also
includes about 421 acres of parks/recreational uses allowing sufficient
acreage for school site s), open space, and 35 acres of commercial land.
E. Environmental Hazards and Resources Element: EIR No. 232 assessed the
full range of concerns associated with this project. EIR No. 232 proposed
mitigation of each of the identified impacts. No overriding findings are
required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has
reviewed and considered EIR No. 232 in evaluating Specific Plan No. 218, that
EIR No. 232 is an accurate and objective statement that complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act, that EIR No. 232 is certified, and that
EIR No. 232 is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
15
r-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that Specific Plan
No. 218, on file with the Clerk of the Board, including the final conditions of
approval and exhibits, is hereby adopted as the Specific Plan of Land Use for
the real property shown in the plan, and said real property shall be developed
substantially in accordance with the specific plan, unless the plan is repealed
or amended by the Board.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that copies of
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of the
Board, in the Office of the Planning Director and in the Office of the Director
of Building and Safety, and that no applications for subdivision maps,
conditional use permits or other development approvals shal-1 be accepted for
the real property shown on Specific Plan No. 218, unless such applications are
substantially in accordance therewith.
RG:mcb
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Board of Supervisors
County of Riverside
RESOLUTION 88-521
CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF A
LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
AND DIMINISHMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE
WHEREAS, Howard B. and Denise P. Keck entered into a Land Conservation
Contract with the County of Riverside, pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Government Code Section 51200 et seg.) which contract
is dated January 1, 1976, and was recorded on September 3, 1976, as Instrument
No. 132447 in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County,
California; and,
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed by Howard B. and Denise P. Keck to
cancel said contract and to diminish the Coachella Valley Agricultural Preserve
No 58, Map No. 300, as amended, pursuant to Section 51200 et seq. of the
Government Code, and a public hearing has been held by this Board on September
13, 1988; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA, the diminishment and the
alternative land use were environmentally assessed by Environmental Impact
Report No. 232, and EIR No. 232 has been reviewed and considered in evaluating
this petition; and,
WHEREAS, the landowners have proposed, if the cancellation is
approved, that the land be used for the following alternative use:
Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No.136, Specific Plan No. 218, and Change
of Zone No. 5132 (Specific Plan Zone); and,
1
11
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the amount of the cancellation fee, pursuant to Section 51283
of the Government Code, has been determined and certified by this Board to be
$132.769.00; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Riverside, State of California, in regular session assembled on
October 6, 1988, that:
1. The cancellation of the contract, diminishment of the agricultural
preserve, and the use of land for the proposed alternative use is consistent
with the General Plan and the purposes of the Land Conservation Act.
2. Cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been
served.
3. Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent
lands from agricultural use.
4. Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with
the General Plan.
5. Cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban
development.
6. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available
and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put.
7. Resolution No. 88-483 and the findings contained therein are
incorporated herein by reference.
8. The conditions with which the landowners must comply within one
year following the date of the recording of this certificate of tentative
cancellation are as follows:
a. Payment to the Treasurer of Riverside County of the total
amount of the cancellation fee of $132,769.00.
1111111111
II11111111
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b. That Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. 112 be adopted
by the Board of Supervisors.
c. That Specific Plan No. 218 (Rancho La Quinta) be adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.
d. Change of Zone No. 5132 be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and be effective.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Clerk
of the Board shall file and record copies of this resolution in the Office of
the County Recorder of Riverside County, California, and with the Director of
Conservation, State of California; that the landowners shall have a period of
one year from the date of said recording to comply with the conditions of
approval; and that upon completion of all conditions, the landowner will be
entitled to a final certificate of cancellation which provides as follows:
1. The Coachella Valley Agricultural Preserve No. 58, Map No. 300,
recorded February 28, 1974, as Instrument No. 23554 in the Office of the County
Recorder of Riverside County, California, will be amended by deleting therefrom
the area shown on the map entitled "AMENDMENT NO. 2 (DIMINISHMENT) TO COACHELLA
VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. 58, MAP NO. 682," and
2. The Land Conservation Contract between Howard B. and Denise P.
Keck and the County of Riverside, dated January 1, 1976, and recorded on
September 3, 1976, as Instrument No. 132447 in the Office of the County
Recorder of Riverside County, California, will be cancelled, thereby removing
from the effect of said contract the real property in the County of Riverside,
State of California, described in attached Exhibit A, which is made a part of
this resolution.
3
0411
2
3
4
5
S
7
141
ti
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
26
27
28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the conditions of approval are not
satisfied within one (1) year, the tentative cancellation shall be withdrawn.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon application of the landowners, the
Board may extend the one-year time period for completing all conditions of
approval, upon a finding by the Board that the landowners have proceeded with
due diligence and have been prevented from satisfying the conditions of
approval by circumstances beyond their control. If the Board extends the
period of time for payment of the cancellation fee, the fee shall be recomputed
as a part of the request for extension of the time, and the landowners shall be
required to pay the recomputed fee as a condition to final cancellation of the
contract.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon application of the landowners, the
Board may hereafter amend a tentatively approved alternative use if the Board
finds that such amended alternative use is consistent with the General Plan and
the findings made pursuant to subdivision (a) Section 51282 of the Government
Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an application for extension of the period
of time to complete the conditions of approval or to amend the approved
alternative use shall be made to the Planning Department and in accordance with
any procedures and requirements in effect at the time of the application.
I/IIIIIIII
1111111III
II11111111
1111111111
1111111I1I
1111111111
1III111I1I
II11111111
4
COACHELLA VALLEY
AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVE
NO. 58
MENDED BY MAP NO.3B1
T. 6 S - R. 7E
/dNCflRtMl�ry I
AMENDMENT NO. 1, JUNE 29, 1976, MAP NO. 381
AMENDMENT NO. 2, OCT 4, 1999 , MAP NO. 682 (DIMINISHMENT)
ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 19, 1974
BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
0 600 1200
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION
SPECIFIC PLAN NO.218
RANCHO LA QUINTA
ADOPTED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 13, 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 48�