The URL can be used to link to this page

SP 303 & EIR 396 The Kohl RanchMay 22, 1996 Ms. Terry Henderson City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Planning Department Aleta J. Laurence Director of Planning RE: Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority (CVRAA) Review of Specific Plan No. 303 (Kohl Ranch), Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. 396, Change of Zone No. 6237, Environmental Impact Report No. 396 Dear Ms. Henderson: The Riverside County Planning Department is currently reviewing Specific Plan No. 303 (Kohl Ranch) and its related cases and environmental impact report. The Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report has been circulated for public review, with the formal review period scheduled to end on July 8, 1996. Following the end of the review period, a Final Environmental Impact Report will be prepared, and a public hearing on the proposed project will be scheduled before the Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority (CVRAA). Please find enclosed a copy of the Specific Plan/Draft EIR document for Specific Plan No. 303, and a copy of the Technical Appendices for the Draft EIR. These documents are being sent to you at this time in order to provide you the opportunity to review these documents in depth before the future public hearing on this matter. (At this time the date of the public hearing has not be set.) Please keep these documents for your use at the public hearing. The Final EIR will be sent to you in the future, when it is completed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (909) 275-3299. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aleta J. Laurence, AICP, Planning Director Richard J. M96hott, Senior Planner Enclosure 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (909) 275-3200 P. O. Box 1409 -Riverside, California 92502-1409•FAX (909) 275-3157 Specific Plan No. 303 & EIR No. 396 May 13,1996 Prepared For: Regent Properties, Inc. 450 N. Roxbury Dr. Suite 600 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Contact: Mr. Keenan Behrle Lead Agency: County of Riverside Mr. Richard MacHott, Contact Planner (909) 275.3299 Prepared By: The Planning Center 1300 Dove Street Suite 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 C70 In Association With: J. F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. David Taussig & Associates, Inc. @1 00111 W -'I G)I Ik AE10 ISI Coachella Valley, California I. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. TABLE OF CONTENTS II. SUMMARY ................................................ II -1 A INTRODUCTION........................................II-1 1. Purpose and Authority of the Specific Plan ................ , , . II -1 2. Purpose and Authority of the EIR ..................... . ... II -1 a. Scope of the EIR................................. II -2 b. Intended Uses of the EIR ........................... II -3 B PROJECT SUMMARY ......................... . ... . ...... II -5 1. Project Location ...................................... II -5 2. Site Description ...................................... II -5 3. Project Overview .................................... II -10 4. Industrial Overlay Designation .................. . .. ..... II -13 C. EIR ISSUES/MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN ................ II -14 III. SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING .................................... III -1 IV. SPECIFIC PLAN............................................1V-1 A PROJECT -WIDE PLANNING STANDARDS .................... IV -2 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan .......................... IV -2 a. Description of Land Use Plan ....................... IV -2 1) Residential ................................. IV -3 2) Industrial .................................. IV -9 3) Business ................................. IV -10 4) Commercial ............................... IV -11 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-1 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 1.2 The Planning Center 5) Public Facilities ............................ IV -11 6) Open Space .................. . ............ IV -11 7) Roads ................................... IV -12 b. Industrial Overlay Designation .......... . . . . . ....... IV -12 C. Project -Wide Development Standards ................. IV -12 2. Circulation Plan ........................ ........... IV -14 a. Circulation Plan Description ....................... IV -14 b. Circulation Development Standards IV -15 3. Drainage Plan ......... ......................... . . . IV -22 a. Drainage Plan Description ......................... IV -22 b. Drainage Development Standards .................... IV -24 4. Conceptual Community Structure Plan .................... IV -25 a. Community Structure Plan Description ................ IV -25 1) Open Space and Recreation ................ . ... IV -25 2) Landscape Concept .......................... IV -32 b. Community Structure Development Standards ........... IV -33 5. Water and Sewer Plan ............................... IV -34 a. Water and Sewer Plan Description ................... IV -34 1) Existing Water and Sewer Conditions ..... . ....... IV -35 2) Proposed Water and Sewer Facilities ............. IV -35 b. Water and Sewer Development Standards .......... . ... IV -36 6. Public Facilities Sites and Project Phasing ................. IV -40 a. Public Facilities Phasing Description ................. IV -40 b. Public Facilities Phasing Schedule ........ . .... . ..... IV -40 C. Project Phasing Plan Description .................... IV -42 1) Phasing Scenario I ........ . ................. IV -45 2) Phasing Scenario II ......................... IV -49 3) Phasing Scenario III ........... ............. IV -50 4) Phasing Scenario IV ......................... IV -51 5) Phasing Scenario V ......................... IV -52 d. Project Phasing Standards ..... _ ................... IV -52 7. Illustrative Grading Plan .......................... .... IV -53 a. Illustrative Grading Plan Description ................. IV -53 b. Grading Plan Development Standards ... . .. . .......... IV -53 8. Comprehensive Maintenance Plan ....................... IV -57 a. Parks and Recreation ............................ IV -57 b. Open Space .................. . ................ IV -57 C. Street Lighting ................................. IV -57 d. Drainage Facilities .............................. IV -58 e. Project Roadways ............................... IV -58 9. Industrial Overlay Designation ............. . ............ IV -58 a. Introduction ................................... IV -58 b. Use of the IOD .................. . ............. IV -59 C. Land Use Concepts ............................. IV -61 10. Airport Zones and Utility Easement Beltway ... ............ IV -76 a. Thermal Airport Land Use Compatibility ............ . . IV -76 b. Utility Easement Beltway ......................... IV -82 1.2 The Planning Center Chapter I • Table of Contents B. NEIGHBORHOOD AND PLANNING AREA LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ............................ IV -83 1. Neighborhood A ................................... IV -85 a. Neighborhood A Description ....................... IV -85 b. Neighborhood A Planning Standards ....... . ......... IV -85 C. Neighborhood A Planning Areas .................... IV -86 1) Planning Area A-1: Open Space ............... IV -86 2) Planning Area A-2: Open Space .......... ..... IV -87 3) Planning Area A-3: Open Space ............... IV -87 4) Planning Area A-4: Open Space IV -88 5) Planning Area A-5: Air Park/Mixed Use .......... IV -89 6) Planning Area A-6: Open Space ............... IV -89 7) Planning Area A-7: Air Park/Mixed Use .......... IV -90 8) Planning Area A-8: Open Space ............... IV -91 9) Planning Area A-9: Air Park/Mixed Use .......... IV -92 10) Planning Area A-10: Open Space ............... IV -92 11) Planning Area A-11: Air Park/Mixed Use ......... IV -93 2. Neighborhood B ............. . ................ . ..... IV -97 a. Neighborhood B Description ....................... IV -97 b. Neighborhood B Planning Standards .................. IV -97 C. Neighborhood B Planning Areas .................... IV -98 1) Planning Area B-1: Residential High ............ IV -98 2) Planning Area B-2: Open Space ................ IV -99 3) Planning Area B-3: Residential Medium ......... IV -100 4) Planning Area B-4: Residential High ........... IV -101 5) Planning Area B-5: Commercial .............. IV -101 6) Planning Area B-6: Office ................... IV -102 3. Neighborhood C ................................. . . IV -107 a. Neighborhood C Description ...................... IV -107 b. Neighborhood C Planning Standards ....... , .. a ...... IV -107 C. Neighborhood C Planning Areas IV -108 1) Planning Area C-1: Residential Low ........... IV -108 2) Planning Area C-2: Open Space ......... . ..... IV -109 3) Planning Area C-3: Residential Low ........... IV -110 4) Planning Area C-4: Residential Medium ......... IV -111 5) Planning Area C-5: Open Space ............... IV -112 6) Planning Area C-6: Open Space ............... IV -112 7) Planning Area C-7: Residential Low ........... IV -114 8) Planning Area C-8: Residential High ..... IV -114 9) Planning Area C-9: Residential High IV -115 10) Planning Area C-10: Open Space .............. IV -116 11) Planning Area C-11: Residential High .......... IV -117 4. Neighborhood D .................................. IV -121 a. Neighborhood D Description ...................... IV -121 b. Neighborhood D Planning Standards ................ IV -121 C. Neighborhood D Planning Areas .... IV -122 1) Planning Area D-1: Open Space .............. IV -122 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-3 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2) Planning Area D-2: Office .. . .......... . . ... IV -123 3) Planning Area D-3: Open Space .............. IV -124 4) Planning Area D-4: Open Space ............. IV -125 5) Planning Area D-5: Open Space .............. IV -125 6) Planning Area D-6: Office ....... ........... IV -126 5. Neighborhood E .................................. . IV -131 a. Neighborhood E Description ............... . ..... . IV -131 b. Neighborhood E Planning Standards ................. IV -131 C. Neighborhood E Planning Areas ........... . ....... IV -132 1) Planning Area E-1: Open Space ............... IV -132 2) Planning Area E-2: Heavy Industrial . , .......... IV -132 6. Neighborhood F ................................... IV -137 a. Neighborhood F Description ...................... IV -137 b. Neighborhood F Planning Standards ................. IV -137 C. Neighborhood F Planning Areas .................... IV -138 1) Planning Area F-1: Light Industrial ............ IV -138 2) Planning Area F-2: Light Industrial ........... , IV -138 3) Planning Area F-3: Warehouse/Distribution ....... IV -139 7. Neighborhood G .................................. IV -143 a. Neighborhood G Description .............. . ....... IV -143 b. Neighborhood G Planning Standards ................ IV -143 C. Neighborhood G Planning Areas ................... IV -144 1) Planning Area G-1: Commercial ..... . .... . .... IV -144 2) Planning Area G-2: Open Space .............. IV -145 3) Planning Area G-3: Open Space ....... . ...... IV -145 4) Planning Area G-4: Open Space .............. IV -146 5) Planning Area G-5: Residential Low ........... IV -147 6) Planning Area G-6: Open Space .............. IV -148 7) Planning Area G-7: Residential Medium ......... IV -149 8) Planning Area G-8: Residential High ........... IV -150 9) Planning Area G-9: Open Space .............. IV -150 10) Planning Area G-10: Residential Low .......... , IV -151 11) Planning Area G-11: Residential Low ........... IV -152 12) Planning Area G-12: Open Space .............. IV -153 13) Planning Area G-13: Residential Low ........ , . _ IV -154 8. Neighborhood H .................................. IV -157 a. Neighborhood H Description ...................... IV -157 b. Neighborhood H Planning Standards ................ IV -157 C. Neighborhood H Planning Areas ................... IV -158 1) Planning Area H-1: Open Space ........... . .. IV -158 2) Planning Area H-2: Residential Medium ......... IV -159 3) Planning Area H-3: Open Space .............. IV -160 4) Planning Area H-4: Residential Medium ......... IV -160 5) Planning Area H-5: Residential Low IV -161 6) Planning Area H-6: Open Space .............. IV -162 7) Planning Area H-7: Residential Medium ..... IV -163 8) Planning Area H-8: Residential High ........ , .. IV -164 1-4 The Planning Center E 10. 11 12. 13 Chapter I • Table of Contents 9) Planning Area H-9: Residential Low ........ , .. IV -165 10) Planning Area H-10: Open Space .............. IV -166 Neighborhood I ................................... IV -169 a. Neighborhood I Description .............. . ........ IV -169 b. Neighborhood I Planning Standards ................. IV -169 c. Neighborhood I Planning Areas .................... IV -170 1) Planning Area I-1: Open Space ............... IV -170 2) Planning Area I-2: Public Facilities ... , ........ IV -171 3) Planning Area I-3: Open Space ............... IV -171 4) Planning Area I-4: Public Facilities ............ IV -172 5) Planning Area I-5: Residential Medium ......... IV -173 6) Planning Area I-6: Public Facilities IV -174 7) Planning Area I-7: Open Space ............... IV -174 8) Planning Area I-8: Public Facilities ..... , ...... IV -175 Neighborhood J ................................... IV -179 a. Neighborhood J Description ...................... IV -179 b. Neighborhood J Planning Standards ................. IV -179 C. Neighborhood J Planning Areas .................... IV -180 1) Planning Area J-1: Residential High ... , ........ IV -180 2) Planning Area J-2: Open Space .... IV -181 3) Planning Area J-3: Residential Low ......... IV -182 4) Planning Area J-4: Residential Low ....... IV -183 5) Planning Area J-5: Residential High .. , ......... IV -184 6) Planning Area J-6: Open Space ............... IV -184 7) Planning Area J-7: Residential Low IV -185 Neighborhood K .................................. IV -189 a. Neighborhood K Description ...................... IV -189 b. Neighborhood K Planning Standards ................ IV -189 C. Neighborhood K Planning Areas ................... IV -190 1) Planning Area K-1: Residential Medium ......... IV -190 2) Planning Area K-2: Open Space .............. IV -191 3) Planning Area K-3: Residential Low ........... IV -192 4) Planning Area K-4: Residential Medium .... _ .... IV -192 5) Planning Area K-5: Open Space .............. IV -193 6) Planning Area K-6: Residential Low ........... IV -194 Neighborhood L ................................... IV -199 a. Neighborhood L Description ..................... . IV -199 b. Neighborhood L Planning Standards ................. IV -199 C. Neighborhood L Planning Areas ............. . . . ... IV -200 1) Planning Area L-1: Residential Low ............ IV -200 2) Planning Area L-2: Open Space ............... IV -201 3) Planning Area L-3: Residential Medium IV -202 4) Planning Area L-4: Residential High IV -203 5) Planning Area L-5: Residential Medium ......... IV -204 6) Planning Area L-6: Commercial ............... IV -205 Neighborhood M .................................. IV -209 a. Neighborhood M Description .... . ..... . ........ . .. IV -209 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-5 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b. Neighborhood M Planning Standards ................ IV -209 C. Neighborhood M Planning Areas ................... IV -210 1) Planning Area M-1: Residential High ........... IV -210 2) Planning Area M-2: Open Space .............. IV -211 3) Planning Area M-3: Residential Low IV -212 4) Planning Area M-4: Residential Medium IV -212 5) Planning Area M-5: Residential High ........... IV -213 C DESIGN GUIDELINES ............................. . ... IV -217 1. Purpose and Intent ................................. IV -217 2. Landscape Guidelines ............................... IV -221 a. Landscape Concept ............................ IV -221 1) Community Identity ........................ IV -227 2) Visual Screens ................. . .......... IV -227 3) Conservation of Resources ................... IV -227 4) Application of Concepts ........... . ......... IV -228 b. Entries ..................................... IV -229 1) Major Project Entries ....................... IV -229 2) Minor Entries ...................... . .... . . IV -231 3) Project Windows .......................... IV -233 c. Intersections ................................. IV -233 d. Streetscapes.................................. IV -234 1) Arterial Highway Streetscape (110' ROW) ........ IV -235 2) Major Highway Streetscape (100' ROW) ......... IV -238 3) Secondary Streetscape (88' ROW) .............. IV -240 4) Industrial Collector Streetscape (78' ROW) ........ IV -245 5) Collector Streetscape (66' ROW) ............... IV -247 e. Edges ...................................... IV -250 1) Tyler Street Project Edges .................... IV -251 2) Windrow/Trail .......................... . . IV -252 3) Drainage/Project Edge ....................... IV -253 4) Drainage Canal or Golf Course Edge Conditions .... IV -254 f. Buffers ........ ............................. IV -256 1) Park ................................... IV -257 2) Evacuation Channel and Utility Easement Beltway ... IV -258 3) Drainage Channel .......................... IV -259 4) Airpark/Drainage .......................... IV -260 5) Out Parcel/Adjacent Properties ................. IV -261 6) Residential/Non-Residential ................... IV -262 7) Single Family/Multi-Family Residential .......... IV -264 g. Landscape Palette .............................. IV -265 h. Paths and Trails ............................... IV -269 1) Pedestrian Trails ........................... IV -269 2) Bicycle Paths ............................. IV -269 i. Walls and Fences .............................. IV -270 1) General Guidelines ......... . ............... IV -273 2) Community Walls and Fences ................. IV -273 3) Perimeter Walls and Fences .............. . .... IV -273 1-6 The Planning Center Chapter I • fable of Contents 4) View Fences ............................. IV -274 5) Privacy Walls and Fences .................... IV -274 6) Theme Walls and Fences ..................... IV -274 ................................ j. Lighting.... IV -274 1) General Guidelines ......................... IV -274 2) Roadway Lighting ......................... IV -275 3) Parking Area Lighting ....................... IV -275 4) Pedestrian and Entry Area Lighting ...... . ...... IV -275 5) Architectural Lighting ....................... IV -276 6) Landscape Lighting ........................ IV -277 7) Athletic Field, Court and Driving Range Lighting ... IV -277 k. Signage ..................................... IV -277 1) General Guidelines ......................... IV -277 2) Community Monuments ................ I .. I .. IV -278 3) Retail Signs .............................. IV -280 4) Directional Signs .......................... IV -280 5) Temporary Signs .......................... IV -282 6) Prohibited Signs ........................... IV -283 3. Site Development Guidelines .......................... IV -284 a. Site Planning ................................. IV -284 1) Single Family Detached Residential Site Planning ... IV -285 2) Multi -Family Residential Site Planning ........... IV -286 3) Non -Residential Site Planning ................. IV -288 4) Climatic Conditions ........................ IV -291 b. Architectural Guidelines ......................... IV -292 1) Elevation Concepts .... . ........... I ........ IV -292 2) Details ........ . .. . ..................... IV -297 3) Materials and Finish ........................ IV -298 V. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS.............................................. V-1 INTRODUCTION ......................... , ................. V-1 1. Purpose and Authority of the EIR ........................ V-1 a. Scope of the EIR................................ V-2 b. Intended Uses of the EIR .......................... V-3 2. Industrial Overlay Designation and Land Use Concepts ......... V-5 a. Industrial Overlay Designation ....................... V-5 b. Land Use Concepts .............................. V-8 C. Environmental Analysis of Land Use Options ............ V-10 A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM ........ V-13 1. Site Identification Within Open Space and Conservation Map ..... V-13 2. Site Identification Within Composite Hazards/Resource Map ...... V-13 3. Land Use Area Profile and Community Policy Area Identification for Project Site ..................................... V-16 a. Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area Profile .... V-16 b. Coachella Valley Community Policy Area ............... V-19 C. Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Community Policies ........ V-19 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1.7 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA C. 4. Summary of Project Proposal/Site Comparison with Applicable Land 1-8 The Planning Center Use Category Policies ............................. . ... V-19 a. Summary of Project Proposal ........................ V-19 b. Comparison with Applicable Land Use Category Policies .... V-36 C. Land Use Compatibility ........................... V--38 LAND USE ELEMENT ............................... . ... V-43 1. Land Use Planning Area Policy Analysis ...... . ............ V-43 2. Community Policy Area Analysis ........................ V-43 3. Land Use Category Policy Analysis ....................... V-44 4. Community Plan ..................... . .............. V-44 5. Existing Land Use and Zoning .......................... V-44 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT ..... V-51 1. Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion . , , .... , ....... V-51 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies ............... V-51 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ....................................V-55 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) ......................... . . V-57 2. Soils and Agriculture ....................... . ......... V-57 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .......... a .... V-57 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) .................................... V-71 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) ........................... V-76 3. Biology ............... . ....................... . ... V-76 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies ............... V-76 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) .............................. . .. . .. V-87 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) ................. . ......... V-91 4. Geology and Seismicity ............................ . . . V-91 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies ............... V-91 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) .................................... V-93 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) ........................... V-94 5. Hydrology, Flooding & Drainage ................... . ..... V-94 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies ............... V-94 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ....................................V-98 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) ....... . ................... V-101 6. Air Quality ....................................... V-103 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-103 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ........................... , ....... V-111 1-8 The Planning Center Chapter I - Table of Contents C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) .................................. V-120 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-121 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ................................... V-123 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-124 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-126 7. Water Quality ..................................... V-128 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-128 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-132 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) ............................ V-135 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 6) . ............................. V-135 S. Noise ........................................... V-136 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-136 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-145 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) .......................... V-155 9. Energy Resources ................................... V-155 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-155 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-156 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) .................................. V-156 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) .................................. V-157 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) .................................. V-157 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) .................................. V-157 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) .................................. V-157 10. Open Space and Conservation .......................... V-158 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-158 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-158 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) ......................... . .. V-161 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3) .................................. V-161 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-9 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-161 11. Toxic Substance .................................. . . V-162 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-162 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-163 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) ............................ V-166 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 6) ........... . .................. V-166 12. Cultural Resources .................................. V-166 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .......... . ... V-166 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-173 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) ........................... V-178 13. Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare ................ V-179 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-179 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-180 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) ............................ V-189 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 6) .............................. V-189 D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...................... V-191 1. Circulation and Traffic ......................... . ..... V-191 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-191 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 1, 2 and 5) ............................ V-202 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 4) .............................. V-236 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................ . .. V-255 2. Water and Sewer ................................... V-273 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-273 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-276 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) ................................... V-284 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-286 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ................................... V-288 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-290 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-292 1-10 The Planning Center Chapter I • Table of Contents 3. Fire Services ...................................... V-295 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-295 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ...... . . .. . ........................ V-296 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) ................................... V-297 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-298 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ................................... V-298 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-298 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-299 4, Sheriff Services .................................... V-299 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-299 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-300 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) .............................. . .... V-301 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-301 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ............................. . ..... V-302 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-302 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-302 5. Schools .......................................... V-303 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-303 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ............................ ...... V-305 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) ................................. V-306 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-306 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ................................... V-306 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-306 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-307 6. Parks and Recreation ......................... . ...... V-307 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-307 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-309 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-11 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) ................................... V-311 d. Project Inipact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-311 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ............................. . ..... V-312 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-312 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-313 7. Utilities .......................................... V-313 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-313 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-314 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) ................................... V-321 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-323 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ................................... V-324 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-325 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-326 8. Solid Waste ....................................... V-327 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-327 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-329 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) ................................... V-332 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-332 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ................................... V-333 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ........... . ......... . ............. V-333 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-333 9, Health Services .................................... V-334 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-334 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-334 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) ........................... V-335 10. Disaster Preparedness ................................ V-335 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-335 1-12 The Planning Center Chapter I - Table of Contents Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-13 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-335 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) ........................... V-335 11. Libraries ......................................... V-336 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies ........ . ..... V-336 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) .............................. ..... V-338 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) ................................... V-339 d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) ................................... V-339 e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) ................................... V-340 f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) ................................... V-340 g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) ................................... V-340 12. Airports ......................................... V-340 a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies .............. V-340 b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ................................... V-342 C. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) ........................... V-347 E. HOUSING ELEMENT ................................... V-349 1. General Plan Policies and Programs ...................... V-349 a. Applicable Housing Policies ....................... V-349 b. Applicable Housing Programs ...................... V-350 C. Applicable Housing Policies Within Other Elements ....... V-352 2. Specific Plan - Project Relationship to General Plan Policies ..... V-353 a. Project Housing Inventory ......................... V-353 b. Project Compatibility With Existing Inventory ........... V-354 C. Project Design Mitigation ......................... V-355 F. REGIONAL ELEMENT .................................. V-363 1. Regional Growth Forecasts ............................ V-363 a. Identification of Regional Growth Forecasts for Project Site . V-363 b. RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile ................. V-365 C. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis with Regional Growth Forecast ..................... V-365 2. Applicable Employment/Housing Balance Policies ............ V-368 G. ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT ................... . . ....... V-371 1. Land Use Policies/Specific Plan Time Frames ............... V-371 2. Fiscal Impact Summary ... V-371 a. Recurring Fiscal Impacts .......................... V-371 3, Land Use Concepts 2 through 6 ......................... V-377 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-13 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA H. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS ............................ V-379 1. Cumulative Impacts ..................... . ........... V-379 a. Land Use .......................... . . _... V-380 b. Geology and Seismicity .......................... V-380 C. Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion .......... V-380 d. Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage ................... V-381 e. Water Quality ................................. V-381 f. Noise ....................................... V-382 g. Air Quality ......................... . ......... V-382 h. Toxic Substance ................................ V-382 i. Open Space and Conservation ...................... V-382 j. Soils and Agriculture .......................... . . V-383 k. Biology ...................................... V-383 1. Energy Resources and Conservation . .... . ............ V-383 m. Cultural Resources .............................. V-383 n. Public Facilities and Services ....................... V-384 o. Housing Element ............................... V-384 p. Regional Element ............................... V-384 q. Administrative Element .................... . ...... V-384 2, Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......... . . ........ . ..... V-385 a. Soils and Agriculture ............................ V-385 b. Air Quality ................... . . . . ... ....... V-386 C. Noise .....................,................. V-387 d. Libraries ..................................... V-387 e. Project Benefits ................. . .... . ... . ..... V-388 3, Proposed Project Alternatives .......................... V-389 a. No Project Alternative ........................... V-391 b. Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative .. V-396 C. Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative ............. V-403 d. Alternative Site 1 ............................... V-410 e. Alternative Site 2 ...... . ........ . . . ............. V-416 4. Growth -Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action ............ V-423 5. Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented ... V-424 6. Project Correspondence ............................... V-424 7. Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted ............ V-425 a. Report Preparation Personnel ....................... V-425 b. Organizations and Persons Consulted ................. V-426 C. Documents Consulted ............................ V-431 1-14 The Planning Center LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES VOLUME 1 A. Environmental Assessment Form and NOP B. Geotechnical Report C. Cultural Resources Report D. Biological Assessment E. Fiscal Impact Analysis F. Preliminary Engineering Report and Water Conservation Plan G. Air Quality Analysis H. Acoustical Analysis I. Riverside County Land Use Ordinance No. 348 VOLUME 2 J. Traffic Study Draft Specific Plan - Mav 13, 1996 1-15 LIST OF TABLES II. SUMMARY Table II -1 Land Use Diagram Statistical Summary ....... II -10 Table II -2 Mitigation Monitoring Plan ........... . . . .. . . ...... II -17 III. SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING IV. SPECIFIC PLAN Table IV -1 • Table IV -2 • Table IV -3 • Table IV -4 • Table IV -5 • Table IV -6 • Table IV -7 • Table IV -8 • Table IV -9 • Table IV -10 - Table IV -11 - Table IV -12 - Table IV -13 - Table IV -14 - Land Use Plan Statistical Summary ......... . ... . .... IV -5 Circulation Element Roadways ................. , .. IV -15 Potential Park Uses ............................ IV -30 Public Facilities Phasing ......................... IV -40 Phasing Scenarios ............................. IV -42 Industrial Overlay Designation ..................... IV -59 Application of Industrial Overlay Designation .... , ..... IV -63 Concept 2 Statistical Summary .................... IV -65 Concept 3 Statistical Summary .................... IV -68 Concept 4 Statistical Summary .................... IV -70 Concept 5 Statistical Summary .................. IV -72 Concept 6 Statistical Summary .................... IV -74 Airport Safety Zones ......................... . . IV -82 Kohl Ranch Plant Palette ....................... IV -266 1-16 The Planning Center Chapter I - List of Tables V. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Table V-1 0 Industrial Overlay Designation ...................... V-8 Table V-2 0 Application of Industrial Overlay Designation .......... V-10 Table V-3 0 Land Use Concepts Future Environmental Review ........ V-12 Table V-4 0 Concept 1 Statistical Summary ..................... V-25 Table V-5 0 Concept 2 Statistical Summary ..................... V-27 Table V-6 0 Concept 3 Statistical Summary ..................... V-28 Table V-7 0 Concept 4 Statistical Summary ..................... V-30 Table V-8 0 Concept 5 Statistical Summary ..................... V-32 Table V-9 0 Concept 6 Statistical Summary V-34 Table V-10 0 Total Agricultural Valuation for Riverside County (1989-1993) ............................... . .. . V-58 Table V-11 0 Agricultural Acreage Statistics for Riverside County (1989-1993) ................................... V-58 Table V-12 0 Employment in Agriculture ........................ V-59 Table V-13 0 Coachella Valley Agricultural Firms by Number of Employees .................................. . V-60 Table V-14 0 Soils on the Project Site ........................ . . V-62 Table V-15 0 Sensitive Plant Species and Communities in the Project Region ................................ . V-80 Table V-16 0 Sensitive Animal Species in the Project Region .......... V-81 Table V-17 0 Summary of Hydrologic Conditions for 100 -year Storm (CFS) ................................... .V-99 Table V-18 Ambient Air Quality Standards .................... V-106 Table V-19 Ambient Air Quality Indio Air Monitoring Station ....... V-108 Table V-20 • Concept 1 Emission Inventory .................. . .. V-114 Table V-21 Intersection Carbon Monoxide Concentrations .......... V-116 Table V-22 • Concept 2 Emission Inventory ..................... V-120 Table V-23 0 Concept 3 Emission Inventory ..................... V-122 Table V-24 • Concept 4 Emission Inventory ......... . .......... V-123 Table V-25 a Concept 5 Emission Inventory . ...... . ............. V-125 Table V-26 Concept 6 Emission Inventory ..................... V-126 Table V-27 Land Use Guidelines for Noise Compatibility .......... V-141 Table V-28 Existing Exterior Noise Exposure ................... V-144 Table V-29 Year 2010 plus Project Exterior Noise Exposure Concept 1 V-148 Table V-30 Year 2010 Project Related Noise Increase Concept 1 ..... V-150 Table V-31 Year 2010 plus Project Exterior Noise Exposure Concept 1 V-154 Table V-32 • Open Space by Category ......................... V-159 Table V-33 • Pesticide/herbicide Soil Persistency ................. V-165 Table V-34 Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the Project ..................................... V-169 Table V-35 Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 Lamp Type and Shielding Requirements ......................... V-188 Table V-36 a Intersection Analysis for Existing Conditions .......... V-196 Table V-37 0 Trip Generation Rates ........................... V-203 Table V-38 0 Concept 1 Trip Generation ....................... V-206 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-17 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA Table V-40 0 Intersection Analysis for Year 2010 Without Concept 1 with Typical General Plan Improvements ................. V-214 Table V-41 0 Concept 1 Intersections Operating at Unacceptable LOS During Peak Hours ............................. V-220 Table V-42 0 Intersection Analysis for Year 2010 with Concept 1 with Typical General Plan Improvements ................. V-226 Table V-43 Off -Site Roadway Classifications ................... V-228 Table V-44 Intersection Analysis for Year 2010 with Concept 1 with Additional General Plan Improvements ...... V-229 Table V-45 0 Concept 4 Trip Generation ....................... V-237 Table V-46 0 Concept 4 Intersections Operating at Unacceptable LOS During Peak Hours .................... , .... V-243 Table V-47 0 Intersection Analysis for Year 2010 with Concept 4 with Typical General Plan Improvements ............. V-244 Table V-48 0 Intersection Analysis for Year 2010 with Concept 4 with Additional General Plan Improvements ........... V-253 Table V-49 0 Concept 6 Trip Generation ....................... V-256 Table V-50 0 Concept 6 Intersections Operating at Unacceptable LOS During Peak Hours ......................... V-264 Table V-51 0 Intersection Analysis for Year 2010 with Concept 6 with Typical General Plan Improvements ............. V-267 Table V-52 0 Intersection Analysis for Year 2010 with Concept 6 With Additional General Plan Improvements ........... V-269 Table V-53 • Concept 1 Domestic Water Demand ............... . . V-279 Table V-54 • Concept 1 Wastewater Generation .................. V-284 Table V-55 a Concept 2 Domestic Water Demand ............... . . V-285 Table V-56 Concept 2 Wastewater Generation ....... . .......... V-286 Table V-57 • Concept 3 Domestic Water Demand ................. V-287 Table V-58 0 Concept 3 Wastewater Generation .................. V-288 Table V-59 0 Concept 4 Domestic Water Demand ................. V-289 Table V-60 a Concept 4 Wastewater Generation .................. V-290 Table V-61 • Concept 5 Domestic Water Demand ................. V-291 Table V-62 Concept 5 Wastewater Generation .................. V-292 Table V-63 4 Concept 6 Domestic Water Demand ................. V-293 Table V-64 • Concept 6 Wastewater Generation .................. V-294 Table V-65 0 Fire Stations in Project Vicinity .................... V-295 Table V-66 • Schools in the Project Vicinity .................... V-303 Table V-67 Planned Educational Facilities in the Project Vicinity ..... V-304 Table V-68 • Magnetic Fields near Electric Power Transmission Lines .. V-319 Table V-69 - Concept 1 Solid Waste Generation .................. V-330 Table V-70 Library Facilities in the Project Vicinity .............. V-336 Table V-71 Riverside City and County Public Library Volumes Per Capita' — County Branch Libraries .............. V-337 Table V-72 Riverside City and County Public Library Square Feet per Capita' — County Branch Libraries ..... V-337 Table V-73 Fiscal Impact of Proposed Project on Library Services (1994 Dollars) ......................... V-338 1-18 The Planning Center Chapter I • List of Tables Table V-74 a Thermal Airport Safety Zones ..................... V-343 Table V-75 0 Project Housing Inventory ................... I .... V-354 Table V-76 0 Concept 1 Employment Generation Estimate ........... V-355 Table V-77 0 Concept 2 Employment Generation Estimate ........... V-356 Table V-78 0 Concept 3 Employment Generation Estimate ........... V-358 Table V-79 0 Concept 4 Employment Generation Estimate ........... V-359 Table V-80 0 Concept 5 Employment Generation Estimate . _ ......... V-360 Table V-81 0 Concept 6 Employment Generation Estimate ........... V-361 Table V-82 0 Growth Forecasts: Population ..................... V-363 Table V-83 0 Growth Forecasts: Housing ............. , ........ V-364 Table V-84 0 Growth Forecasts: Employment ................... V-364 Table V-85 6 Riverside County Summary of Recurring Cost & Revenue Projections ($ millions) ................... V-372 Table V-86 0 Special Districts Summary of Recurring Cost & Revenue Projections ($ millions) .................. . V-374 Table V-87 County of Riverside & Affected Special Districts Potential One-time Fiscal Impacts ............ V-376 Table V-88 Statistical Summary of Alternatives ................. V-390 Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 1-19 LIST OF FIGURES II. SUMMARY Figure II -1 ■ Regional Location .................................. II -6 Figure II -2 - Project Vicinity ........... . ........................ II -7 Figure II -3 • Policy Area Boundaries .............................. II -8 Figure II -4 • Aerial Photo .................. . ................... II -9 Figure II -5 • Land Use Plan ................ . ......... . .. . . ..... II -11 Figure II -6 R Land Use Concepts .................... . ....... . . , . II -15 IV. SPECIFIC PLAN Figure IV -1 • Land Use Plan .................. . . . . ........ . . .... IV -7 Figure IV -2 • Circulation Plan ................... . ... . .......... IV -16 Figure IV -3 • Roadway Cross -Sections ...... . . ..... . ........ . ..... IV -17 Figure IV -4 • Circulation/Land Use .............................. IV -19 Figure IV -5 • Drainage Plan ................................... IV -23 Figure IV -6 • Community Structure ................. . ............ IV -27 Figure IV -7 • Water Plan ..................... , ......... , ...... IV -37 Figure IV -8 • Off -Site Water Improvements .... . . ..... . . .. . . . . . .... IV -38 Figure IV -9 • Sewer Plan ...................... , .............. IV -39 Figure IV -10 • Public Facilities Sites .............................. IV -41 Figure IV -11 • Phasing Plan .................. , , . ......... , ...... IV -47 Figure IV -12 • Grading Plan .................................... IV -55 Figure IV -13 • Neighborhoods ................. . ................ IV -60 Figure IV -14 • Land Use Concepts .. , ............................ IV -62 Figure IV -15 • Land Use Concept 2 .............................. IV -66 1-20 The Planning Center Chapter I • List of Figures Figure IV -16 • Land Use Concept 3 .......................... IV -69 Figure IV -17 • Land Use Concept 4 ............... IV -71 Figure IV -18 • Land Use Concept 5 .............................. IV -73 Figure IV -19 • Land Use Concept 6 . . ..... . .... . ................. IV -75 Figure IV -20 • Airport Zones and Easement Beltway .................. IV -79 Figure IV -21 • Neighborhood A ... . ........... . ................. IV -95 Figure IV -22 • Neighborhood B ................................ IV -105 Figure IV -23 • Neighborhood C ..... . ........ . .. . .............. IV -119 Figure IV -24 • Neighborhood D ................................ IV -129 Figure IV -25 • Neighborhood E ............................... IV -135 Figure IV -26 • Neighborhood F ......... . ... . ..... . ............ IV -141 Figure IV -27 • Neighborhood G ................................ IV -155 Figure IV -28 • Neighborhood H ................................ IV -167 Figure IV -29 • Neighborhood I .................................. IV -177 Figure IV -30 • Neighborhood J ................................. IV -187 Figure IV -31 • Neighborhood K .......................... . ..... IV -197 Figure IV -32 • Neighborhood L ................................ IV -207 Figure IV -33 • Neighborhood M ....... ......................... IV -215 Figure IV -34 • Community Character .................. . ......... IV -219 Figure IV -35 • Landscape Key Map ............................. IV -223 Figure IV -36 • Community Structure ............................. IV -225 Figure IV -37 • Major Project Entry .............................. IV -230 Figure IV -38 • Minor Entry Avenue 60 ........................... IV -231 Figure IV -39 • Minor Entry ................................... IV -232 Figure IV -40 • Project Window ........ ..... . .................. IV -233 Figure IV -41 Intersection Detail ............................... IV -234 Figure IV -42 • Arterial Streetscape 1 ............................. IV -236 Figure IV -43 • Arterial Streetscape 2 ............................. IV -237 Figure IV -44 • Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major ..... . ..... . ........ IV -238 Figure IV -45 • Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major .................... IV -239 Figure IV -46 • Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major .................... IV -240 Figure IV -47 • North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary ................. IV -241 Figure IV -48 • North/South Streetscape 2 - Secondary ................. IV -242 Figure IV -49 • Avenue 62, 66 and "E" Street Streetscape 2 ............. IV -243 Figure IV -50 • "E" Street Streetscape 3 - Secondary ............ . ..... IV -244 Figure IV -51 • Industrial Collector ..................... . ........ IV -245 Figure IV -52 • Entry Road Detail (Industrial Collector) ................ IV -246 Figure IV -53 • "E" Street Streetscape 1 - Collector ................... IV -248 Figure IV -54 • Collector Streetscape ................. ............ IV -249 Figure IV -55 • Tyler Street Edges ................. . ............. IV -251 Figure IV -56 • Windrow/Trail Detail ............................. IV -252 Figure IV -57 • Project Edge ........... ........................ IV -253 Figure IV -58 • Drainage Canal Edge Condition ..................... IV -254 Figure IV -59 • Golf Course Edge Condition ........................ IV -254 Figure IV -60 • Park Buffers ................................... IV -257 Figure IV -61 • Evacuation Channel Buffer and Utility Easement Beltway ... IV -258 Figure IV -62 • Channel Buffer Detail ............................ IV -259 Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 1-21 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA Figure IV -63 Figure IV -64 Figure IV -65 Figure IV -66 Figure IV -67 Figure IV -68 Figure IV -69 Figure IV -70 • Airpark Drainage Buffer .......................... . • Out Parcel/Adjacent Property Buffer ................. . • Land Use Buffer ................................ • Commercial Buffer/Avenue 61 Streetscape ............. . • Product Type Buffer .................. . . . ....... . • Walls and Fences .............................. . • Walls and Fences (Without Golf Course) ..... , ........ . • Walls and Fences (With Golf Course) ..... . .... . ..... . IV -260 IV -261 IV -262 IV -263 IV -264 IV -270 IV -271 IV -272 V. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Figure V-1 • Land Use Plan .................... . ........... . ... V-6 Figure V-2 • Project Neighborhoods ......................... . .... V-7 Figure V-3 • Land Use Concepts ................................ V-9 Figure V-4 • Open Space and Conservation Map ..................... V-14 Figure V-5 • Composite Environmental Hazards Map .................. V-15 Figure V-6 • Composite Environmental Resources Map ............. . V-17 Figure V-7 • The Eastern Coachella Valley Plan ....... . ............. V-20 Figure V-8 • Regional Location ................................. V-21 Figure V-9 • Project Vicinity ................................... V-23 Figure V-10 • Concept 1 ....................................... V-24 Figure V-11 • Concept 2 ....................................... V-26 Figure V-12 • Concept 3 ...................................... V-29 Figure V-13 • Concept 4 ............................. , ........ V-31 Figure V-14 • Concept 5 ................................ , ..... V-33 Figure V-15 • Concept 6 .......................... , .... , ...... V-35 Figure V-16 • Current Land Use ................................. V-45 Figure V-17 • Aerial Photograph ................................. V-46 Figure V-18 • Current Zoning ....... ............................ V-48 Figure V-19 • Geologic Map ........... ..... . .................. V-53 Figure V-20 • Soils Map ....................................... V-64 Figure V-21 • Agricultural Resources .............................. V-65 Figure V-22 • Agricultural Preserves .............................. V-70 Figure V-23 • Regional Fault Map ................................ V-92 Figure V-24 • Summer Wind Flow Patterns ........................ V-105 Figure V-25 • Air Pollutant Analysis Locations ...................... V-117 Figure V-26 • Sound Levels and Human Response .................... V-137 Figure V-27 • Land Use Compatibility Chart for Community Noise Exposure . V-139 Figure V-28 • Future Airport Noise Exposure ....................... V-143 Figure V-29 • Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................. V-147 Figure V-30 • Blocks Not Examined for Archaeological Resources ........ V-174 Figure V-31 • Community Structure .............................. V-181 Figure V-32 • Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls .. V-192 Figure V-33 • Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element ........ V-193 Figure V-34 • Riverside County General Plan Roadway Cross -Sections .... _ V-194 Figure V-35 • Existing Average Daily Traffic ....................... V-195 Figure V-36 • Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ............ V-199 1-22 The Planning Center Chapter I • List of Figures Figure V-37 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ......... _ . _ V-200 Figure V-38 Project Traffic Analysis Zones ....................... V-204 Figure V-39 Overall Project Traffic Distribution .................... V-205 Figure V-40 Concept 1 Average Daily Traffic ...................... V-207 Figure V-41 Concept 1 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........... V-208 Figure V-42 Concept 1 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........... V-209 Figure V-43 Concept 1 Circulation Recommendations ................ V-211 Figure V-44 Year 2010 Study Area Average Daily Traffic Without Project V-216 Figure V-45 Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratios Without Project ........................................ V-217 Figure V-46 Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Without Project .................................. V-218 Figure V-47 Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Without Project ................ . ................. V-219 Figure V-48 Year 2010 Study Area Average Daily Traffic With Concept 1 . V-222 Figure V-49 Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratios With ..... V-223 Figure V-50 Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Concept 1 .................................. V-224 Figure V-51 Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Concept 1 .................................. V-225 Figure V-52 Revised General Plan Circulation Element For Concept 1 .... V-231 Figure V-53 Bus Turnout and Stop Locations ..................... V-233 Figure V-54 Bus Turnout Design Parameters ............ . ........ . V-234 Figure V-55 Concept 4 Average Daily Traffic ...................... V-239 Figure V-56 Concept 4 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........... V-240 Figure V-57 Concept 4 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........... V-241 Figure V-58 Concept 4 Circulation Recommendations ................ V-242 Figure V-59 Year 2010 Study Area ADT with Concept 4 .............. V-247 Figure V-60 • Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratios with Concept 4 .................................. V-248 Figure V-61 • Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 4 ... . .............................. V-249 Figure V-62 • Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 4 .................................. V-250 Figure V-63 • Concept 6 Average Daily Traffic ...................... V-257 Figure V-64 • Concept 6 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........... V-258 Figure V-65 • Concept 6 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ........... V-259 Figure V-66 • Concept 6 Circulation Recommendations ........... . .... V-260 Figure V-67 • Year 2010 Study Area Average Daily Traffic With Concept 6 . V-262 Figure V-68 • Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratios With Concept ...................................... V-263 Figure V-69 • Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 6 .................................. V-265 Figure V-70 • Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Concept 6 ................ . .............. . . . V-266 Figure V-71 0 Utilities & Storm Drainage ....... . .. . ... r .. . ....... V-274 Figure V-72 • Water Plan ............................ . . .... . . . V-277 Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 1-23 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA Figure V-73 - Off -Site Water Improvements ......... . .............. V-278 Figure V-74 - Sewer Plan ..................................... V-283 Figure V-75 - Future Airport Safety Zones and Height Limitations ........ V-344 Figure V-76 - Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative ..... V-397 Figure V-77 - Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative ............... V-404 Figure V-78 - Alternative Site 1 ................................ V-411 Figure V-79 - Alternative Site 2 ................................ V-417 ADSPEIRN-TOC. Last Generation: May 13, 1996 - 12:04pm 1-24 The Planning Center II. SUMMARY II. SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION 1. Purpose and Authority of the Specific Plan The purpose of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is to guide development and to stimulate responsible design through customized regulations and guidelines. The Specific Plan was prepared pursuant to the authority granted to the County of Riverside by the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 to 65457. 2. Purpose and Authority of the EIR The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential environmental impacts of the Specific Plan for the Kohl Ranch project in the County of Riverside. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority. This Draft EIR has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et.seq., the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Administrative Code Section 15000, et.seq., and the County of Riverside's CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is the public document designed to provide local and state governmental agency Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 II -1 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA decision -makers with an analysis of environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage through mitigation measures and alternatives. The EIR also must disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth -inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. a. Scope of the EIR As noted above, the EIR is an informational document used in local and state agency decision-making processes. It is not the purpose of the EIR to either recommend approval or denial of a project or to present political, social or economic reasons to project approval or denial. Pursuant to CEQA, the County of Riverside is serving as the Lead Agency and has prepared an Initial Study (see Technical Appendix A). The County has determined through the Initial Study that the adoption of a Specific Plan for the Kohl Ranch project may have significant adverse environmental impacts and that an EIR is required. The study identifies those environmental issues that may be significantly impacted by this project and are addressed in this EIR. These issues include: • General Plan Land Use Determination ■ Land Use Element Consistency ■ Existing Land Use and Zoning ■ Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion ■ Soils and Agriculture ■ Biology ■ Geology and Seismicity ■ Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage ■ Air Quality ■ Water Quality ■ Noise w Energy Resources ■ Open Space and Conservation ■ Toxic Substances ■ Cultural Resources ■ Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare ■ Circulation and Traffic ■ Water and Sewer ■ Fire Services ■ Sheriff Services ■ Schools ■ Parks and Recreation • Utilities ■ Solid Waste ■ Health Services • Disaster Preparedness ■ Libraries ■ Airports ■ Housing Element ■ Regional Element ■ Administrative Element II -2 The Planning Center Chapter II • Summary b. Intended Uses of the EIR On October 14, 1994, the County of Riverside, in its role as Lead Agency for this project, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other interested parties. The NOP and comments resulting from the distribution of the NOP are contained in Technical Appendix A. A lead agency is the agency with primary responsibility for approval of the project. Other agencies having discretionary approval over a project are "Responsible Agencies" under CEQA. This document will provide environmental information for several other agencies affected by the project, or which are likely to have an interest in the project. Various State and Federal agencies exercise control over certain aspects of the project area. The various public, private and political agencies and jurisdictions with a particular interest in the proposed project include the following: Federal Agencies Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) — Responsible for conserving and protecting wild birds, endangered species and their habitat. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) — Responsible for approving changes to the interstate freeway system. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — Responsible for administration of the Superfund program. State Agencies California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) — Responsible for the protection, conservation, propagation and enhancement of California's wildlife resources. This department enforces laws and regulations, and issues licenses relative to and cooperates with local agencies in developing projects. This agency will act as a Trustee. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) — Responsible for evaluating appropriate uses of water and for issuing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and waste discharge requirements. California Reclamation Board (CRB) — Responsible for delineation of flooding and regulation of encroachments into designated floodways. California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) — Responsible for approval of roadway improvements along state highways, including State Routes 86 and 195. California Environmental Protection Agency — This agency is the primary state agency concerned with degradation of the environment and how it affects human health. It is responsible for the examination and prevention of pollution of sources of public water supplies; establishment of ambient standards of air quality; monitoring of environmental Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -3 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA pollution, regulation of the quality of water supplies and sewage disposal systems; regulation of hazardous waste; regulation of pesticides; regulation and control of radioactive materials; and providing certain laboratory support to other state agencies. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) — This Cal -EPA agency is the primary state agency that regulates matters related to hazardous waste. It is responsible for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and permitting, surveillance and enforcement of hazardous waste facilities. State Air Resources Board (CARB) — This Cal -EPA agency is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act, responding to the Federal Clean Air Act and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. California Department of Conservation — This agency reviews projects for their impacts on agricultural resources. Local Agencies County of Riverside — Responsible for land use control, and the provision of urban services on and to the project site. The County will act as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) — Has responsibility for the implementation of the California Clean Air Act. This agency's authority includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties and the western portion of Riverside County. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) — Stimulates intergovernmental cooperation in planning and development activities, and assures better coordination of federally assisted projects. Reviews applications of local and regional agencies for federal grants related to more than 100 programs. Responsible for preparing components of the California Regional Transportation Plan. Programs range from open space planning, waste control and water basin studies to aviation, housing and research in economics and demography. Adjacent Cities — The Cities of Indio, Coachella and La Quinta are located adjacent to the unincorporated portion of Riverside County where the project is located and will be affected by the proposed project. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) — Responsible for providing domestic water, sanitation and regional stormwater protection for the site. This area is within District No. 1 of the Coachella Valley Water District for irrigation service. Water from the Coachella Canal is available and shall be used to irrigate golf courses and greenbelts. The District can also provide agricultural drainage to this area. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) — Responsible for programming transportation improvements in the project area, preparing demographic forecasts, and solid waste and air quality planning. II -4 The Planning Center Chapter II • Summary Public agencies and interested parties who did not respond to a request for comment during the preparation of the EIR, will have an opportunity to continent during the public review period for the Draft EIR. B. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Project Location The 2,177 -acre Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is located in the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside County (Figure II -1). The site is just south of Thermal Airport, and is roughly east of Harrison Street, west of Highway 111 and north of Highway 195.' The project is bounded by Avenue 60 on the north, Polk Street on the east, Avenue 66 on the South and Tyler Street on the west (Figure II -2). The site is within the boundaries of the approximately 27,000 -acre Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone and a portion of the site is within the Thermal Redevelopment Area (Figure H-3). The site also falls under the jurisdiction of the newly - formed Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority which was implemented through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) among Riverside County and the cities of Coachella, Indio, Indian Wells, La Quinta and Palm Desert. The JPA replaces the County Planning Commission and Airport Land Use Commission for the areas within its jurisdiction. 2. Site Description The Kohl Ranch site is characterized by flat terrain, with a very gentle slope from northwest to southeast. Elevations range between approximately 125 and 164 feet below sea level. The majority of the site is currently in agricultural use, although a significant portion in the southern section is vacant, disturbed land with sparse, non-native vegetation (Figure II -4). Existing man-made features include the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel which flows west to east through the project site, and structures associated with current and past farming activities, including the Kohl Ranch headquarters and an abandoned feed lot. Some limited residential uses occur along the project periphery and Avenue 61. Adjacent, off site land uses include vacant land, farms and related uses, a former sludge processing operation,' residences and the Thermal Airport. The Torres Martinez Indian Reservation abuts Section 9 on the west, south and east. These Native American lands are held in individual and tribal ownership. Please note that for clarification purposes, this Specific Plan refers to the 'old" Highway 86 as Harrison Street, its local street name. The designation SR -86S refers to the new freeway constructed east of the Whitewater River. On November 28, 1994, a U.S. District Court judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing more sludge from being brought to the site. A late March hearing has been scheduled to make the injunction permanent. Two companies composting sewage sludge announced in December that they are closing their operations at the site. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -5 Regional Location Coachella Valley, California C 0Q0 Figure II -1 II -6 Vicinity Map " r Tp� 'y Y^ AVE 52 r i LA UI jWtAi. AV E 64 F AIRPQ SEL -^s M - - - a _VE 60 o C. —- -� A 62 - -_ o Tf�e Kdl - Ranch, .� 6' h- HWY 1$ri+n CSA t y r"i ; R�� x " r i ,�• + ; MI MIS L - '�+�' r * y'•� oW„rr�t , t .•'. , I.' y` t,�,� s+,"d52 Lf� Coachella Valley, California Figure II -2 1L7 Policy Area Boundaries n r`1 — �� IIV©147 _ LA QLIIMTA C©ACHELLA L�..�.w rlir�AL THERMAL �. AIRPORT : r • ",• - .: - - ... ......... . I% .......... I Y ` ..• ' a , THE f ^ fl -- _ - KOHL RAM1ICN MECCA Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Thermal Community Redevelopment Plan Area Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan Policy Area Coachella Valley, California 9C.? Figure U-3 II -8 Chapter II • Summary The business, commercial and industrial land use categories will comprise 157.6, 62.3 and 357.7 acres, respectively. Commercial areas will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward the Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are described in Figure II -5, and are briefly summarized in Table H-1. A more detailed project description is included in Section W.A. of the Specific Plan. 4. Industrial Overlay Designation The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan identifies nearly 100 planning areas on the site grouped within 13 larger areas referred to as neighborhoods. Neighborhoods define logical development areas based on land use and the relationship to planned roadways and infrastructure. Each planning area within these neighborhoods has a primary land use designation. The primary land use designations for all planning areas are depicted in Figure II -5 and are referred to as Land Use., Concept 1. Following approval of the Specific Plan, the Kohl Ranch may be developed in accordance with Concept 1 without any further zoning approval. The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan incorporates provisions for the establishment of an Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD) throughout the project site, based on the thirteen project neighborhoods. These provisions allow all or only a portion of the Kohl Ranch site to be developed for industrial use. The IOD can be applied to areas that are designated as residential by the proposed project, as well as areas that are designated for non-residential uses such as commercial and light industrial. The purpose of the IOD is to afford flexibility to respond to evolving market conditions, and to facilitate development that is compatible with the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Thermal Redevelopment Area and the Thermal Airport. The IOD is intended to accommodate industrial users requiring large land parcels. It cannot be activated for individual planning areas, but instead must be applied concurrently to all planning areas within a neighborhood. If the IOD is not applied to a given neighborhood, then that neighborhood would develop witty the primary land use designations represented by Concept 1. Based on the requirements for use of the IOD described in the Specific Plan, there are five possible formats for buildout of the site, in addition to the underlying or base land use designations, referred to as Concept 1. Land Use Concepts 2 through 6 represent alternative ways that the site can be developed, through implementation of the IOD. The land use concepts differ in the amount of acreage and the geographic areas devoted to industrial use (See Figure H-6). The concepts range from 357.7 acres of potential industrial development with Concept 1, based upon the primary land uses identified in the Specific Plan, to approximately 1,413 acres with Concept 6. The IOD concept works with the overall community structure, roadways, and open space system of the proposed project to buffer off-site uses and on-site residential uses from potential adjacent industrial uses and to ensure land use compatibility. The IOD is comprehensively described in Section IV.A.9 of the Specific Plan. Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 II -13 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA C. EIR ISSUES/MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN For a summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance after mitigation for the proposed project, please refer to Table II -2 on the following page. This mitigation monitoring plan also identifies the reviewing entity and review stage for monitoring compliance with each of the mitigation measures. It should be noted that mitigation measures will conform with the laws and regulations in effect at the time of project development. Note to the Reader: Mitigation measures for each environmental impact are described first for Concept 1. Mitigation measures for the other concepts are grouped according to the similarity of impacts. For a description of these impacts, please refer to the appropriate section of the EIR. II -14 The Planning Center Concept 1 Concept 4 Concept 2 Industrial Land Use Designation Concept 5 Coachella Valley, California Land Use Concepts Concept 3 Concept 6 Not to Scale Og Fv� C70 Figure II -6 II -15 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA [This page intentionally left blank.] II -16 The Planning Center Chapter II • Summary Table II -2 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Landform & Topography/Slopes and Erosion CONCEPTI Adverse impacts associated C1-1 Grading activities shall be in conformance with the overall with on-site grading. Conceptual Grading Plan, the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 457. C1-2 Prior to development within any area of the Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for the portion in process shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. C1-3 Unless otherwise approved by the Riverside County, Building and Safety Department, all cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot. Cl -4 A grading permit shall be obtained from the Riverside County, as required by the County Grading Ordinance, prior to grading. Cl -5 Erosion control practices shall be implemented during grading activities. C1-6 All projects proposing construction activities including: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater, shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. Less than significant. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Planning Department. Riverside County, Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Riverside County, Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Prior to issuance of grading permit. Prior to issuance of grading permit. Review and approval of grading plans. Prior to grading. Review and approval of erosion control plan. Following review and approval of conceptual grading plans prior to issuance of grading permit. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -17 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Adverse effect of wind erosion. Potential for increased erosion. CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Adverse impacts associated with on-site grading. Adverse effect of wind erosion. Potential for increased erosion. Soils & Agriculture CONCEPTI Loss of prime agricultural land. C1-7 It is important that the grading plans are submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for utility clearance prior to issuance of a grading permit by Riverside County Building and Safety Department. This is to ensure that existing CVWD and USBR facilities are protected or properly modified to accommodate this development. The existence of some of these facilities, together with their relative importance, may require that the developer's grading plans be revised from those presented in the specific plan. Refer to mitigation measure C6-1 regarding SCAQMD Rule 403 in Section V.C.6., Air Quality. Refer to mitigation measures C7-1 and C7-2 regarding storm runoff control measures in Section V.C.7. Refer to mitigation measure C6-1 in Section V.C.6., Air Quality, regarding fugitive dust control measures. See mitigation measure C1-6 above regarding grading activities, and mitigation measures for Water Quality (C7-1 through C7-3). Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 No mitigation measures are proposed. CVWD and Riverside County Prior to issuance of grading Building and Safety permit. Department. Less than significant. Refer to Measure C6-1. Refer to jMeasure C6-1. Less than significant. Refer to Measure Cl -6. Refer to Measure Cl -6. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept L Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Significant and None required. Not applicable. unavoidable. II -18 lanning Center Chapter II • Summary Potential for land use conflict between agriculture and proposed urban uses. Decline in economic viability of agricultural lands in the project vicinity. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 No mitigation measures are proposed. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Significant and None required. unavoidable. Same as ror Concept 1. Not applicable. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -19 Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Potential for land use C2-1 All future development projects in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of conflict between agriculture project area shall be designed in accordance with all applicable Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ and proposed urban uses. criteria in the Planning Standards and Design Guidelines in the use permit. Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. C2-2 The project shall be subject to Riverside County's right -to -farm Riverside County Planning Review and approval of ordinance, Ordinance No. 625, which protects farmers' rights Department. tentative jtract maps. with respect to urban encroachment. Per Section 6 of Ordinance No. 625, buyers of homes shall be noticed for any land division that lies partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of any land zoned primarily for agricultural purposes. C2-3 In addition to notice required by Ordinance No. 625, notice shall Riverside County Planning Prior to issuance of be provided to future homeowners within the Specific Plan area Department. certificate of occupancy. of the potential impacts associated with surrounding agricultural use. Decline in economic No mitigation measures are proposed. Significant and None required. Not applicable. viability of agricultural lands unavoidable. in the project vicinity. Increased conversion of Refer to mitigation measure C2-2 regarding Riverside County's right -to- Significant and See above. See above, agricultural land due to farm ordinance, Ordinance No. 625, which protects farmers' rights with unavoidable. cumulative impacts of respect to urban encroachment. development. CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Loss of prime agricultural No mitigation measures are proposed. Significant and None required. Not applicable. land. unavoidable. Potential for land use conflict between agriculture and proposed urban uses. Decline in economic viability of agricultural lands in the project vicinity. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 No mitigation measures are proposed. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Significant and None required. unavoidable. Same as ror Concept 1. Not applicable. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -19 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Increased conversion of Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 agricultural land due to cumulative impacts of development. Biology CONCEPT 1 Loss of wildlife habitat and None required. associated plant and animal species. Significant and Same as for Concept 1 unavoidable. Less than significant. None required. Direct impact to sensitive C3-1 A pre -construction survey for nesting burrowing owls shall be Less than significant. Riverside County Planning species. conducted in the early spring that precedes the time when Department. clearing or grading is anticipated. If potential nest -sites are discovered, they shall be plugged or fenced to discourage nesting within the project impact zone when construction crews are on- site. Long-term impacts to None required. Less than significant. None required. regionally significant biological resources. CONCEPTS 2-6 Loss of wildlife habitat and None required. Less than significant. None required, associated plant and animal species. Direct impact to sensitive Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 species. Long-term impacts to None required. Less than significant. None required. regionally significant biological resources. II -20 Same asi for Concept 1. Not applicable. Prior to issuance of first grading permit for the applicable portion of the site. Not applicable. Not applicable. Same as for Concept 1. Not applicable. 'fanning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Geology & Seismicity CONCEPTI Liquefaction potential. C4-1 Additional site specific investigations addressing liquefaction Less than significant. Riverside County Planning potential shall be conducted once the locations and nature of Department. structures are known. If potentially liquefiable soils are encountered during site specific investigations, proper site preparation and building design shall be required to minimize liquefaction related problems. Groundshaking. C4-2 Structures constructed on-site shall be designed in consideration Less than significant. Riverside County Building & of the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code Safety Department. and the seismic setting of the site. CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Liquefaction potential. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Groundshaking. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Hydrology, Flooding & Drainage CONCEPT 1 Potential reduction of C5-1 Detention basins shall be required on-site to control storm runoff, Less than significant. Riverside County Planning groundwater recharge. in accordance with Specific Plan recommendations. Department and CVWD. Increased demand on water Refer to mitigation measures for increased demand on water resources in resources. Section V.D.2., Water and Sewer (D2-1 through D2-14). Increased stormwater runoff C5-2 The project drainage system shall control storm flows such that from the project site. runoff volumes leaving the site shall approximate existing conditions. Less than significant. Refer to Section V.D.2. Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Department and CVWD. I Review and approval of detailed soil and geotechnical reports prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit approval. Review and approval of building plans, prior to issuance of building permits. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Review and approval of grading and drainage plans prior to approval of tentative tract mapiplot plan/use permit. Refer to Section V.D.2. Review and approval of grading and drainage plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plarduse permit approval. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -21 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage C5-3 Drainage facilities associated with the project shall be designed Riverside County Planning Review and approval of in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District Department and CVWD drainage plans prior to Hydrology Manual and Standards, and CVWD Standards. On- tentative tract map/plot plan/ site runoff shall be intercepted and conveyed through the use permit approval. development by means of a conventional catch basin and storm drain system, in accordance with CVWD standards. C5-4 A collector storm drain system to facilitate flows generated on- Riverside County Planning Review and approval of site shall be designed to utilize street flow carrying capacity and Department and CVWD. drainage plans prior to flows into catch basins and inlets when the quantity exceeds the tentative tract map/plot plan/ top of curb. use permit approval. C5-5 Protection from the 100 -year flood shall be provided to all Riverside County Planning Review and approval of building pads in the Kohl Ranch, as the recommended Flood Departmentt and CVWD. drainage plans prior to Control Plan is implemented. tentative,tract map/plot plan/ use permit approvals. C5-6 Maintenance and upgrading of storm drain facilities shall be Riverside County Building and Prior to issuance of building implemented as outlined in applicable regional facilities plans. Safety Department and permits. CVWD. C5-7 Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Riverside County Building and Prior to issuance of grading Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Safety Department and permit. Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to Regional Water Quality all construction activities. Construction activity includes: Control Board. cleaning, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this specific plan, the developer or builder shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit prior to commencing grading activities. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. C5-8 The hydrology and drainage design shall take into account the Riverside County Building and Review and approval of existing stormwater, irrigation and drainage facilities which cross Safety Department and CVWD grading and drainage plans Kohl Ranch. The developer's engineer shall work with CVWD prior to tentative tract map/ to develop an acceptable grading and drainage plan, plot plan/use permit. II -22 lanning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Potential reduction of Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. groundwater recharge. Increased demand on water Same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as For Concept 1. resources. Increased stormwater runoff Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. from the project site. Air Quality CONCEPT 1 Short-term air quality Fugitive Dust impacts. C6-1 The project shall be required by law to comply with regional and Significant. Riverside County Building and Review and approval of local rules and ordinances which will assist in reducing the short- Safety Department and grading plans. term air pollutant emissions. For example, the SCAQMD's SCAQMD. Fugitive Dust Rule 403 and Riverside County's Dust Control Ordinance require implementation of extensive fugitive dust control measures such as watering on site, revegetation, use of soil stabilizers and submittal of a wind erosion plan in some instances. In addition, the following mitigation measures are provided to further reduce air pollutants generated during the project construction phase. Where available, the mitigation effectiveness is indicated (e.g., 50 percent) as provided in the SCAQMD, CEQA Air Handbook, April 1993. Construction Equipment Exhaust C6-2 Construction operations shall comply with all applicable control Riverside County Building & During grading and measures identified in the "State Implementation Plan in the Safety Department. construction. Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision," March 1994. C6-3 Construction equipment shall be selected considering emission Riverside County Building & During grading and factors and energy efficiency. All equipment shall be properly Safety Department. construction. tuned and maintained. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 II -23 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley a CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Long-term regional air quality impacts. On -Road Sources C6-4 Construction activities shall be timed so as to not interfere with Riverside County Building & During grading and peak hour traffic and shall minimize obstruction of through Safety Department. construction. traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. C6-5 Ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew shall Riverside County Building & During grading and be supported and encouraged. Safety Department and construction. SCAQMD. Regional air pollutant emissions associated with the project are considered significant. To reduce the level of regional impact the following mitigation measures are provided. C6-6 The project shall utilize a mix of services on-site to provide amenities for employees and residents that would reduce off-site vehicle trips. Consideration shall be given to postal services, banking, a food facility (restaurant/grocery store) and a ridesharing service to local commercial areas. C6-7 Local transit agencies shall be contacted to determine bus routing adjacent to the site that can be accommodated in design and for on-site provision of bus shelters and turnout lanes. C6-8 The use of energy-efficient street lighting and on-site lighting in parking and walking areas (e.g., low pressure sodium, metal halide, clean lucalox and high pressure sodium) shall be used on- site to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the site. C6-9 Low -polluting and high -efficiency appliances shall be installed wherever possible. Solar energy shall be evaluated for heating any swimming pools or water heaters on-site. C6-10 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) utilized on-site shall support a reduction in mobile emissions as employees/residents convert from single occupant vehicle (SOV) use to other modes of transportation. TDM could include: creating employee carpools; preferential carpool parking; • designing appropriate bicycling and walking paths; Significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Riverside County Planning and Review and approval of Transportation Departments. tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permits. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permits. Riverside County Planning Prior to approval of plot Department. plan and/or use permit. II -24 lanning Center Chapter II • Summary Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage • reduced costs for transit passes; • flexible work hours for transit riding, carpooling, walking and bicycling employees; and • implementing a parking fee on-site to discourage single occupant vehicles (SOVs). Microscale projections. None required. Less than significant. None required. Not applicable. Air Quality Management C6-11 To assist in jobs/housing balance for the subregion, the Kohl Significant. Riverside County Planning Approval of Final Specific Plan Conformity. Ranch Specific Plan includes a mix of land uses including Department. Plan. residential, business, commercial, industrial, open space and public facilities. Both working and living opportunities have been made available within the thirteen project neighborhoods. An emphasis has been placed on developing employment concentrations near medium to high density residential areas creating areas of local activity. No additional mitigation is available to further reduce the project's regional emissions. CONCEPTS 2, 4 and 5 Short-term air quality Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for Concept Significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. impacts. 1. Long-term regional air Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for Concept Significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. quality impacts. 1. Microscale Projections. None required. Less than significant. None required. Not applicable. Air Quality Management Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Plan conformity. CONCEPT 3 Short-term air quality Mitigation measures for Concept 3 are the same as for Concept 1. Significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. impacts. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -25 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Long-term regional air quality impacts. Microscale projections. Air Quality Management Plan Conformity. I:a IM141% 1[11 Short-term air quality impacts. Long-term regional air quality impacts. Microscale projections. Air Quality Management Plan Conformity. Mitigation measures for Concept 3 are the same as for Concept 1. In addition, the following mitigation measure is required: C6-12 The stationary source emissions for Concept 3 shall be analyzed at the time that a specific industrial use for the site is known, to determine whether impacts fall within the envelope of impacts created for Concept 1. Based upon this analysis, the project shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations. None required. Mitigation measures for Concept 3 are the same as for Concept 1 Mitigation measures for concept 6 are the same as for Concept 1 Mitigation measures for Concept 6 are the same as for Concept 1. In addition, the following mitigation measure is required: C6-13 The stationary source emissions for Concept 6 shall be analyzed at the time that a specific industrial use for the site is known, to determine whether impacts fall within the envelope of impacts created for Concept 1. Based upon this analysis, the project shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations. None required. Significant. Significant. Same as for Concept 1 Riverside County Planning Department. Less than significant. None required. Significant. Same as for Concept 1 Significant. Same as for Concept 1 Significant. Same as for Concept 1 Significant. Riverside County Planning Department. Less than significant. None required. Mitigation measures for Concept 6 are the same as for Concept 1. In addition, the following mitigation measure is required: C6-14 To assist in jobs/housing balance for the subregion, Concept 6 of Significant. the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan includes a variety of employment opportunities. No additional mitigation is available to further reduce the project's regional emissions. Riverside County Planning Department. Same as for Concept 1. Review and approval of tentative'Itract map/plot plan/ use permit. Not applicable. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Not applicable. Approval of Final Specific Plan. II -26 Manning Center Environmental Impacts Water Quality CONCEPT 1 Short-term potential for increased erosion. C7-1 C7-2 Degradation of water quality C7-3 from nonpoint pollution. Mitigation Measures Private developments constructed in the project area shall be required to provide adequate site drainage during construction. Temporary culverts, ditches, dams, catch basins, and settling ponds shall be installed in construction areas to maintain existing drainage flows and collect excess water and sediment coming from construction sites. Refer to mitigation measures C1-1 through C1-6 in Section V.C.I., Landform & Topography/Slopes & Erosion, regarding grading requirements. All development shall be subject to NPDES regulations enforced by the RWQCB. C7-4 All discharges to surface waters and groundwater shall comply with the goals of the most current applicable Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin. Water quality impact from C7-5 Interim agricultural operations shall be required to comply with interim agricultural use. the applicable permit requirements in the application of pesticides. CONCEPTS 2 4, AND 5 Short-term potential for Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4, and 5 are the same as for increased erosion. Concept 1. Degradation of water quality Same as for Concept 1. from nonpoint pollution. Water quality impact from Same as for Concept 1. interim agricultural use. Level of Signfcance After Mitigation Less than significant. Less than significant. Reviewing Entity Riverside County Building & Safety Department, CVWD, and RWQCB. Riverside County Building & Safety Department and CVWD. Riverside County Planning Department, CVWD & RWQCB. RWQCB. Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Department and Riverside County Health Department. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Chapter II «Summary Review Stage Review and approval of erosion control plan. Review and approval of erosion control plan. Ongoing. Ongoing. Ongoing. Same Concept 1. Same Concept 1. Same Concept 1. Draft Specific Plan , May 13, 1996 II -27 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 3 AND 6 Short-term potential for increased erosion. Degradation of water quality from nonpoint pollution. Water quality impact from interim agricultural use. Noise CONCEPT 1 Short-term construction impacts. Long-term off-site airport and traffic impacts. Mitigation measures for Concepts 3 and 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 C8-1 Construction activities within 800 feet of existing sensitive Less than significant. Riverside County Building & receptors shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. Safety Department. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction activities that occur within one mile of a sensitive receptor but not closer than 800 feet shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction under either of these two scenarios shall not be allowed on Federal holidays. Construction activities where there are no sensitive receptors within a one -mile radius shall not be time -restricted. C8-2 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped Riverside County Building & with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Safety Department. C8-3 Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is Riverside County Building & directed away from any existing sensitive noise receivers. Safety Department. C8-4 Residential uses proposed within the 60 CNEL contour of the Less than significant. Riverside County Health airport shall require a noise analysis by a qualified acoustical Department and Planning consultant to ensure the standards are met. This analysis shall Department. address the combined impact of airport activities and motor vehicle noise from adjacent roadways. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Inspections during construction. Inspections during construction. Inspections during construction. Review and approval of final acoustic reports prior to approval lof tentative tract map or other residential projects. II -28 fanning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage C8-5 Residential and school uses proposed within the 60 CNEL contour of Avenue 62, Avenue 66, Tyler Street, Polk Street, A Street, B Street, and C Street shall require a noise analysis by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure the noise standards are met. CONCEPTS 2-6 Short-term construction Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 impacts. Long-term off-site traffic Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 impacts. Energy Resources CONCEPT 1 Increased energy use. C9-1 All developments within the Kohl Ranch project area shall implement Title 24 building standards to minimize energy use. C9-2 Electric vehicle recharging facilities shall be permitted in all commercial developments. CONCEPTS 2-6 Increased energy use. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 Open Space & Conservation CONCEPT 1 Loss of undeveloped open C10-1 space. Riverside County Health Department and Riverside County Planning Department. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Planning Department. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Review and approval of final acoustical reports prior to approval of tentative tract map or other residential projects. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Review and approval of building',plans prior to issuance of building permits. Approval of Final Specific Plan. ' Same as for Concept 1. All open space areas within the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan project Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of area shall be designed in accordance with all applicable criteria Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ in the Zoning, Community Structure Development Standards, use permit. Neighborhood and Planning Area Land Use and Development Standards, and Design Guidelines, Sections III, IV.A.4.b, IV.B, and IV.0 of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 II -29 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2, 4 AND 5 Loss of undeveloped open Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as, for Concept 1. space. Concept 1. CONCEPT 3 Loss of undeveloped open Mitigation measures for Concept 3 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. space. CONCEPT 6 Loss of undeveloped open Mitigation measures for Concept 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. space. Toxic Substances CONCEPT 1 Generation of hazardous C11-1 Users of hazardous materials shall comply with applicable Less than significant. Riverside County Health Ongoing. wastes. federal, state and local regulations requiring elimination and Department and CVWD. reduction of waste at the source by prevention of leakage, segregation of hazardous waste, and other means. Industrial operations shall utilize methods such as recovery, reuse and recycling of wastes to minimize the amount of hazardous substances disposed of. C11-2 Future industrial uses shall be reviewed to identify the specific Riverside County Health Review and approval of plot wastes which may be generated for storage and disposal of Department and Planning plan and/or use permit. potentially hazardous substances. Department. Cl 1-3 Hazardous materials that may be produced on-site shall require Riverside County Health Ongoing. transport by a licensed hauler to a designated facility. Haulers of Department. hazardous materials, as well as disposal facilities, shall be licensed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. II -30 fanning Center Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Potential for contaminated C11-4 A Phase I assessment shall be performed by the applicant prior to soils. construction of individual developments, for areas where there is evidence that pesticides or other hazardous materials have been stored, to determine whether site soils have been contaminated by past agricultural practices. If necessary, contaminated soils shall be sufficiently covered or removed, to avoid exposure of project residents, workers and visitors. CI I-5 Interim agricultural operations shall adhere to all appropriate permit requirements related to the handling, storage and transport of hazardous materials. CONCEPTS 2, 4 AND 5 Generation of hazardous wastes. Potential for contaminated soils. CONCEPTS_3 AND 6 Generation of hazardous wastes. Potential for contaminated soils. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for Concept 1. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for Concept 1. Mitigation measures for Concepts 3 and 6 are the same as for Concept 1. In addition, the following mitigation measure applies: C11-6 Concepts 3 and 6 shall be subject to future environmental review to ensure that all potential toxic substance impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures for Concepts 3 and 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Reviewing Entity Riverside County Planning Department and Riverside County Health Department/ Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Health Department. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Riverside County Planning Department. Less than significant. Same as for Concept I Chapter II a Summary Review Stage Prior to issuance of grading permits. During grading. Ongoing: Same as for Concept I. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Review and approval of tentative tract map. Same as for Concept 1. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -31 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Cultural Resources CONCEPT 1 Disturbance of important C12-1 Avoidance of CA-RIV-5510/H is preferred. This site is located Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of archaeological resources. in Planning Area M-4. If it is determined at the development Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ stage avoidance of CA-RIV-5510/H is not feasible, this use permit. archaeological site shall be subjected to a program of additional historic research and test excavation to determine its importance, prior to earth -moving on the site. C12-2 Avoidance of CA-RIV-551 IH is preferred. This site is located in Riverside County Planning Review and approval of Planning Area C-4. If it is determined at the development stage Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ that avoidance of CA-RIV-5511H is not feasible, this use permit. archaeological site shall be subjected to a program of additional historic research and test excavation to determine its importance, prior to earth -moving on the site. C12-3 The approximately 160 acres of the Kohl Ranch site that were Riverside County Planning Review and approval of not examined during field reconnaissance (Blocks 25, 33, 34 and Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ 35) shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist after plowing use permit. but before commencement of grading (see Figure V-30). Disturbance of important None required. Less than significant. None required. Not applicable. historic resources. Disturbance of C12-4 Within Sections 4 and 9 (T.7S, R.8E), a qualified paleontologist Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Prior to and during grading paleontological resources. shall be retained to attend the pre -grade meeting, and supervise Department. activities. the paleontological monitoring during earth moving activities in these areas of the proposed project. C12-5 Initially, full-time monitoring shall be conducted during all earth Less than significant. Riverside County Planning During grading activities. moving activities that extend below 5 feet in Sections 4 and 9 Department. (T.7S, R.8E). Wet screening for small vertebrates will be conducted in the appropriate sediments and a representative sample of fossils shall be collected. Recent (Holocene) alluvial materials or sands have a low paleontologic sensitivity and will not require monitoring. If fossils are found, monitoring requirements will be increased accordingly; if no fossils are encountered, monitoring efforts will be reduced in these sediments. If an adequate sample is collected from the sensitive sediments, the paleontologist may reduce or eliminate monitoring requirements. II -32 canning Center i Chapter II • Summary CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Disturbance of important Mitigation Measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as fpr Concept 1. archaeological resources. Disturbance of important None required. Less than significant. None required. Not appli@able. historic resources. Disturbance of Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Same as for Same as for Concept L Same as for Concept 1. paleontological resources. Concept 1. Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light & Glare CONCEPT 1 Change to visual character Level of Signficance Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage C12-6 Specimens collected shall be prepared (to a point of Less than significant. Riverside County Planning During and /or following identification), identified and curated into a suitable repository Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Department. grading adtivities. that has a retrievable storage system, such as the San Bernardino C13-2 Lighting shall conform to the Lighting Guidelines Section, Less than significant. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building County Museum. Section IV.C.2.j, of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Safety Department. permit. C12-7 A final report summarizing findings shall be prepared at the end Less than significant. Riverside County Planning After completion of field of earth moving activities, and shall include an itemized contained in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Department. monitoring. inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality data. This reports shall be sent to the Lead Agency, signifying the end of mitigation. Another copy shall accompany the fossils, along with field logs and photographs, to the designated repository. CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Disturbance of important Mitigation Measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1. Same as fpr Concept 1. archaeological resources. Disturbance of important None required. Less than significant. None required. Not appli@able. historic resources. Disturbance of Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Same as for Same as for Concept L Same as for Concept 1. paleontological resources. Concept 1. Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light & Glare CONCEPT 1 Change to visual character C13-1 All future development projects in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of of the site. project area shall be designed in accordance with all applicable Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ criteria in the Planning Standards and Design Guidelines in the use permit. Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Creation of new source of C13-2 Lighting shall conform to the Lighting Guidelines Section, Less than significant. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building light and glare. Section IV.C.2.j, of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Safety Department. permit. The following mitigation measures are general lighting guidelines contained in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -33 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage General Lighting Guidelines C13-3 Warm white lighting shall be encouraged. Bright colored or blinking lights shall not be encouraged except in theme restaurants and shops of commercial development areas. C13-4 Building or roof outline tube lighting shall be subject to Riverside County approval. C13-5 Design and placement of site lighting shall minimize glare affecting adjacent properties, buildings, and roadways. C13-6 Careful consideration and coordination shall be given to avoid any potential conflicts with Thermal Airport operations. C13-7 Lighting shall be designed to minimize sky glow and effects on the Mt. Palomar Observatory and the nighttime desert sky. C13-8 Fixtures and standards shall conform to state and local safety and illumination requirements. In particular, lighting shall conform to Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, which includes requirements related to the Mt. Palomar Observatory. C13-9 Automatic timers on lighting shall be designed to maximize personal safety during nighttime use while saving energy. In addition to the lighting guidelines contained in the Specific Plan, the following mitigation measures are recommended. C13-10 The buildings shall use non-metallic, low reflective glass (30 percent or lower reflective factor) and building materials to keep daytime glare to a minimum. Compliance with General C13-11 Future development projects shall be subject to the requirements Plan Policies. of Section 7 of Ordinance No. 655, which includes the preparation of lighting plans and evidence of compliance. C13-12 All new light fixtures installed shall be consistent with the guidelines in Section 5 (General Requirements), Section 6 (Requirements for Lamp Source and Shielding) and Section 8 (Prohibitions) of Ordinance No. 655. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Prior to issuance of building permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permit. Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Safety Department. permit. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Prior to issuance of building permit. Prior to issuance of building permit. II -34 -- aianning Center Chapter II a Summary Level of Sigri icance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2, 4, AND 5 Change to visual character Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for of the site. Concept 1. Creation of new source of Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for light and glare. Concept 1. Compliance with General Mitigation measures for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for Plan policies. Concept 1. CONCEPTS 3 AND 6 Change to visual character Mitigation measures for Concepts 3 and 6 are the same as for Concept 1 of the site. Creation of new source of Mitigation measures for Concepts 3 and 6 are the same as for Concept 1 light and glare. Compliance with General Mitigation measures for Concepts 3 and 6 are the same as for Concept 1 Plan policies. Circulation & Traffic CONCEPT 1 (applies to Concepts 2 and 5) Traffic generated Concept I D1-1 Project roadways shall be aligned and sized as illustrated on Figure V-43 and Table V-39. "A" Street, from 60th Avenue to Polk Street, shall be constructed to an Arterial highway (110 foot right-of-way) cross-section within the project boundaries and along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-43 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway in conjunction with development. D1-2 60th Avenue adjacent to the site shall be downsized and constructed at its ultimate part -width standard as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Less than significant. Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept I. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit for applicable development area. Review and approval of tentative tract map. Road segments',to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 II -35 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage D1-3 Polk Street adjacent to the project site shall be constructed from Riverside County Review and approval of the north project boundary to 66th Avenue at its ultimate half- Transportation Department. tentative tract map. Road section width as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way) in segments to be improved conjunction with development. concurrently with adjacent development area. DI -4 Tyler Street from "C" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 Transportation Department. tentative tract map. Road foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate part -width standard as a segments to be improved collector roadway adjacent to the project site, from 62nd Avenue concurrently with adjacent to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. development area. D1-5 62nd Avenue from "A" Street to "C" Street shall be constructed Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 Transportation Department. tentative tract map. Road foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate half -section width as a segments to be improved secondary highway adjacent to the project site, between "C" concurrently with adjacent Street and the west project boundary in conjunction with development area. development. D1-6 66th Avenue from Tyler Street to Polk Street shall be constructed Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway (88 Transportation Department. tentative tract map. Road foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. D1-7 "B" Street from "A" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 Transportation Department. tentative tract map. Road foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. DI -8 "C" Street from 60th Avenue to "A" Street shall be constructed at Riverside County Review and approval of its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot Transportation Department, tentative tract map. Road right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a segments to be improved Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) from "A" Street to concurrently with adjacent 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. development area. D1-9 "D" Street from 62nd Avenue to Polk Street shall be constructed Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 Transportation Department. tentative tract map. Road foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. II -36 lanning Center Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures D1-10 "E" Street from Polk Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way) from "C" Street to Tyler Street in conjunction with development. Level of Service at General None required. Plan Buildout without Concept 1. Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Riverside County Transportation Department. Less than significant. None required. Chapter II • Summary R�view Stage Review and approval of tentative tIact map. Road segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. Not applicable. Year 2010 Level of Service D1-11 To ensure that off-site roadway improvements (see Table V-43) Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of with Concept 1 and typical are provided in conjunction with each development phase, the Department and Transportation tentative tract map/plot plan/ General Plan improvements. following development monitoring requirements shall be followed Department. use permit. throughout the study area: a. Traffic impact study reports shall be required with submittal of tentative tract maps or plot plans as required by Riverside County. b. The required format for each traffic impact study report shall be determined by Riverside County. The required format shall include evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impacted by each phase of development. C. If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed County service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for County staff review. d. The improvements needed to maintain the County service level standards shall be required to be in place or funding assured prior to occupancy of the relevant development phase. Because off-site improvements are generally needed to serve areawide growth, the developer shall initiate efforts to establish an areawide fee program or funding district to implement General Plan roadway improvements prior to the issuance of building permits. Without a district or fee program in place, the proposed project would be responsible for providing the off-site improvements necessary for adequate circulation at each project phase. Draft Specific Plan ! May 13, 1996 II -37 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Year 2010 Level of Service with Concept 1 and additional General Plan improvements. The following changes are recommended for the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element: D1-12 Construct "A" Street between 60th Avenue and Polk Street as an Less than significant. Riverside County Arterial highway (along the proposed alignment shown on Figure Transportation Department. V-52), to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway. D1-13 Upgrade the classification of 62nd Avenue east of Polk Street to SR -86S to an Arterial highway classification from a Secondary highway classification. D1-14 Designate "B" Street between "A" Street and 62nd Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. D1-15 Designate "C" Street between "A" Street and 66th Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. D1-16 Designate "E" Street between "C" Street and Polk Street as a Secondary highway classification. D1-17 Downgrade 60th Avenue between the northwest corner of the project east to Polk Street to an Industrial Collector and delete as an Arterial highway classification on the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element to accommodate the planned extension of the runway at Thermal Airport. Compliance with General DI -18 The project shall contribute to the installation of traffic signals Plan Circulation policies. when warranted through the payment of traffic signal mitigation fees. The traffic signals shall be installed as warranted through the tract map or plot plan level traffic studies. D1-19 The developer shall comply with the trip reduction ordinance of the Riverside County. Impact of Concept I on D1-20 As development in the area occurs, the SunLine Transit Agency alternative forms of shall be requested to consider expanding service within the area. transportation. Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Riverside County Transportation Department. Approval of General Plan Amendment, Approval of General Plan A171Cndme-It. Approval of General Plan Amendment. Approval �of General Plan Amendment. Approval ol` General Plan Amendment. Approval I!of General Plan Amendment. Payment of traffic mitigation fees at final tract map approval. Ongoing. Ongoing. II -38 T' °canning Center Chapter II • Summary Environmental Impacts [Mitigation Measures Level of Signfficance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage D1-21 To accommodate future bus service on key roadways, transit Planning Department and Review and approval of stops shall be anticipated at the far side of major intersections Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ (see Figure V-53). Sunline Transit Agency should review transit use permit. recommendations in the study area. Figure V-54 shows the recommended bus turnout design features. Pedestrian access to the bus stops shall be provided. D1-22 The commercial portion of the project shall provide on-site bike Planning Department and Review and approval of plot racks to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative means of Transportation Department. plan and/or use permit transportation. approval. D1-23 To encourage ridesharing/transit ridership and reduce commute Planning Department and Review and approval of plot trip impacts on access routes to SR -86S, a portion of the Transportation Department. plan and/or use permit commercial parking areas shall be designated for Park -N -Ride approval. use on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Provision of adequate access D1-24 Access to roadways shall be oriented to the appropriate locations Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of to and from the project area. shown on Figure V-43. Precise access locations and the phasing Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ of roadway improvements shall be determined at the plot plan, use permit. use permit or tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the Riverside County Transportation Department. CONCEPT 4 (representative of mid-range impacts, applies to Concept 3) Traffic Generated by D1-25 Project roadways should be aligned and sized as illustrated on Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of Concept 4 Figure V-58 and Table V-39. "A" Street, from 60th Avenue to Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ Polk Street, shall be constructed to a Major highway (100 foot use permit for applicable right-of-way) cross-section within the project boundaries and development area. along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-58 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway in conjunction with development. D1-26 60th Avenue adjacent to the site shall be downsized and Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of constructed at its ultimate part -width standard as an Industrial Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. use permit. D1-27 Polk Street adjacent to the project site shall be constructed from Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of the north project boundary to 66th Avenue at its ultimate half- Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ section width as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way) in use permit. conjunction with development. Draft Specific Plan a May 13, 1996 II -39 The Kohl Ranch + Coachella Valley • CA Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage D1-28 Tyler Street from "C" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 Transportation Department. tentative'tract map/plot plan/ foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate part -width standard as a use permit. Collector roadway adjacent to the project site, from 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. D1-29 62nd Avenue from "A" Street to "C" Street shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate half -section width as a use permit. Secondary highway adjacent to the project site, between "C" Street and the west project boundary in conjunction with development. D1-30 66th Avenue from Tyler Street to Polk Street shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County at its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway (88 Transportation Department. foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-31 "B" Street from "A" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 Transportation Department. foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-32 "C" Street from 60th Avenue to "A" Street shall be constructed at Less than significant. Riverside County its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot Transportation Department. right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) from "A" Street to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. D1-33 "D" Street from 62nd Avenue to Polk Street shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 Transportation Department. foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-34 "E" Street from Polk Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at Less than significant. Riverside County its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot Transportation Department. right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way) from "C" Street to Tyler Street in conjunction with development. Level of Service at General None required. Plan buildout without Concept 4. Less than significant. None required. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Review and approval of tentative' tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Review and approval of tentative, tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Not applicable. II -40 lanning Center Chapter II ■ Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Year 2010 Level of Service See mitigation measure D1-11 above regarding development monitoring Less than significant. Refer to Measure D141. Refer to Measure D1-11. with Concept 4 and typical requirements. General Plan improvements. Year 2010 Level of Service The following changes are recommended for the Riverside County General Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. with Concept 4 and Plan Circulation Element: additional General Plan improvements. D1-35 Construct "A" Street between 60th Avenue and Polk Street as a Major highway to tie into 62nd Avenue at the intersection of Polk Street (along the proposed alignment shown in Figure V-52), to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway. D1-36 Upgrade the classification of 62nd Avenue east of Polk Street to SR -86S to a Major highway classification from a Secondary highway classification. DI -37 Designate "C" Street between "A" Street and 66th Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. D1-38 Designate "E" Street between "C" Street and Polk Street as a Secondary highway classification. D1-39 Downgrade 60th Avenue between the northwest corner of the project east to Polk Street to an Industrial Collector and delete as an Arterial highway classification on the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element to accommodate the planned extension of the runway at Thermal Airport. Compliance with General Mitigation measures D1-18 and D1-19 will be required, same as for Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. Plan circulation policies. Concept 1. Impact of the proposed Mitigation measures D1-20, D1-21, D1-22, and D1-23 will be required, Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. project on alternative forms same as for Concept 1. of transportation. Draft Specific Plan * May 13, 1996 II -41 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley - CA Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Provision of adequate access D1-40 Access to roadways shall be oriented to the appropriate locations Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of to and from the project area. shown in Figure V-58, Concept 4 Circulation Recommendations. Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ Precise access locations and the phasing of roadway with adjacent development use permit. improvements shall be determined at the plot plan, use permit or D1-44 Tyler Street from "C" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the Riverside Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate part -width standard as a County Transportation Department. use permit. Road segments collector roadway adjacent to the project site, from 62nd Avenue CONCEPT to be improved concurrently to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. Traffic generated by D1-41 Project roadways shall be aligned and sized as illustrated on Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of Concept 6 Figure V-66 and Table V-39. "A" Street, from 60th Avenue to Transportation Department, tentative tract map/plot plan/ Polk Street, shall be constructed to a Secondary highway (88 foot use permit for applicable right-of-way) cross-section within the project boundaries and development area. along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-66 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway in conjunction with development. D1-42 60th Avenue adjacent to the site shall be downsized and Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of constructed at its ultimate part -width standard as an Industrial Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. use permit. Road segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. D1-43 Polk Street adjacent to the project site shall be constructed from Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of the north project boundary to 66th Avenue at its ultimate half- Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ section width as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way) in use permit. Road segments conjunction with development. to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. D1-44 Tyler Street from "C" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate part -width standard as a use permit. Road segments collector roadway adjacent to the project site, from 62nd Avenue to be improved concurrently to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. with adjacent development area. II -42 -- 'Manning Center Chapter II a Summary Level of SignHicance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage D1-45 62nd Avenue from "A" Street to "C" Street shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate half -section width as a use permit. Road segments secondary highway adjacent to the project site, between "C" to be improved concurrently Street and the west project boundary in conjunction with with adjacent development development. area. DI -46 66th Avenue from Tyler Street to Polk Street shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County at its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway (88 Transportation Department. foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. DI -47 "B" Street from "A" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 Transportation Department. foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. DI -48 "C" Street from 60th Avenue to 66th Avenue shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 Transportation Department. foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-49 "D" Street from 62nd Avenue to Polk Street shall be constructed Less than significant. Riverside County at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 Transportation Department. foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-50 "E" Street from Polk Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at Less than significant. Riverside County its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot Transportation Department. right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way) from "C" Street to Tyler Street in conjunction with development. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Road segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. Review and approval of tentative tract maplplot plan/ use permit. Road segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. Review aind approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Road segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Road segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Road segments to be improved concurrently with adjacent development area. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -43 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Level of Service at General Plan buildout without Concept 6. Year 2010 Level of Service with Concept 6 and typical General Plan improvements Year 2010 Level of Service with Concept 6 and additional General Plan improvements. Compliance with General Plan circulation policies. Impact of the proposed project on alternative forms of transportation. Provision of adequate access to and from the project area. Water & Sewer CONCEPT 1 Increased demand on water supplies None required. See mitigation measure DIA I above regarding development monitoring requirements. D1-51 Construct "A" Street between 60th Avenue and Polk Street as a Secondary highway along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-66 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway. D1-52 Delete 60th Avenue between Harrison Street and Polk Street as an Arterial highway classification to accommodate the planned extension of the runway at Thermal Airport. Mitigation measures D1-18 and D1-19 will be required, same as Concept 1. Mitigation measures D1-20, D1-21, D1-22, and D1-23 will be required, the same as Concept 1. Less than significant. None required. Not applicable. Less than significant. Refer to Measure D1-11. Refer to Measure Dl -I1. Less than significant. Riverside County Approval of General Plan Transportation Department. Amendrne' nt. Less than significant. Riverside County Approval of General Plan Transportation Department. Amendment. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as ,Concept I Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1 D1-53 Access to roadways shall be oriented to the appropriate locations Less than significant. Riverside County Review and approval of shown on Figure V-66, Concept 6 Circulation Recommendations. Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ Precise access locations and the phasing of roadway use permit for applicable improvements shall be determined at the plot plan, use permit or development area. tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the Riverside County Transportation Department. D2 -I A detailed hydraulic analysis shall be performed by the developer Less than significant. CVWD in conjunction with the preparation of improvement plans for each phase of development. Review and approval of tentative ,tract map/plot plan/ use permit. II -44 lanning Center Chapter It • Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage D2-2 Ten on-site domestic water wells shall be provided, with capacity Less than significant. CVWD and Riverside County Review and approval of to pump an average of 1,600 gallons per minute. These wells Planning Department. water plans prior to tentative should be deep well vertical turbines with electric motors and a tract map/plot plan/use portable generator receptacle for emergency operation. permit approval. 132-3 Additional wells shall be identified and dedicated to CVWD, per Riverside County Planning Review and approval of CVWD standards. The district requires one well site per 70 Department and CVWD. water plans prior to tentative acres of development. tract map/plot plan/use permit approval. 132-4 Reservoirs shall be provided in accordance with CVWD CVWD. Review and approval of standards. water plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit approval. 132-5 Transmission lines to the reservoirs shall be sized in accordance CVWD. I Review and approval of with CVWD requirements. water plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit approval. D2-6 Where possible, the existing tile drains shall be maintained to CVWD. Review and approval of prevent high salt water from migrating to the underground basin. water plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit approval. D2-7 All water lines shall be designed and installed as required by CVWD. Review and approval of CVWD. water plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit approval. 132-8 A dual water system shall be installed to service the larger CVWD and Riverside County Review and approval of landscaped areas. Where practical, smaller landscape areas Planning Department. water plans prior to tentative requiring irrigation shall be provided with service from a separate tract map/plot plan/use irrigation line. permit approval. 132-9 The irrigation line shall utilize canal water or treated effluent to CVWD. Review and approval of irrigate the larger landscape areas initially. Treated effluent shall water plans prior to tentative be utilized when facilities are available, treatment is acceptable tract map/plot plan/use and the cost is practical. permit approval. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -45 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage 132-10 All project development shall comply with State and County CVWD and RWQCB. Review and approval of regulations regarding water conservation and reclamation. All water plats prior to tentative applicable sections of Title 20 and Title 24 of the California tract map/plot plan/use Code of Regulations shall be adhered to regarding water permit approval. consumption and conservation. D2-11 Water conserving plumbing fixtures shall be used in all Riverside County Building & Review and approval of construction, including low or ultra-low flow toilets and reducing Safety Department. improvement plans prior to valves for showers and faucets. issuance of building permit. D2-12 Consistent with the requirements of County Ordinance No. 348, Riverside County Building & Review and approval of irrigation systems shall be used for common landscaped areas Safety Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize water use permit and improvement availability to plant roots. Project landscaping plans that identify plans. irrigation systems shall be submitted for review prior to the issuance of individual project building permits. D2-13 Consistent with the requirements of County Ordinance No. 348, Riverside County Building & Review and approval of native, drought -tolerant plants approved by the County shall be Safety Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ used in common landscaped areas. Additionally, mulch shall be use permit and improvement utilized in common landscaped areas where soil conditions plans. warrant to improve the soil's water storage capacity. 132-14 Subsequent tentative tract maps, conditional use permits and plot Riverside County Planning Review and approval of plans shall be approved by Riverside County based on adequate Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ wells, reservoirs and transmission systems. use permit. D2-15 The developer shall work with CVWD and participate in area- CVWD. Ongoing. wide programs developed under the leadership of CVWD to address impacts to groundwater supplies. 132-16 Development shall be consistent with the project Water CVWD and Riverside County Review and approval of Conservation Plan. Planning Department, tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Increased demand on 132-17 A detailed analysis shall be performed for pipe sizing, in Less than significant. CVWD and Riverside County Review and approval of wastewater treatment conjunction with the preparation of improvement plans for each Planning Department. wastewater improvement capacity and conveyance phase of development. plans priqr to tentative tract facilities. map/plot plan/use permit approval. II -46 -r' Manning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Signfficance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Increased demand on water supplies. Increased demand on wastewater treatment capacity and conveyance facilities. 132-18 Infrastructure facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements identified in the Specific Plan. D2-19 CVWD shall expand the existing treatment facility capacity to accommodate project wastewater. 132-20 Interim septic tank systems shall be subject to approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. 132-21 CVWD shall review and approve any interim connection to existing CVWD systems. CVWD shall review and approve sewage collection and transportation system designs where expanded facilities are proposed. 132-22 Developer(s) shall pay all fees required by CVWD for sewage treatment services and facilities. D2-23 All sewage lines, pump stations and other required transmission facilities shall be installed as directed by CVWD. Water conservation methods shall be implemented, as outlined above, to reduce wastewater generation and impacts to sewage transmission and treatment facilities (See mitigation measures D2-8 through D2-16). Riverside County Planning Department and CVWD. CVWD. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. CVWD. CVWD. CVWD. Mitigation measures D2-1, D2-2, 132-3, D2-4, D2-5, 132-6, 132-7, 132-8, Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 D2-9, 132-10, D2-11, D2-12, 132-13, D2-14, 132-15 and 132-16 are required, same as for Concept 1. Mitigation measures 132-15, 132-16, D2-17, 132-18, 132-19, 132-20, and D2- Less than significant. Same as for Concept 1 21 are required, same as for Concept 1. Review and approval of wastewater improvement plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit approval. Ongoing. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Review and approval of wastewater improvement plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit approval, At issuance of building permits. Review and approval of wastewater improvement plans prior to tentative tract map/plot plan/use permit approval. Same as for Concept 1. Same as for Concept 1. Draft Specific Plan s May 13, 1996 II -47 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Fire Services CONCEPT 1 Increased demand for fire services. D3-1 The project shall conform with the requirements of the Public Less than significant. Riverside County Fire Facilities and Services Element of the RCCGP and the Riverside Department and Riverside County Fire Protection Ordinance No. 546. County Building & Safety Department. 133-2 The County Department of Building and Safety and the County Riverside County Fire Fire Department shall enforce fire standards in the review of Department and Riverside building plans and during building inspection. County Building & Safety Department. 133-3 All project street widths, grades and turning/curve radii shall be Riverside County Fire designed to allow access by fire suppression vehicles. Department and Riverside County Transportation Department. D3-4 Residences and interior streets shall be clearly marked to Riverside County Fire facilitate easy identification by emergency personnel. Department and Riverside County Transportation Department. D3-5 The developer shall demonstrate that sufficient on-site fire flow Riverside County Fire pressure exists, as determined by the Riverside County Fire Department. Department. D3-6 Fire flow requirements shall be incorporated into the overall Riverside County Fire project design. A fire flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi for a two- Department and Riverside hour duration shall be required for single family residential uses; County Planning Department 2,500 gpm for multi family residential, light manufacturing and certain commercial uses; and 5,000 gpm for medium and heavy industrial uses, as well as larger commercial development. D3-7 The project applicant shall contribute appropriate fees in Riverside County Fire accordance with the fire unit impact fee, as well as plan check Department. fees and all other impact fees in accordance with current Riverside County regulations. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Prior to building permit issuance and during construction. Review and approval of tentativeltract map/plot plan/ use permit. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Review and approval of water improvement plans prior to tentative tract map/ plot planluse permit approval: Prior to issuance of building permits. II -48 - "-Manning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2-6 Increased Demand for Fire Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept I Services. Sheriff Services CONCEPT 1 Increased demand for police D4-1 The applicant shall cooperate with the Sheriff's Department to protection services. ensure that adequate protection, facilities and personnel are available. 134-2 The applicant shall contract with the SCVCSD to provide supplemental sheriff services in exchange for an additional parcel charge collected via the property tax system. D4-3 Construction yard fencing and/or security personnel shall be provided during the construction phases to reduce the potential of theft and vandalism at the site. 134-4 Ample lighting shall be provided in all parking area entrances/exits and walkways, consistent with Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Additionally, the applicant shall ensure that street addresses are highly visible to any responding emergency vehicles. D4-5 For the safety and security of future residents, the applicant or developer shall address the following design concepts within each planning area to assure the maximum measure of crime prevention: • Circulation for pedestrian, vehicular and police patrol circulation • Lighting • Landscaping • Visibility of doors and windows from the street and between buildings • Fencing heights and materials • Public and private spaces Less than significant. Same as Concept 1 Less than significant. Riverside County Sheriff's Department. SCVCSD and Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Riverside County Building & Safety Department and Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Same as Concept I Prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. During construction. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Review and approval of building plans prior to issuance oif building permit. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -49 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Increased demand for sheriff services. Schools CONCEPT 1 Increased demand for school facilities. CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Increased demand for school facilities. Parks & Recreation CONCEPT 1 Increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1 D5-1 The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of fees at the Less than significant. Coachella Valley Unified state statutory limit in effect at the time; or otherwise reach School District. agreement with the school district for provision of school sites and/or payment of fees to effectively mitigate school impacts. The mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1 D6-1 The project shall dedicate appropriate acreage for developed local parkland, or shall provide fees in lieu of dedication, based on agreement with the CVRPD. Parkland or equivalent fees provided by the applicant shall be phased in conjunction with residential development so that appropriate acreage of local parkland is provided for each 1,000 persons within the new development. D6-2 The developer(s) shall work with the CVRPD and the Coachella Valley Unified School District to determine the types of facilities to be installed in parks and schools, if a joint -use program is undertaken. Same as Concept L Fees paid at issuance of building permits. Same as Concept 1. Less than significant. Coachella Valley Recreation Prior to tentative tract map and Parks District (CVRPD) approval. and Riverside County Planning Department. CVRPD and Unified School District. Review and approval of improvement plans prior to issuance of first building permit fore applicable tract. II -50 T' planning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Signfffcance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II.51 136-3 Recreation trails shall be improved and dedicated, as described in CVRPD and Riverside County Review and approval of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Transportation Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit prior to issuance of first building permit for applicable (tract. 1364 The applicant shall pay mitigation fees for regional and natural CVRPD and Riverside County Prior -to issuance of parkland at the occupancy permit stage to the Building and Building & Safety occupancy permit. Safety Department, in accordance with the provisions of Department. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659. D6-5 Future development projects shall comply with the Land Use Riverside County Planning Ongoing. Standards for parks and recreation facilities in the RCCGP. Department and CVRPD. CONCEPTS 2-5 Increased demand for parks Mitigation measures for Concepts 2-5 are the same as Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. and recreational facilities. CONCEPT Increased demand for parks None required. Less than significant. None required. Not applicable. and recreational facilities. Utilities CONCEPT 1 Increased demand on natural D7 -I The developer shall finance the installation of gas lines in Less than significant. Southern California Gas Review and approval of gas supplies. accordance with the requirements set forth by the Southern Company or other authorized improvement plans. California Gas Company or other authorized service provider. service provider. This cost may be offset by credits for free footage allowances. D7-2 All gas services and facilities shall be constructed in accordance Southern California Gas Review and approval of with Southern California Gas Company or other authorized Company or other authorized improvement plans. service provider policies and extension rules on file with the service provider. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II.51 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage 137-3 The developer shall ensure that existing facilities are adequate to Southern California Gas Review and approval of accommodate the proposed new development. Company or other authorized improvement plans. service provider. D7-4 Development plans shall be provided to the Southern California Southern California Gas Review and approval of Gas Company or other authorized service provider as they Company or other authorized innhrovem cm plans. become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and service provider. construction improvements necessary to provide services to the project site. Increased demand on 137-5 The developer shall provide the electric power improvements Less than significant. IID or other authorized service Review and approval of electricity. required by IID or other authorized service provider. provider and Riverside County improvement plans. Planning Department. 137-6 All buildings shall be constructed in compliance with the Riverside County Building & Review and approval of insulation standards established by the California Uniform Safety Department. building plans prior to Building Code (UBC). issuance of building permits. 137-7 All electrical facilities shall be constructed in accordance with IID or other authorized service Review and approval of IID or other authorized service provider policies and extension provider and Riverside County building plans prior to rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission Building & Safety issuance of building permits. (CPUC). Department. 137-8 Underground facilities shall be installed in accordance with IID or other authorized service Tentative tract map/plot plan District requirements, as outlined in "A Developer's Information provider and Riverside County approval. Letter" (effective September 15, 1994). Easements, ten feet in Planning Department. width and adjacent to all streets, shall be required for the installation of underground power facilities. 137-9 The project shall comply with the requirements of Title 24 of the Riverside County Building & Prior to issuance of building Energy Conservation Code. Safety Department. permits. 137-10 The developer shall provide development plans to IID or other IID or other authorized service Prior to approval of authorized service provider as they become available in order to provider and Riverside County improvement plans. facilitate engineering, design and construction improvements Planning Department. necessary to service the project site. Increased demand in 137-11 All new telephone lines within the site shall be installed Less than significant. GTE or other authorized Prior to issuance of telephone service. underground, as required by County Ordinance No. 460. service provider and Riverside occupancy permits. County Planning Department. II -52 - - '?Banning Center Chapter II • Summary Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage D7-12 The developer shall provide development plans to GTE or other GTE or other authorized Prior to review and approval authorized service provider as they become available in order to service provider and Riverside of improvement plans. facilitate engineering, design and construction improvements County Planning Department. necessary to service the project site. Increased demand on cable 137-13 All cable television service lines shall be located underground, in Less than significant. Cable TV franchisee. Prior to issuance of television service. accordance with the Riverside County Comprehensive General occupancy permits. Plan. D7-14 The developer shall coordinate the installation of cable television Cable TV Franchisee. Prior to issuance of service lines with a cable television franchisee for the area prior occupancy permits. to development. Exposure to electric and 137-15 The developer shall submit to the County supporting data on the Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of magnetic fields (EMF). generally accepted standards and guidelines for EMFs in effect at Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ the time of project development and shall recommend appropriate use permit. distances from the 161 KV power line easement for development of residential and educational land uses. The County shall make a final determination regarding safe distances for siting these land uses. CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Increased demand on natural Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept I. gas supplies. Increased demand on Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. electricity. Increased demand on Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1, telephone service. Increased demand on cable Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. television service. Exposure to electric and Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. magnetic fields. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -53 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage Solid Waste CONCEPT 1 Increased demand on solid D8-1 As development within the Kohl Ranch project site proceeds, the Less than significant. Riverside County Waste Prior to issuance of building waste facilities. developer shall coordinate project solid waste disposal Resources Management permit. requirements with County agencies and area waste haulers, to District and local area waste ensure that adequate landfill capacity is available within haulers. reasonable distance of the project site. D8-2 The project applicant shall coordinate with a certified waste hauler(s) to develop curbside collection of recyclable materials within the proposed project on a common schedule set forth in County Resolutions. The applicant shall coordinate with the permitted refuse hauler to identify which materials may be collected for recycling and on what schedule. D8-3 All future commercial, industrial and multi -family residential developments within the project site shall comply with AB 1327, Chapter 18, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. This law requires the provision of adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a site plan which includes the final design for the recyclable collection and storage area to the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District for review and approval. The storage area for recyclable materials shall comply with County standards. D8-4 Golf courses developed on the site shall minimize the generation of "green waste" and the amount of green waste sent to area landfills, through such measures as composting on-site. D8-5 To minimize the generation of construction debris, grading operations shall incorporate existing rock and earth into fill areas to the extent possible under accepted geotechnical practices. In addition, construction wastes shall be diverted through recycling, composting, or using environmentally safe methods of land disposal, to the extent possible. Refer to mitigation measures C11-1 through C11-3 in Section V.C.I1, Toxic Substances, regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes. II -54 Local area waste haulers. Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. Riverside County Building & Safety Department. Refer to Measures CI I -I and C11-3. Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Prior to building permit issuance. Ongoing, During grading operations. Refer to Measures CI I-1 and C11-3. Tanning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2-6 Increased demand on solid waste facilities. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1 Health Services CONCEPT 1 Increased demand for health None required. services. Increased demand for health None required. services. Less than significant. Same as Concept I Less than significant. None required. Less than significant. None required. Disaster Preparedness CONCEPT 1 Diminished disaster Mitigation measures related to seismic safety, slopes and erosion, and Less than significant. Refer to other sections preparedness. flooding are addressed in Sections V.CA, V.C.I., and V.C.5., respectively. CONCEPTS 2 - 6 Diminished disaster Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Less than significant. Same as Concept I. preparedness. Libraries CONCEPTI Increased demand for library Dl 1-I The applicant shall coordinate with the County regarding whether Significant. services. a portion of the recurring fiscal surplus to the County could be used for library costs. Riverside County Library Department. Same as Concept 1. Not applicable. Not applicable. Refer to other sections. Same as Concept 1. Prior to issuance of building permits. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 II -55 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2 - 5 Increased demand for library services. CONCEPT Increased demand for library services. Airports CONCEPTI Compatibility with Thermal Airport Master Plan. Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 5 are the same as for Concept 1 None required. D12-1 Elements of the Specific Plan that relate to proposed airport uses shall be incorporated into individual development projects. Compatibility with Thermal D12-2 Individual development projects shall adhere to land uses Airport Safety Zones. proposed in the Specific Plan to ensure consistency with the safety zone guidelines and requirements in the Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) (August 1992). Compatibility with Thermal D12-3 Specific mitigation measures (C8-4 and C8-5) are addressed in Airport Noise Guidelines. the noise analysis in Section V.C.8. D12-4 Development projects shall comply with the noise guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Thermal Airport (August 1992). Compatibility with Thermal Airport Height Guidelines. D12-5 Proposed development shall comply with the Thermal Airport Height Guidelines identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Thermal Airport (August 1992). Significant. Same as Concept 1 Less than significant. None required. Same as Concept 1. Not applicable. Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of Department. tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. Less than significant. Riverside County Planning Review and approval of Department and the Airport tentative tract map/plot plan/ Land Use Commission. use permit. Less than significant. Refer to Measures C8-4 and Refer to Measures C8-4 and C8-5. C8-5. Riverside County Health Review and approval of Department, Riverside County tentative tract map/plot plan/ Planning Department and the use permit. Airport Land Use Commission. Less than significant. Riverside County Building & Safety Department, Riverside County Planning Department and the Airport Land Use Commission. Review and approval of tentative tract map/plot plan/ use permit. II.56 'Tanning Center Chapter II • Summary Level of Significance Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Reviewing Entity Review Stage CONCEPTS 2-6 Compatibility with Thermal Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Airport Master Plan Compatibility with Thermal Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Airport Safety Zones Compatibility with Thermal Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1.. Airport Noise Guidelines Compatibility with Thermal Mitigation measures for Concepts 2 - 6 are the same as for Concept 1. Airport Height Guidelines Vote: Plot plan requirement applies only to commercial and industrial development. Less than significant. Same as Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as Concept 1 Less than significant. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept I. Same as Concept 1. Same as Concept 1. KOL-0I \ADSPEIR2\$I-SUM )raft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 II -57 III. SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING 1 ORDINANCE NO. 348. 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 348 RELATING TO ZONING 4 5 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside Ordains as Follows: 6 SCgfiQ01. Section 4._ of Ordinance No. 348, and Official Zoning Plan Map No. 7 , as amended, are fiuther amended by placing in effect in the District the 8 zone or zones as shown on the map entitled "Change of Official Zoning Plan Amending Ordinance 9 No. 348, Map No. , Change of Zone Case No. " which map is made a part of this 10 ordinance 11 Stglim 2. Article XVIIa of Ordinance No. 348 is amended by adding thereto a 12 new Section 17. to read as follows: 13 Section 17._ SP ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 14 NO. 303. 15 a. pj n•+i r 4 _j, (' (`-7. IG -5_ CL -l% Q-11- G_-13. H-5, H-9, 7-3, J4,.J, K- 16 6- L4 and M_-3- 17 -3.17 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas C-1, C-3, C-7, G 5, G 10, G-11, G 18 13, H-5, H-9, J-3, J4, J-7, K-3, K-6, L-1 and M-3 of Specific Plan No. 303 shall be the 19 same as those uses permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348, except that 20 the uses permitted pursuant to Section 6. Ld. shall not be permitted. In addition, the 21 permitted uses identified under Section 6. La. shall include the peru tted uses identified 22 under Article XIII., Section 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348, and water wells and 23 appurtenant facilities. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 6. Lb. shall 24 include day care centers, libraries, religious institutions, community centers, and schools. 25 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas C-1, C-3, C-7, G-5, G10, 26 G-1 1, G 13, H-5, H-9, J-3, J-4, J-7, K-3, K-6, L-1 and M-3 of Specific Plan No. 303 shall 27 be the same as those standards identified in Article VI, Section 6.2, except that the 28 development standards set forth in Article VI, Section 6.2.b, c., d., and e(3) shall be 1 deleted and replaced by the following: 2 A Lot area shall be not less than seven thousand-two-hundred _(7,200)__ 3 square feet, unless cluster development subject to the development standards set 4 forth in Subsection AA. of this Section is utilized. The minimum lot area shall be 5 determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the 6 portion of a lot used as building site. 7 B. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a 8 building site shall be sixty feet (60% with a minimum average depth of one hundred 9 feet (100) unless cluster development subject to the development standards set 10 forth in Subsection AA of this Section is utilized. "Flag" lots shall not be 11 permitted. 12 C. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be sixty (60) except that lots 13 fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of thirty-five 14 feet (35) unless cluster development subject to the development standards set 15 forth in Subsection AA of this Section is utilized. Lot frontage along curvilinear 16 streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone 17 development standards. 18 D. Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than ten 19 percent (10%) of the width of the lot, but not less than three feet (3 ) in width in 20 any event, and need not exceed a width of five feet (5) unless cluster development 21 subject to the development standards set forth in Subsection AA of this Section is 22 utilized. Side yards on corner and reverse corner lots shall be not less than ten 23 (10) from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any 24 Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which 25 the main building sides unless cluster development subject to the development 26 standards set forth in Subsection AA. of this Section is utilized. 27 28 2 I E. The rear yard shall not be less than ten feet (10') unless cluster 2 development subject to the development standards set forth in Subsection AA. of 3 this Section is utilized. 4 AA. CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. When a cluster 5 development design is utilized, the following development standards shall 6 be applicable: 7 1. The minimum overall area for each dwelling unit, 8 exclusive of the area set aside for street rights of way, but including 9 recreation and common open space shall be seven thousand two 10 hundred (7,200) square feet. 11 2. The minimum lot area for individual lots used as a 12 residential building site shall be five thousand five hundred (5,500) 13 square feet. The minimum lot area shall be determined by 14 excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the 15 portion of a lot used as a building site. For each dwelling unit, 16 common open space shall be provided equal to the difference 17 between the lot area for such dwelling unit and seven thousand two 18 hundred (7,200) square feet. 19 3. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot 20 to be used as a building site shall be fifty-five feet (55') with a 21 minimum average depth of one hundred feet (100'). "Flag" lots 22 shall not be permitted. 23 4. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be fifty-five feet 24 (55'), except that lots fronting on knuckles or cols -de -sac may have 25 a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Lot frontage along 26 curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in 27 28 3 1 accordance with zone development standards. -2 --------5.- --- Where a zero -lot line -design is utilizedthealternate 3 side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10') in width. 4 6. No lot shall have more than sixty percent (60%) of 5 its net buildable area covered by buildings or structures. 6 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same 7 as those requirements identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348. 8 b. P annin8 Areas E-3,4, 0-7.-H-2_ HA, IL -7,1-5, K-1, IK -4, L-3, L-5 and M4. 9 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas B-3, C4, G-7, H-2, H4, H-7, I-5, 10 K-1) K-4, L-3, L-5 and M4 of Specific Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those uses 11 permitted in Article VII, Section 7.1 of Ordinance No. 348, except that the uses 12 permitted pursuant to Article VI, Section 6. La.(3) of Ordinance No. 348 shall not be 13 incorporated by reference into this section; and Article VII, Section 7. I .c. of Ordinance 141 No. 348 shall not be permitted. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Article 15 VII, Section 7. La. shall include the permitted uses identified under Article XIII, Section 16 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348, and water wells and appurtenant facilities. In addition, the 17 permitted uses identified under Section 6. Lb. shall include day care centers, libraries, 18 religious institutions, community centers, and schools. 19 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas B-3, C-4, G-7, H-2, H4, 20 H-7, I -53P K-1, K-4, L-3, L-5 and M-4 of Specific Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those 21 standards identified in Article VII, Sections 7.2 through 7.11, except that the development 22 standards set forth in Article VII, Sections 7.3, 7.5, and 7.6 shall be deleted and replaced 23 by the following: 24 A. Lot area shall be not less than five thousand five hundred (5,500) 25 square feet, unless cluster development subject to the development standards set 26 forth in Subsection AA_ of this Section is utilized. The minimum lot area shall be 27 29 4 I determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the _2 portion-of a lot used as building site- 3 B. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a 4 building site shall be fifty-five feet (55'), with a minimum average depth of one 5 hundred feet (100) unless cluster development subject to the development 6 standards set forth in Subsection AA- of this Section is utilized. "Flag" lots shall 7 not be permitted. 8 C. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be fifty-five (55') except that 9 lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum frontage of thirty 10 feet (30') unless cluster development subject to the development standards set 11 forth in Subsection AA. of this Section is utilized. Lot frontage along curvilinear 12 streets may be measured at the building setback in accordance with zone 13 development standards. 14 D. Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than ten 15 percent (10%) of the width of the lot, but not less than three feet (3') in width in 16 any event, and need not exceed a width of five feet (5) unless cluster development 17 subject to the development standards set forth in Subsection AA of this Section is 18 utilized. Side yards on corner and reverse corner lots shall be not less than ten 19 (10) from the existing street line or from any future street line as shown on any 20 Specific Plan of Idighways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which 21 the main building sides unless cluster development subject to the development 22 standards set forth in Subsection AA- of this Section is utilized. 23 E. The rear yard shall not be less than ten feet (10) unless cluster 24 development subject to the development standards set forth in Subsection AA of 25 this Section is utilized. 26 AA CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. When a cluster 27 28 5 1 development design is utilized, the following development standards shall 2 be applicable: 3 1. The minimum overall area for each dwelling unit, 4 exclusive of the area set aside for street rights of way, but including 5 recreation and common open space shall be five thousand five 6 hundred (5,500) square feet. 7 2. The minimum lot area for individual lots used as a 8 residential building site shall be four thousand five hundred (4,500) 9 square feet. The minimum lot area shall be determined by 10 excluding that portion of a lot that is used solely for access to the 11 portion of a lot used as a building site. For each dwelling unit, 12 common open space shall be provided equal to the difference 13 between the lot area for such dwelling unit and five thousand five 14 hundred (5,500) square feet. 15 3. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot 16 to be used as a building site shall be fifty feet (50) with a minimum 17 average depth of ninety feet (90'). "Flag" lots shall not be 18 permitted. 19 4. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be fifty feet 20 (50'), except that lots fronting on knuckles or cols -de -sac may have 21 a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Lot frontage along 22 curvilinear streets may be measured at the building setback in 23 accordance with zone development standards. 24 5. Where a zero lot line design is utilized the alternate 25 side yard shall be not less than ten feet (10) in width. 26 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 27 28 6 I ( those requirements identified in Article VII of Ordinance No. 348. 2 c. P Mi Ar spa -1, B-4, ". C-9, C-11, G-8, H,!.$- J=1_ L-5- L--4-- M4, and M 5. 3 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas B-1, B-4, C-8, C-9, C-11, G-8, H-8, 4 J-1, J-5, L-4, M-1, and M-5 of Specific Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those uses 5 permitted in Article VII, Section 7.1 of Ordinance No. 348, except that the uses 6 permitted pursuant to Article VI, Section 6. l.a.(3) of Ordinance No. 348 shall not be 7 inwr-orated by reference into this section, and Article VII, Section 7. l.c. of Ordinance 8 No. 348 shall not be permitted. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Article 9 VII, Section 7. La. shall include the permitted uses identified under Article XIII, Section 10 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348, and water wells and appurtenant facilities. In addition, the 11 permitted uses identified under Section 6. Lb. shall include day care centers, libraries, 12 religious institutions, community centers, and schools. 13 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas B-1, B-4, C-8, C-9, C-11, 14 G-8, H-8, J-1, J-5, L-4, M-1, and M-5 of Specific Plan 303 shall be the same as those 15 standards identified in Article VII, Section 7.2 through 7. 10, except that the development 16 standards set forth in Article VII, Sections 7.5, 7.6, and 7.10 shall be deleted and replaced 17 by the following: 18 1. Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 19 five feet (5) for one-story buildings, not less than ten feet (10) for two- 20 story buildings and not less than fifteen feet (15') for three-story buildings. 21 Side yards on comer and reversed comer lots shall be not less than ten feet 22 (10) from the existing street line as shown on any Specific Plan of 23 Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed structure, upon which the 24 main building sides, except that where the lot is less than fifty feet (50') 25 wide the yard need not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the lot width. 26 2. The rear yard shall not be less than ten feet (10') for one- 27 28 7 1 story buildings, not less than fifteen feet (15') for two-story buildings and 2 not less than twenty feet (20') for three-story buildings. 3 3. Every main building hereafter erected or structurally altered 4 shall have a lot or building site area of not less than one thousand one 5 hundred (1,100) square feet for each dwelling unit in such main building. 6 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same 7 as those requirements identified in Article VII of Ordinance No. 348. 8 d. Pla ning.&=.Uz .L -4.1 -6 -and -1-8. 9 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas I-2, I-4, I-6 and I-8 of Specific Plan No. 10 303 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 11 348 except that the uses permitted pursuant to Section 6. Ld. shall not be permitted. In 12 addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 6. La. shall include the permitted uses 13 identified under Article XIII„ Section 13.1 b. of Ordinance No. 348, government offices, 14 courthouses, police stations, fire stations, libraries, and water wells and appurtenant 15 facilities. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 6. Lb. shall include 16 neighborhood commercial uses, including banks and financial institutions, delicatessens, 17 drugstores, florists shops, gasoline service stations and convenience stores. In addition, 18 the permitted uses identified under Section 6.1c. shall include hospitals; and emergency 19 and urgent -care out-patient facilities. 20 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas I-2, I-4, I-6 and I-8 of 21 Specific Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VL Section 22 6.2 of Ordinance No. 348. 23 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 24 those requirements identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348. 25 e. Planning A= A- 1, A-2. A--3. AA- A-6, A-$. A-10. 2. . C-5. Q6. C -I Q.D_- 26 27 28 8 I 2 _- - - (1)--- - -The permitted uses in Planning Areas A -151 A-2, A-3, A-4, A-62 A-8, A-10,- 3 B-2, C-2, C-5, C-6, C-10, D-1, D-3, D-4, D-5, E-1, G-2, G-311 G-4, G-6, G-9, G12, H-1, 4 H-3, H-6, H-10, I-1, I-3, I-7, J-2, 7 6, K-2, K-52 L-2, and M-2 of Specific Plan No. 303 5 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article VIHe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance 6 No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section S. 100.a. shall include the 7 permitted uses identified under Article XII, Section 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348; public 8 parks, and community centers. 9 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, 10 A-8, A-10, B-2, C-2, C-52 C-6, C-10, D-1, D-3, D-42 D-5, E-1, G-2, G3, G-4, G-6, G-9, 11 G-12, H1, H-3, H-6, H-10, I-1, I-3, I-7, J-2, J-6, K-2, K-5, L-2, and M-2 of Specific 12 Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article VIIIe., Section 13 8.101 of Ordinance No. 348. 14 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 15 those requirements identified in Article VMe of Ordinance No. 348. 16 f. FISnniug Areas D-5. Q-] and L-6. 17 (1) The permitted uses in Planning Areas B-5, G-1 and L-6 of Specific Plan No. 18 303 shall be the same as those permitted in Article IX, Section 9.1 of Ordinance No. 348, 19 except that the uses permitted pursuant to Sections 9. La. (29), (51) and (93), b.(11)a., 20 (12), (18), (19), and (20), d.(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), (11), (12) and (13), shall not 21 be permitted. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9.1 shall include the 22 permitted uses identified under Article XIII, Section 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348. In 23 addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9. La. shall include public parks and 24 public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways, country clubs, animal 25 hospitals with all kennels entirely indoors, health clubs, computer sales and repair stores, 26 parcel delivery services, libraries, religious institutions, community centers, schools and 27 28 9 I water wells and appurtenant facilities. In addition, the permitted uses identified under 2 Section 9.1.d. shall include electric vehicle charging stations and liquor stores. 3 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas B-5, G 1 and L-6 of Specific 4 Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article IX, Section 9.4 of 5 Ordinance No. 348. 6 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 7 those requirements identified in Article IX of Ordinance No. 348. 8 S. Mnina A= R6, D-2 and D-6. 9 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas B-6, D-2 and D-6 of Specific Plan No. 10 303 shall be the same as those permitted in Article IXd, Section 9.72 of Ordinance No. 11 348 except that the uses permitted pursuant Section 9.72.b.6. shall not be permitted. In 12 addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9.72 shall include the permitted uses. 13 identified under Article XIII, Section 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348. In addition, the 14 permitted uses identified under Section 9.72.a. shall include public parks and public 15 playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways, country clubs, insurance brokers, 16 interior decorating shops, contract construction services, dry cleaners, blueprint and 17 duplicating services, bookstores and binders, mail order businesses, printers and 18 publishers, radio/television broadcasting studios, recording studios, restaurants and other 19 eating establishments, and water wells and appurtenant facilities. In addition, the 20 permitted uses identified under Section 9.72.b. shall include religious institutions, parcel 21 delivery services, data processing equipment sales and service, medical equipment sales, 22 rental and service, office equipment and supplies sales and service, hospitals, community 23 centers, and schools. 24 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas B-6, D-2 and D-6 of 25 Specific Plan 303 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article IXd, Sections 26 9.73 and 9.74 of Ordinance No. 348. 27 28 10 r 1 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same --2 as those -requirements -identified in-irticleJXd-of Ordinance No. -3480 3 h. pjanning Areas A-5. A-7, A-9 and A-11. 4 (1) The permitted uses in Planning Areas A-5, A-7, A9 and A 11 of Specific 5 Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those permitted in Article IX, Section 9.1 of Ordinance 6 No. 348, except that the uses permitted pursuant to Sections 9.1a. (17), (23), (25), (27), 7 (29), (32), (42), (51), (52), (61), (65), (67), (73), and (93); Sections 9.1.b. (7), (9), (11)a., 8 (18), (19), and (20); and Sections 9.1.d. (4), (5), (6), (7), (10), (11), (12) and (13), shall 9 not be permitted. In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9.1 shall include 10 the permitted uses identified under Article XIII, Section 13.1.b. of Ordinance No. 348. In 11 addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9.1.a. shall include the following: 12 A Aviation equipment assembly. 13 B. Fruit and vegetable canneries. 14 C. Communication equipment and microwave sales and installation. 15 D. Computer and office equipment sales, service, repair and assembly. 16 E. Conference facilities. 17 F. Convenience centers. 18 G. Country clubs. 19 H. Manufacture of dairy products, not including dairies. 20 I. Emergency and urgent care medical facilities. 21 7. Frozen food lockers. 22 K. Libraries. 23 L. Manufacture of grain and bakery products. 24 M. Health and exercise centers. 25 N. Hospitals. 26 O. Ice houses. 27 28 11 I P. Jewelry manufacture and repair. 2 Q. Manufacture of wearing apparel and accessories. 3 R Manufacture and repair of measuring devices, watches, clocks and related 4 items. 5 S. Manufacture and repair of optical goods, medical instruments, supplies and 6 equipment, engineering, survey and drafting instruments and photography 7 equipment. 8 T. Manufacture of handbags, luggage, footwear, and other personal leather 9 goods. 10 U. Manufacture of cans and containers. 11 V. Manufacture of cutlery, tableware, hand tools and hardware. 12 W. Manufacture of plumbing and heating items. 13 X. Manufacture of ordinance and firearms, not including explosives. 14 Y. Manufacture of office and computing machines. 15 Z. Manufacture, assembly, testing and repair of components, devices, 16 equipment and systems of an electrical, electronic, or electro -mechanical 17 nature. 18 AA Manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages. 19 BB. Manufacture of confectionery products. 20 CC. Manufacture and repair of refrigeration and heating equipment. 21 DD. Printing of periodicals, books, forms, cards and similar items. 22 EE. Public parks and public playgrounds. 23 FF. Golf courses with standard length fairways. 24 GG. Religious institutions. 25 HE Facilities for research and development of precision components and 26 products. 27 28 12 I II. water wells and appurtenant facilities. 2 In addition, the permitted uses identified in Section 9. Lb. shall include the following: 3 A Aerial service businesses including sky -diving, advertising, photography 4 and tours. 5 B. Aerospace/aeronautical museums. 6 C. Aircraft equipment sales, service and repair. 7 D. Contractor storage yards. 8 E. Hardware and home improvement centers. 9 F. Flight schools. 10 G. Intermodal cargo transfer facilities. 11 H. Manufacture of furniture and fixtures, including cabinets, partitions and 12 similar small items. 13 I. Manufacture of bicycles and motorcycles. { 14 1 Parcel delivery services. 15 K. Vehicle storage and impoundment. 16 L. Warehousing and distribution. 17 In addition, the permitted uses identified under Section 9.1.d. shall include community 18 centers, schools, meat and poultry processing not including slaughtering or rendering of 19 animals, paper shredding facilities, research and manufacture of drugs and 20 pharmaceuticals, manufacture of soaps, cleaners and toiletries, wrought iron fabrication, 21 machine, welding and blacksmith shops, breweries, distilleries and wineries, paper storage 22 and recycling within a building, recycling processing facilities, paper and paperboard mills, 23 manufacture of containers and boxes, and natural gas storage above ground. 24 (2) The development standards for Planning Areas A -S, A-7, A-9 and A-11 of 25 Specific Plan No. 303 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article XI, Section 26 11.4 of Ordinance No. 348. 27. 28 13 1 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same 2 as those requirements identified in Article XI of Ordinance No. 348. 3 L PJannin8 Area F-3. 4 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area F-3 of Specific Plan No. 303 shall be 5 the same as those uses permitted in Article XI, Section 11.2 of Ordinance No. 348, except 6 that the uses permitted pursuant to Section 11.2. a.; Sections 11.2.c. (5), (8) and (9); and 7 Section 11.2.d, shall not be permitted. In addition, the permitted uses identified in Section 8 11.2.a. shall include the permitted uses identified under Article XIII, Section 13. Lb. of 9 Ordinance No. 348; and water wells and appurtenant facilities. In addition, the permitted 10 uses identified in Section 11.2.b. shall include distribution facilities, flight schools, auto 11 salvage yards, plumbing supply yards, recreational vehicle sales, rental car agencies 12 including the storage of rental cars; agricultural equipment storage. 13 (2) The development standards for Planning Area F-3 of Specific Plan No. 303 14 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article XI, Section 11.4 of Ordinance 15 No. 348. 16 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 17 those requirements identified in Article XI of Ordinance No. 348. 18 j. Plinniniz Areas F-1 and F-2. 19 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Areas F-1 and F-2 of Specific Plan No. 303 20 shall be the same as those uses permitted in Article XI, Section 11.2 of Ordinance No. 21 348, except that the uses permitted pursuant to Section 11.2.a. and Section 11.2.d., shall 22 not be permitted. In addition, the permitted uses identified in Section 11.2.x. shall include 23 the permitted uses identified under Article XIII, Section 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348; 24 and water wells and appurtenant facilities. In addition, the permitted uses identified in 25 Section 11.2.b. shall include enclosed auto storage and impound yards; hospitals; and 26 research and development facilities for biomedical, chemical, electronic, mechanical and 27 28 14 I other scientific purposes. 2 __ - -- _ -(2) The development standards -for -Planning Areas F-1-and-F-2 of Specific Plan--- 3 No. 303 shall be the same as those standards identified in Article XI, Section 11.4 of 4 Ordinance No. 348. 5 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 6 those requirements identified in Article M of Ordinance No. 348. 7 k. Plannim Area E-2 8 (1) The uses permitted in Planning Area E-2 of Specific Plan 303 shall be the 9 same as those uses permitted in Article XII, Section 12.2 of Ordinance No. 348, except 10 that the uses permitted pursuant to Sections 12.2.c. (3), (7), (11) and (12); Section 11 12.2.d.; and Section 12.2.e., shall not be permitted. In addition, the permitted uses 12 identified in Section 12.2.a. shall include the permitted uses identified under Article XIII, 13 Section 13. Lb. of Ordinance No. 348, and water wells and appurtenant facilities. In 14 addition, the permitted uses identified in Section 12.2.b. shall include aerial services 15 including sky-diving, advertising, photography and tours, aerospace/aeronautical 16 museums, aircraft equipment sales, service and repair, aircraft hangers and storage, aircraft 17 taxiways, catering services/flight kitchens, conference facilities; convenience stores, dry 18 cleaners, flight schools, hospitals, hotels and motels, intermodal cargo transfer terminals; 19 research and development facilities for biomedical, chemical, electronic, mechanical and 20 other scientific purposes, paper recycling facilities, parcel delivery services, and rental car 21 agencies including the storage of rental cars. In addition, the permitted uses identified in 22 Section 12.2.c. shall include cogeneration plants, and incarceration and detention facilities. 23 (2) The development standards for Planning Area E-2 of Specific Plan No. 303 24 shall be the same as those standards identified m Article XII, Section 12.4 of Ordinance 25 No.348. 26 (3) Except as provided above, all other zoning requirements shall be the same as 27 28 15 1 those requirements identified in Article XII of Ordinance No.348. 2 Section 3. This -ordinance. shall -take -effect -30 -days after -its adoption. - 3 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 By 6 Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: 7 GERALD A. MALONEY 8 Clerk of the Board 9 10 By, 11 Deputy 12 (SEAL) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 IV. SPECIFIC PLAN IV. SPECIFIC PLAN The Eastern Coachella Valley has experienced significant population growth and residential development in recent years. In addition, the level of planning activity in the project area (e.g. Airport Master Plan, Thermal Redevelopment Plan and Enterprise Zone) reflects the strategic location of the eastern Coachella Valley and the Kohl Ranch site with respect to the Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego metropolitan areas, the Inland Empire and Mexico. Access to the regional transportation network affords the site maximum potential to reach these extensive markets. The land use designations associated with the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are intended to provide a balanced mix of land uses throughout the project site and within individual neighborhoods, and are distributed throughout the site so as to support ongoing planning efforts in the project vicinity, and to further the goals of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. The diverse business and employment opportunities, living environments, recreational and visual amenities, and roadway and other infrastructure improvements that would be planned and permitted under the Specific Plan would enhance the attractiveness of the Thermal Airport vicinity, and would reinforce the desirability of the area for potential future development opportunities within and surrounding the airport. The proposed project also would facilitate development of the site by a single industrial user or multiple users interested in the Coachella Valley as the location for a major jobs -generating enterprise. The Specific Plan would be compatible with the policies in the Comprehensive General Plan which recognize the growth potential of the project area as a result of the airport expansion and which recommend that industrial uses be among those to locate in this area. The Specific Plan designation also would provide a mechanism for ensuring that major ongoing planning, economic development and redevelopment efforts for the area are properly coordinated and mutually supportive. Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -1 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA A. PROJECT -WIDE PLANNING STANDARDS The following section of the Specific Plan details the land uses and development standards for the Kohl Ranch community as a whole. Illustrations are provided to portray the various planning areas, infrastructure plans, and design treatments such as buffers, landscaping and streetscapes. The visual images and themes addressed in this section set the overall tone for the project. Planning objectives for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan include: ■ Increased market potential and attractiveness of the Thermal Airport and vicinity. ■ Support for planning, economic development and redevelopment efforts in the Eastern Coachella Valley, in accordance with the goals of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Redevelopment Plan for Supervisorial District No. 4. and Master Plan for the expansion of Thermal Airport. ■ Flexibility to respond to changing market conditions, through designation of golf course as a secondary land use. �■ A balanced, living and working environment that provides a mix of land uses including a variety of housing products and employment opportunities. ■ Cohesive, balanced, neighborhoods relating to overall project phasing, which can be developed separately or together. ■ An overlay designation (IOD) designed to accommodate a large industrial user and/or multiple industrial uses. The Specific Plan establishes a minimum level of entitlement and outlines a process for obtaining full entitlement for the IOD. As described in Section II above and Section IV.A.9. below, the Kohl Ranch project includes five land use concepts, in addition to the base or primary land uses for the project, referred to as Concept 1. The planning and development standards identified throughout this section of the Specific Plan are described in terms of the base land uses for Concept 1, but are generally applicable to all of the land use concepts. Each of the land use concepts is evaluated in the EIR for this project. Where impacts for any of the land use concepts differ from Concept 1, specific mitigation measures have been identified. In particular, mitigation measures for traffic and circulation have been developed for land use concepts whose impacts differ from Concept 1. 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan a. Description of Land Use Plan The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan consists of a balanced array of land uses including residential, business, commercial, industrial, open space and public facilities. Both living and working IV -2 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan opportunities will be available within the thirteen project neighborhoods, with the specific mix of uses dependent upon the neighborhood location, relationship to adjacent uses such as Thermal Airport, and access to the regional transportation network. In general, the neighborhoods in the northern portion of the site have the highest concentration of employment uses, which can best maximize the advantages of proximity to the airport, and which are least likely to be affected by airport -related impacts such as noise. The land uses within these neighborhoods are designed to locate employment opportunities in close proximity to residential areas, thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips required, and to create centers of local activity that prosper from the mix of commercial, office and business uses. These northernmost neighborhoods have a natural outward orientation and response to the regional context, providing jobs and services to areas both on and off-site. Predominantly residential -based neighborhoods are concentrated in the southern portion of the site. "E" Street on the proposed Specific Plan, is roughly coincident with the limits of the Thermal Airport Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) within which places of public assembly such as churches and schools are discouraged. Thus, the concentration of public facilities in the vicinity of "E" Street is intended to maximize the accessibility of these uses to residential neighborhoods immediately to the north and south. The residential portion of the land use plan includes 7,171 dwelling units distributed among three different density classifications on 965.0 acres and 411.6 acres of open space. The business, commercial and industrial land use categories will comprise 157.6, 62.3 and 357.7 acres, respectively. Commercial areas will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward the Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are summarized below and in Table IV -1 and are depicted in Figure IV -1, Land Use Plan. 11 Residential Residential areas within the project will provide a total of 7,171 dwelling units, with an overall gross density of 4.98 dwelling units per gross residential acre.' The residential element of the plan comprises 965.0 acres or 44.4 percent of the total project site. Three residential land uses are proposed, Residential Low, Residential Medium and Residential High, establishing appropriate transitions to adjacent non-residential land uses, both on and off-site. It should be noted that residential planning areas can be developed to a lower density than that specified by the planning area land use designation, without requiring an amendment to the Specific Plan. The majority of residential uses are proposed in the southern portion of the site, outside of the TPZ where public facilities can be provided. It is anticipated that the residential land uses south of Avenue 62 will The overall gross density for residential areas was determined by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage devoted to residential land uses, open space, public facilities and local residential streets. The gross density, if determined by dividing the total dwelling units by the residential acreage, is 7.43. This density is reduced to 3.41 if the entire site acreage is used. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -3 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA consist of retirement and second home communities. Residential uses north of Avenue 62 are intended to house employees of the nearby commercial, business and industrial uses. Each of the residential land use designations (i.e., Residential Low, Residential Medium and Residential High) can be developed with several zoning classifications, including classifications which permit clustering of residential density within planning areas, as described below: The zoning classifications each has a unique set of development standards designed to accommodate a variety of housing product types. These different zoning classifications are intended to provide flexibility to develop in areas that are affected by the open space requirements and noise impacts of the Thermal Airport safety zones and the limitations imposed by the utility easement beltway in the central portion of the site. By allowing for clustering of development within planning areas, it is possible to retain residential densities while providing adequate open space for drainageways and golf courses, the power line easement, and the airport zones. Under the Specific Plan, it is possible to develop one or more of the product types within an individual planning area or neighborhood, provided that the development is consistent with the project's Design Guidelines. a) Residential Low (1 - 5.9 du/acre) Residential Low units are proposed throughout the project site. A total of 1,569 dwelling units on 412.9 acres is planned. This is based on a target density of 3.8 du/acre. The purpose of this designation is to provide a lower density residential alternative in the plan. The intent is to: 1) locate lower density land uses at the project periphery adjacent to off-site lands currently in low intensity uses such as agriculture; 2) provide a transition between open space/recreational areas and medium density land uses; 3) provide for limited residential uses where permitted within the Extended Runway Centerline (ERC) airport safety zone; and 4) create a housing opportunity offering greater private open space amenity than is available in the higher density residential zones. IV -4 The Planning Center Zoning Classifications/ Land Use Designation Product Types Residential Low Detached Dwelling Units Cluster Detached Dwelling Units Cluster Attached Dwelling Units Residential Medium Detached Dwelling Units Cluster Detached Dwelling Units Cluster Attached Dwelling Units Residential High Cluster Attached Dwelling Units The zoning classifications each has a unique set of development standards designed to accommodate a variety of housing product types. These different zoning classifications are intended to provide flexibility to develop in areas that are affected by the open space requirements and noise impacts of the Thermal Airport safety zones and the limitations imposed by the utility easement beltway in the central portion of the site. By allowing for clustering of development within planning areas, it is possible to retain residential densities while providing adequate open space for drainageways and golf courses, the power line easement, and the airport zones. Under the Specific Plan, it is possible to develop one or more of the product types within an individual planning area or neighborhood, provided that the development is consistent with the project's Design Guidelines. a) Residential Low (1 - 5.9 du/acre) Residential Low units are proposed throughout the project site. A total of 1,569 dwelling units on 412.9 acres is planned. This is based on a target density of 3.8 du/acre. The purpose of this designation is to provide a lower density residential alternative in the plan. The intent is to: 1) locate lower density land uses at the project periphery adjacent to off-site lands currently in low intensity uses such as agriculture; 2) provide a transition between open space/recreational areas and medium density land uses; 3) provide for limited residential uses where permitted within the Extended Runway Centerline (ERC) airport safety zone; and 4) create a housing opportunity offering greater private open space amenity than is available in the higher density residential zones. IV -4 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -5 Table IV -1 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acreage Percent of Total Percent of Developable Area' Dwelling Units RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 412.9 19.0 26.8 1,569 Residential Medium (RM) 382.8 17.6 24.8 3,062 Residential High (RH) 169.3 7.6 11.0 2,540 Total Residential 965.0 44.4 62.6 7,171 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 4.1 5.8 Heavy Industrial (HI) 173.4 8.0 11.2 Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 4.3 6.1 Total Industrial 357.7 16.4 23.1 BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 5.1 7.3 Office (0) 45.6 2.1 3.0 Total Business 157.6 7.2 10.3 COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 62.3 2.9 4.0 OTHER Open Space (OS) 411.6 18.9 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 1.2 Right -of -Way (ROW)' 195.5 9.0 Total Other 634.4 29.1 TOTAL 2177.0 7100% 100% 7,171 1 Assumes total of 1,542.6 acres of developable land. This does not include land uses in 'other" category. 2 The ROW acreage includes local streets, which are not depicted on the Land Use Plan. See Figure IV -4, Circulation/Land Use in Section N.A.2. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -5 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -6 The Planning Center J cnl RL j Residential Low RM Residential Medium Residential High FF Public Facilities Commercial JW�DI Air Park/Mixed Use 0 Office LI Light Industrial kit Heavy Industrial W1D OS !Open Space Warehouse/Distribution flvioviNlillll io 1 11 Coachella Valley, California Land Use Plan Scale: 1"=2000' 9ID 500 Figure IV -1 IV -7 'tl'11 C A1. 11 I AVCLLIN'(; LAND USE ACRES LlNil'S Residential' OW 4129 7,8 1,569 Mediu 14•sidrmial m (RM) 382,8811 3.062 Re•idcn:inl l ligh (RI 1) 169.1 15.0 2,540 I'u8lic ciliiie. (PI') Pa 27.1 Cuwmerci:J (C) 62,1 Al, Pa k/hIi.—I Use (A14MU) 112.0 011ics• (0) 45.6. Light L"lusuial (LI) 89.9 Ilcasq Induarlal (HI) 17711 tVnrcLnusdDI-i6wiun INN) 9411 tlprn Space 10S) 41 Lf, IIiaR1-nf.\1'al 195.5 _ 'I OI -AI. 2,177..0 +.171 RL j Residential Low RM Residential Medium Residential High FF Public Facilities Commercial JW�DI Air Park/Mixed Use 0 Office LI Light Industrial kit Heavy Industrial W1D OS !Open Space Warehouse/Distribution flvioviNlillll io 1 11 Coachella Valley, California Land Use Plan Scale: 1"=2000' 9ID 500 Figure IV -1 IV -7 Chapter IV • Specific Plan b) Residential Medium (6 - 11.9 du/acre) Residential Medium land uses are proposed throughout the site. A total of 3,062 dwelling units on 382.8 acres is planned. This is based on a target density of 8 du/acre. The purpose of this designation is to provide a transition between high and low density residential areas. The intent is to: 1) create the potential for single- family, first home buyers; 2) offer a desirable housing product for retirees and second home buyers; 3) allow for the development of a mobile home community that would be compatible with existing land uses in that neighborhood and adjacent neighborhoods, and would be consistent with the design guidelines for the project; and 4) accommodate residents seeking more private open space amenities than are available in the residential high areas. c) Residential High (12 - 18 du/acre) Residential High land uses are located in close proximity to community cores established for the project. A total of approximately 2,540 dwelling units on 169.3 acres is planned, assuming a target density of 15 du/acre. The purpose of this designation is to enhance the range of housing types provided within the project area. The intent is to: 1) achieve an affordable living environment for those working in the project vicinity; 2) provide a more compact housing product within close proximity to commercial services and employment opportunities; 3) allow for the development of a mobile home community that would be compatible with existing land uses in that neighborhood and adjacent neighborhoods, and would be consistent with the design guidelines for the project; 4) create pedestrian -oriented communities with common open space and recreation facilities; 5) orient residential areas around community focal points such as churches and community centers; and 6) provide a transition between the commercial, office and community service uses in the cores and the lower density residential uses. 2) Industrial Three industrial land use categories are proposed, offering a range of employment opportunities that respond to market conditions and the skills base of the local labor force. A total of 357.7 acres of industrial uses are concentrated in the northern portion of the site, within the Thermal Redevelopment Area and in close proximity to Thermal Airport and Polk Street, a designated arterial highway providing access to the airport and points east. a) Light Industrial Light Industrial land uses totaling 89.9 acres are located in the northern portion of the project site. The purpose of this designation is to provide for light manufacturing uses that provide employment opportunities for area residents. The intent is to: 1) concentrate light industrial uses where maximum benefit can be derived from proximity to Thermal Airport, Polk Street and Highway 86 to the east; 2) locate parking areas for light industrial uses within the Thermal Airport Inner Safety Zone Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -9 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (ISZ) where structures and residential uses are prohibited; 3) create districts that encourage a mix of office, light assembly and retail commercial; 4) limit uses to those activities performed indoors and outdoor activities screened from public view; and 5) exclude residential uses from these areas to avoid conflicts within planning areas. b) Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial land uses totaling 173.4 acres are located in the northern portion of the project site. The purpose of this designation is to allow for more intense, industrial/manufacturing uses. The intent is to: 1) encourage land uses which provide relatively greater levels of employment than is typically associated with industrial uses such as warehousing and distribution; 2) allow for uses that require outdoor storage; and 3) maximize use of the regional transportation system, including air, rail and the road network. c) Warehouse/Distribution The Warehouse/Distribution land use designation is proposed for the northern portion of the site, near proposed heavy and light industrial land uses. Land uses in the Warehouse/Distribution category total 94.4 acres. The purpose of this designation is to attract larger, regional warehouse/distribution facilities that can take advantage of excellent access to the area's transportation system and regional markets. The intent is to: 1) site warehouse/distribution land uses to link with local/regional transportation network (including Highway 86 to the east), Thermal Airport and potential rail service; 2) expand the regional market for businesses with potential to benefit from increased trade with Mexico resulting from NAFTA; 3) recognize the continued importance of agriculture in the regional economy by allowing for agriculture -related warehouse, cold storage, packing and distribution facilities; and 4) ensure compatibility with other business uses. 3) Business a) Airpark/Mixed Use The Airpark/Mixed Use designation is located in the northernmost portion of the project site, just south of the Thermal Airport. Approximately 112.0 acres are devoted to this land use. The purpose of this designation is to accommodate a wide range of land uses including office, service, commercial, airport -related, incubator business and very light industrial. The intent is to: 1) complement expansion plans for the Thermal Airport by providing needed services and commercial uses located near the Tyler Street airport entrance; 2) create a supportive environment for start-up businesses; 3) devise standards that encourage combinations of uses such as office/sales/storage/assembly; and 4) provide support services for business and industrial uses in the project area. IV -10 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan b) Office The Office land use category is proposed in several locations in the northern half of the project site on 45.6 acres, adjacent to commercial, light industrial uses and residential high land uses. The purpose of this designation is to accommodate a range of professional, business and service-oriented uses. The intent is to: 1) provide a land use transition between higher intensity industrial and commercial uses and residential uses; 2) contribute to a diversity of employment opportunities for residents of the project neighborhoods; and 3) encourage professional services to support businesses in the project area. 4) Commercial A single commercial land use designation, comprising a total of 62.3 acres, is proposed for the project. The purpose of this designation is to provide a range of commercial uses in support of broader employment and residential uses within the Plan. The intent is to: 1) provide limited neighborhood commercial uses to serve residential communities; 2) incorporate commercial uses into village centers, within walking distance of residential neighborhoods and employment uses; 3) locate highway -oriented commercial uses at the project periphery, with easy access to and visibility from the arterial highway system; 4) accommodate "big box" commercial uses on larger sites, to serve regional markets; and 5) provide appropriate circulation, parking and loading areas to handle traffic generated by commercial land uses. 5) Public Facilities This land use designation totals 27.3 acres and includes such public facilities as churches, community centers, health care facilities, fire and police stations, and libraries. These land uses are proposed exclusively in the southern portion of the site, which is unconstrained by the Thermal Airport Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ) where places of public assembly are discouraged. Public facilities are concentrated along "E" Street where they can share resources and serve the two large residential communities to the north and to the south. The purpose of this designation is to provide for community services and institutions that enhance the quality of life and civic orientation of the project neighborhoods. The intent is to: 1) provide for community facilities sufficient to meet the needs of the residential population including churches, library and community center; 2) allow for limited neighborhood commercial uses to be clustered in close proximity to residential neighborhoods (these would be allowed as a secondary land use in the public facilities category); and 3) locate places of public assembly south of Avenue 64 along "E" Street, in accordance with requirements of the Thermal Airport Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ). 6) Open Space The purpose of this designation is to provide open space and recreational amenities to serve populations in the project neighborhoods. A total of 411.6 acres of open space is Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -11 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA provided. The intent is to: 1) allow for a variety of passive and active recreational experiences for neighborhood residents, ranging in scale from community parks to more intimate neighborhood parks; 2) incorporate walking and bicycle trails and linkages between residential neighborhoods and commercial/employment centers; 3) comply with land use restrictions for Thermal Airport safety zones which require the maintenance of open space clear of obstructions; 4) accommodate stormwater runoff originating both on and off-site which must be controlled and conveyed through the property; and 5) provide a variety of landscape settings ranging from highly landscaped to native communities for visual interest as well as buffering between adjoining land uses. The Specific Plan allows two golf courses as secondary land uses in the northern and southern portions of the site. Golf courses, if developed, would be sited around the designated drainage corridors. The Specific Plan also allows golf clubhouses and their associated shopping and dining facilities. The purpose of the golf courses and clubhouse complexes would be to provide additional recreational amenities and to create a community focal point. The intent is to: 1) diversify the recreational opportunities available to area residents and visitors; 2) create an attractive village core around the clubhouses that is enhanced through landscaping and design treatments; and 3) develop a central meeting place that offers golf -related uses such as dining, shops or driving range. 7 Roads Major road rights-of-way totaling 195.5 acres within the project site will be implemented in conjunction with the project. b. Industrial Overlay Designation In addition to the industrial land use designations described above, the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD) is included for neighborhoods or groups of neighborhoods within the project site (refer to Figure IV -13 for the neighborhood boundaries). The purpose of this designation is to permit development of the entire site, or a large portion of the site, for heavy industrial uses. The intent is to: 1) allow a major manufacturing use in all planning areas, provided certain conditions are met; 2) facilitate a preliminary level of entitlement for a large manufacturer; 3) ensure that a significant industrial use developing only a portion of the site would not create conflicts with adjacent land uses; and 4) prevent the bisecting or partial use of any of the project neighborhoods. A detailed description of the IOD is provided below in Section IV.A.9. c. Project -Wide Development Standards To ensure a logical, orderly and sensitive development of land uses proposed for the Kohl Ranch, special development criteria, standards and mitigation measures have been created for each Planning Area. These area -specific standards, discussed in detail in Section IV.B., Neighborhood and Planning Area Land Use and Development Standards, provide for appropriate transitions to neighboring land uses. IV -12 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan In addition to these specific techniques, project -wide development standards also have been developed as part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and are designed to complement the individual conditions within each Planning Area. These general standards are: 1) The total Specific Plan shall be developed with a maximum of 7,171 residential dwelling units on 965.0 acres, and 62.3 acres of commercial uses, as illustrated on the Specific Land Use Plan. General uses permitted will include residential, industrial, commercial, business, open space/golf course, country club and public facilities. 2) Uses and development standards shall be in accordance with the County of Riverside Zoning Ordinance No. 348 and shall be defined by Specific Plan objectives, future detailed plot plans and potential conditional use permits as appropriate. 3) Standards relating to signage, landscaping, parking and other related design elements shall conform to the County of Riverside Zoning Ordinance No. 348. When appropriate and necessary to meet the goals of this Specific Plan, the standards will exceed the zoning ordinance requirements (see individual Planning Areas, Section IV). 4) All project lighting shall be in accordance with County of Riverside standards. 5) The development of property shall be in accordance with the mandatory requirements of all Riverside County ordinances including Ordinance No. 348 and No. 460 and state laws; and shall conform substantially with the adopted Specific Plan as filed in the office of the Riverside County Planning Department, unless otherwise amended. 6) All development on the site will be consistent with this Specific Plan No. 303 and subsequent amendments, as on file with the Riverside County Planning Department, and with all applicable laws of the State of California. 7) Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the County of Riverside Planning Department verifying that all pertinent conditions of the Specific Plan approval have been satisfied for the phase of development in question. 8) An environmental assessment shall be conducted to determine potential environmental impacts resulting from each tract, change of zone, plot plan, specific plan amendment, or any other discretionary permit required to implement the Specific Plan. The environmental assessments shall be prepared as part of the review process for these implementing projects. At a minimum, the environmental assessment shall utilize the evaluation of impacts addressed in Environmental Impact Report No. 396 prepared for Specific Plan No. 303. 9) Lots created pursuant to this Specific Plan and any subsequent tentative maps shall be in conformance with the development standards of the Specific Plan herein applied to the property. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -13 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 10) Agriculture shall continue to be an allowable use in any planning area, in accordance with the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance (see Section III). 11) No request that the County of Riverside considers a change in zoning classifications for the purpose of implementing an Industrial Overlay District shall be considered without the express written consent of every owner of real property within the boundaries of the Industrial Overlay District, or person(s) authorized by said owner(s) to provide such consent. The right to request consideration of a zone change does not imply that the change will be approved by the County of Riverside. 2. Circulation Plan a. Circulation Plan Description The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan circulation system is designed to provide direct and convenient access to all portions of the project site, and to provide efficient connections to major transportation corridors in the project vicinity such as the new SR -86S Freeway (east of the Whitewater River).2 In addition, the proposed circulation system has been coordinated with other planning efforts in the area, such as the planned development at Thermal Airport. Based on a thorough traffic impact analysis (Appendix J), with recommended improvements, the study area intersections at buildout will operate at acceptable levels of service consistent with Riverside County policies. Precise access locations and the phasing of roadway improvements shall be determined at the plot plan or tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the Riverside County Transportation Department. The project traffic analysis estimates that 110,000 trip -ends per day will be generated by the project at buildout (Appendix J). The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan Concept 1 proposes several changes to the Riverside County Circulation Element as described below: ■ Realign "A" Street between 60th Avenue and Polk Street as an Arterial highway along the proposed alignment shown in Figure N-2 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway. ■ Upgrade the classification of 62nd Avenue between Polk Street and SR -86S to an Arterial classification from a Secondary Highway classification. ■ Designate "B" Street between "A" Street and 62nd Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. ■ Designate "C" Street between "A" Street and 66th Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. 2 For clarification, please note that the designation SR -86S refers to the new freeway constructed east of the Whitewater River. The 'old" Highway 86 is located west of the project site and is referred to in this Specific Plan as Harrison Street, its local street name. IV -14 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Designate "E" Street between "C" Street and Polk Street as a Secondary highway classification. ■ Downgrade 60th Avenue between the northwest corner of the project east to Polk Street to an Industrial Collector and delete as an Arterial highway classification on the General Plan Circulation Element to accommodate the planned extension of the runway at the Thermal Airport. The proposed changes to the Riverside County Circulation Element are summarized below in Table IV -2 and are depicted in Figure IV -2. Roadway cross-sections are depicted in Figure IV -3. Figure IV -4 illustrates the proposed on-site circulation system, including local streets, which provide structure and definition to the project neighborhoods. Table IV -2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT ROADWAYS Current Roadway Name Current Circulation Element Classification Proposed Circulation Element Classification "A" Street None Arterial highway (110' ROW) 62nd Avenue (east of Polk Street) to SR -86S Secondary highway (88'ROW) Arterial highway (110'ROW) "B" Street None Secondary highway (88' ROW) "C" Street None Secondary highway (88' ROW) "E" Street None Secondary highway (88' ROW) 60th Avenue Arterial highway (110' ROW) Industrial Collector (78' ROW) (Delete as an Arterial Highway Classification) Funding of off-site transportation infrastructure improvements may be provided through payment of Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) and other areawide fee programs of funding districts. The project will contribute to the installation of traffic signals when warranted through the payment of traffic signal mitigation fees. The traffic signals will be installed as warranted through the tract map or plot plan level traffic studies. The project should participate in an areawide funding program to provide phased implementation of the recommended buildout approach lane geometrics. b. Circulation Development Standards 1) Any application for any subdivision within the specific plan boundary (excluding a Schedule I Parcel Map) shall cause the design and construction of the specific plan master planned infrastructure within the final map boundaries, with the exception of a division of land that has no parcel less than 40 acres or that is not less than a quarter of a quarter section. Specific Plan Schedule I parcel maps shall design the street system shown thereon. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -15 J Ciculation Plan Note: The locations shown for all int precise center lines will be establishes the development process. Arterial (110') ��• Major (100') ■rrr rrr Secondary (88 Industrial Coll Collector (66') THE KOHL'RANCH Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Scale: I"=2000' Figure IV -2 Roadway Cross -Sections ...... .. ...... ..... Arterial Highway ("A" Street) Major Highway (Polk St.) Secondary Highway ("B" St., "C" St. between "A" Street and Ave. 66, "E" St. between "C" St. and Polk St., Ave. 62 & Ave 66) *PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR AN INTERIOR Industrial Collector COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL STREET ("D" St., "C" Street between "A" St. and Ave. 60, & Ave. 60) R/W R/W 6 B' 44' ww R/5r L2E WL sz r0 2_7 CVRD^1� PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR ALL COLLECTOR STREET — Collector 34' ♦ IMPROVEMENTS ON 48' R/W (Tyler St. between "C" St. and Ave 66, "E" St. between Tyler St. and "C" St., and other roadways as shown on Circulation Plan) Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. TACE KOHLEXANCH 12 Coachella Valley, California C� Figure IV -3 IVA 7 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -18 The Planning Center Note: The locations shown for all interior streets are general and precise center lines will be established at the appropriate point in the development process. LAND USE Rcsidcmial Loin (RL) Residential Medium (RM) Residential High (RH) Public Facilities (PF) Cammerd,l (C) Air Park/Mlsed Use (AP/MU) Office (0) Ught Industrial (LI) Henry Industrial (HI) Warchouse/Distribution (W/D) Open space (Os) Richt-of-My TOTAL RL Residential Low RM Residential Medium Residential High PI= _ Public Facilities Commercial AP�iMU Air Park/Mixed Use Office LI Light Industrial HI Heavy Industrial WID I Warehouse/Distribution QS i Open Space Coachella Valley, California Circulation/Land Use Seale: V=2000' tz Figure IV 4 IV -19 Chapter IV a Specific Plan 2) Each subdivision shall comply with the onsite and offsite street improvement recommendations and mitigation measures outlined in the subsequent traffic studies for each individual project. 3) All roadways intersecting four lane facilities or greater shall be a minimum of 66 feet of right-of-way and constructed in accordance with Standard 103, Ordinance 461 from the four lane facility to the nearest intersection. 4) All typical sections shall be per Ordinance 461, or as approved by the Transportation Department. 5) All intersection spacing and/or access openings shall be per Standard 114, Ordinance 461, or as approved by the Transportation Department. 6) No textured pavement accents will be allowed within County right-of-way. 7) Mid -block cross -walks are not allowed. 8) Driveways and access points. No driveways or access points as shown in this specific plan are approved. All access points shall conform to Transportation Department standard access spacing, depending upon the street's classification. 9) Drainage. The drainage facilities necessary for this project will generally be outside of the road rights-of-way and maintained by an owners association, county service area or by the Coachella Valley Water District. Drainage facilities required for road purposes will be maintained by the transportation department or CVWD. 10) Commercial. Per the General Plan, "Neighborhood Commercial Uses must be located along Secondary or greater highways, at or near intersections with Secondary Highways." 11) Schools/Parks. The Transportation Department's policy regarding streets adjacent to school sites and park sites requires a minimum of 66' right-of-way (Standard 103). 12) Any landscaping within public road rights of way will require approval by the Transportation Department and assurance of continuing maintenance through the establishment of a landscape maintenance district or similar mechanism as approved by the Transportation Department. 13) All bike trails developed as part of this specific plan should be designated as Class I bikeways generally located within separate rights of way in accordance with the standards contained within Chapter 1000 of the California Department of Transportation - Highway Design Manual (Fourth Edition). 14) All roadway widths will be at the discretion of the Transportation Department, once the ultimate land uses for the individual planning areas are determined. 15) All projects, including subdivisions within the specific plan boundary, shall be subject to a Mitigation Monitoring Program, included as part of the specific plan itself. Draft Specific Plan a May 13, 1996 IV -21 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 16) At the tentative map stage of development, the landowner will establish an avigation easement with the County. 3. Drainage Plan a. Drainage Plan Description Drainage flows enter the property from the northwest corner of the site and along the western boundary, drain through the property and outlet along the southeast boundary between Avenues 66 and 64. Development of the project will require the collection and conveyance of flood flows through the project in a manner which will insure the protection of the developed properties from a 100 -year flood. In addition, storm flows will be redispersed along the eastern boundary to approximate existing flow conditions, to avoid adversely impacting downstream properties. The proposed flood control system is designed to collect the storm flows as they enter the site in collection basins, transport the flows through the site in graded channels and discharge the flows over weirs, on the east side of the project (Figure IV -5). In order to provide the required level of on-site flood protection, the storm flows will be intercepted in collection basins on the east side of Tyler Street and on the south side of Avenue 60. The storm flows will then be conveyed through the project area through utilization of graded channels. The graded channels will be protected from scour generated by the entering flows. In order to approximate existing historical runoff conditions, the difference between the on-site developed and undeveloped runoff flows will be controlled by use of on-site retention basins. The size and depth of these basins will be determined when a final development plan is prepared. Since each collection basin will be designed to handle predicted flood flows the width of the collection basins will vary. Generally, these collection basins will be trapezoidal in shape with 3:1 side slopes and a top width between 100 and 200 feet. Once the storm flows have passed through the graded channels they will enter the dispersal basins along the eastern boundary of the project. These basins will vary in top width from 200 to 300 feet and will have a mild gradient toward the south. As peak flows progress in a southerly direction they will spill over a side weir designed to outlet storm flows toward the east in a manner consistent with existing conditions. Retained water will be pumped in a sheet flow dispersal at rates less than presently occur. On-site runoff will be intercepted and conveyed through the development by means of a conventional catch basin and storm drain system, in accordance with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) standards, so that the increase in on-site runoff resulting from the development will be detained on-site and allowed to percolate into the ground. The collector storm drain system will be designed to utilize street flow carrying capacity and flows into catch basins and inlets when the quantity exceeds the top of curb. IV -22 The Planning Center Drainage Plan Note: Arrows are too Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Scala 1"=2000' THE KIRAN CH Coachella Valley, California Figure IV -5 IV -23 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA A high degree of protection from the 100 -year flood will be provided to all building pads on the project site as the recommended Flood Control Plan is implemented. Moreover, downstream properties will no longer have to contend with the uncertainty of the existing uncontrolled storm flows, and will have the benefit of controlled flows from the project area. b. Drainage Development Standards 1) All drainage facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District (RCFCD) standards and specifications, and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1988 edition (GREEN BOOK). 2) Drainage facilities will be subject to the review and approval of the Riverside County Road Department. 3) Design of drainage facilities will be reviewed by CVWD in conjunction with their review of the sewer and water facilities. 4) Drainage plans shall be submitted to CVWD for review and approval. This is to ensure that all proposed facilities are compatible with existing CVWD and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) facilities. 5) The capital cost of all on-site facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. Such facilities will be dedicated to Riverside County and a homeowners or County Service Area for maintenance and operations. 6) All areas within the Specific Plan area will be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Industrial developments will require an additional SWPPP to operate. 7) All projects proposing construction activities including: cleaning, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. Mitigation measures may include, but not be limited to: on-site retention; covered storage of all outside storage facilities; vegetated swales; monitoring programs; etc. 8) The drainage plan for Kohl Ranch shall take into account the existing agricultural drainage facilities in this area. Possible conflicts with these facilities shall be evaluated by the developer's engineer and CVWD. IV -24 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 4. Conceptual Community Structure Plan a. Community Structure Plan Description The Community Structure Plan identifies the major project open space and recreation areas which define the project neighborhoods, and the landscape treatments for project roadways and entries. 1 Open Space and Recreation The open space areas are an integral part of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. They provide recreational amenities to residents and workers, and are used to screen development edges from potential noise and visual impacts associated with surrounding arterials. The open space system also provides aesthetically pleasing views both from within the project and from surrounding roadways and adjacent properties. The open space and recreation system for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan includes neighborhood and community parks, golf courses, passive open space and a project -wide trail system. The open space system is organized around the project drainage network and the Thermal Airport safety zones which limit the land uses and densities which can be located on certain portions of the site. Approximately 411.6 acres are devoted to the open space land use category. Under a golf course scenario, this would increase to 588.6 acres. a) Golf Courses The two golf courses run throughout the northern and southern portions of the site, paralleling the drainage system, and serve as a central view focus and buffer between land uses for the majority of residential units (Figure IV -6). The southern golf course also serves as a view window into the project from the surrounding road network. Each golf course would be equipped with a driving range and clubhouse facility. The golf courses are secondary uses which are allowable under the provisions of the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III). They are sited to maximize the golf course frontage and views for residential units. While both golf courses would be privately owned, it is envisioned that the 162.2 -acre northern course would be open to the public and provide a regional recreational amenity, while the 193.5 -acre southern golf course would serve neighborhood residents. b) Local Parks Four local parks are planned to serve residents of the project. Two additional parks are planned if the golf courses are not built. The parks are located throughout the site, and are connected by the project -wide trail system. Under the golf course alternative, an enhanced amenity package is planned which would supplement the recreation opportunities provided by the local parks. Three of the parks are located within the area that could be dedicated to the golf course use. Table IV -3 on the following page describes potential park uses for the project, with and without the golf course scenario and assuming the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD) is implemented (see Section IV.9. below for a complete description of the IOD). Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -25 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -26 The Planning Center - 1-T FNTRV INTEGRATE WINDROW PLANTING INTO TRAIL SYSTEM - Note: At -grade fairway crossings on public roads will not be allowed. Park Open Space Drainage Channel Club House Golf Course Palm Tree Streetscape Formal Canopy Streetscape l Informal Canopy Streetscape (-46-1 Windrow Planting THE KOHL 11RANCH Coachella Valley, California Community Structure MAJOR PROJECT ENTRY PROJECT MAJOR PROJECT ENTRY MINOR PROJECT ENTRY Scale: V=2000' ?tQ) Figure IV -6 IV -27 Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ The local park in the northwestern corner of the site (Park 1) is located on either side of "A" Street and serves the residential uses to the south of "A" Street, as well as the mix of non-residential uses to the north. Under the golf course scenario, the park would be 8.0 acres; without the golf course, the size of the park would increase to 15.6 acres. This park is connected to the large area of contiguous natural open space just south of the airport via a trail along the south side of Avenue 60. W The local park in the northeastern comer of the site (Park 2) is 7.2 acres and provides a recreational amenity to employees of the industrial development immediately to its south. ■ The community park (Park 3) located to the south of "A" Street is 21.2 acres; the portion of the park that is located south of Avenue 62 is 5.4 acres, while the portion north of Avenue 62 is 15.8 acres. This park is linked to the other local parks by trails that follow the drainage channels to the north, west (if there is no golf course) and to the south. Under the golf course scenario, the total acreage of this park would be reduced to 16.4 acres. ■ A small neighborhood park of 4.4 acres (Park 4) would be located on the east side of "B" Street, if the northern golf course is not built. ■ A 10.0 -acre park (Park 5) is located in the center of the site between two residential neighborhoods. This park can be accessed from the north, south, east and west by the trail system, which also connects the park with public facility sites to the south. ■ The 20.0 acre local park in the southern portion of the site (Park 6) serves residents of several of the retirement/second home neighborhoods, and is connected to public facilities and other local parks through the trail system. Under the golf course scenario, this park would not be constructed. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -29 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table IV -3 POTENTIAL PARK USES' Park Description Size Potential Park Uses PROPOSED PROJECT (CONCEPT 1) 1 • Neighborhood park in northwest corner of site, north and south of "A" Street 15.6 acres Ballfields • Within airport safety zones and drainage area Picnic area • Serves residential uses to the south and non-residential uses to the north Tot lot • Connected to large area of natural open space via trail along Avenue 60 Play equipment 2 • Neighborhood park in northeastern corner of site 7.2 acres Ballfields • Within airport safety zones Picnic area • Provides an amenity for employees of adjacent industrial development 3 • Community park south of "A" Street, and north and south of Avenue 62 21.2 acres Ballfields • Within airport safety zone Picnic area • Portion of park within drainage area Tot lot • Linked to other local parks by trails following the drainage channels Play equipment • Tennis courts • Recreation center 4 •Small neighborhood park located on east side of "B" Street 4.4 acres Tot lot • Within drainage area Picnic area 5 • Neighborhood park in the center of the site 10.0 acres Ballfields • Trail system connects park with public facility sites to the south Picnic area • Shuffle board • Horse shoes 6 • Neighborhood park serving multiple neighborhoods in southern portion of the 20.0 acres • Ballfields site • Picnic area • Within drainage area • Lawn bowling • Connected to public facilities and other parks through trail system • Shuffle board • Horse shoes • Senior center GOLF COURSE SCENARIO 1 • Portion of park north of "A" Street would be converted to golf course use 8.0 acres • Same as above • Portion of park south of "A" Street would be as described above 2 • Same as above 7.2 acres • Same as above 3 • Western portion of park north of Avenue 62 would be converted to golf 16.4 acres • Same as above course use • Remainder of park would be as described above 4 • Under this scenario, the entire park would be replaced with a golf course 0.0 acres • Not applicable 5 • Same as above 10.0 acres • Same as above 6 • Entire park would be converted to golf course use 0.0 acres • Not applicable IV -30 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Table IV -3 POTENTIAL PARK USES' Park Description Size Potential Park Uses INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DESIGNATION (IOD) SCENARI02 1 Park is located in Neighborhoods A and B 15.6 acres Ballfields • Park acreage would remain undeveloped due to airport -related restrictions Picnic area • If Neighborhood B is developed for industrial use, park would serve employees not residents, and uses would change 2 •Park is located in Neighborhood E 7.2 acres Same as above • Park acreage would remain undeveloped due to airport -related restrictions • Park would serve employees, as described above 3 • Park is located in Neighborhoods D and G 21.2 acres • Ballfields . Park acreage would remain undeveloped due to airport -related restrictions • Picnic area on development • Assuming either of Neighborhoods C or G remain residential, park uses would be as described above; if surrounding neighborhoods are industrial, uses would serve employees • Under Concepts 3 and 6, acreage would remain for drainage purposes, but park uses south of Avenue 62 most likely would be eliminated 4 • Park is located in Neighborhood C 4.4 acres • Ballfields • If Neighborhood C is developed for industrial use, park acreage would • Picnic area remain undeveloped for drainage use, but uses would change to serve employees rather than residents 5 • Park is located in Neighborhoods G and H 0.0 acres • Not applicable • If Neighborhoods G and H are developed for industrial use (they must be developed together under the requirements of the IOD), the park would most likely be eliminated 6 • Park is located in Neighborhoods J and K 20.0 acres • Not applicable • If Overlay District consisting of Neighborhoods J, K, L and M is developed for industrial use, park acreage would remain undeveloped for drainage use, but park uses would most likely be eliminated NOTES: Potential park uses identified in the table are provided as examples of the types of uses that would be appropriate in each park under the three scenarios. Actual park uses and facilities may differ from those listed. z Parks generally serve the neighborhoods in which they are located. Consequently, development of a neighborhood as an Industrial Overlay District would not deprive any adjacent residential neighborhoods of a local park. c) Trail System The proposed development is planned with an off-street trail system that parallels the drainageways throughout the site (see Figure IV -10). The off-street system is supplemented by the on -street sidewalk system located in road rights-of-way. In addition to providing access to the local parks, the trail system also provides a Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -31 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA pedestrian linkage to the public facilities located in the central portion of the site, just south of the Avenue 64 drainage channel, and to key commercial sites. d) Natural Open Space The system of drainage channels throughout the project site will offer a scenic amenity to residents of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan site. The channels will be graded and will contain native desert vegetation that will also provide a buffer between land uses. The acreage of this natural open space will vary depending upon whether the golf courses are built. With the golf courses, natural open space will total 189.4 acres. Without the golf courses, natural open space will increase to 357.2 acres. 2) Landscape Concept The landscape concept for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan provides criteria for the treatment of areas within roads and easements, medians, land use transitions, development edges and project entries. The landscape concept has been conceived to organize the development and to establish a unified landscape framework that provides continuity throughout the project area and supports the community themes. Proposed landscape materials are intended to direct and guide the resident or visitor to the development, screen sensitive views, and frame or create focal points and views as the motorist and pedestrian moves through and around the project. The landscape concept consists of a hierarchy of recommended plantings that correspond to the roadway classifications and project entry statements. More detailed descriptions of these landscape features are provided in Section IV.C., Design Guidelines. The landscape concept is based upon the use of natural desert vegetation both for its visual effect and drought tolerant characteristics. The use of water efficient irrigation practices is encouraged, with canal water used for golf courses and public open space areas. Four basic planting schemes are proposed: M Palm Tree Streetscape; ■ Formal Canopy Streetscape; ■ Informal Canopy Streetscape; and ■ Windrow Planting. a) Project Entries Major project entries generally are identified by groves of palm trees, which create visual interest through the introduction of a vertical element and a beacon that is visible at a distance across the flat landscape. The palm tree plantings are carried into the site along major project roadways, using a less dense spacing between plantings IV -32 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan than the concentrated plantings at project entries. Major project entries are identified at the following locations: ■ "A" Street and Avenue 60; ■ "A" Street and Polk Street; ■ "E" Street and Polk Street; and ■ "C" Street and Avenue 66. Minor project entries will be treated with a scaled-down version of the palm tree concept (See Section IV.C.). Entries and intersections will be precisely located as internal roadways are precised. b) Streetscapes In order to achieve a cohesive overall circulation system for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan and provide a strong community structure, a consistent streetscape treatment is recommended for public and private rights-of-way. The general landscape concept combines the use of palms trees with citrus understory, massed in selected locations, interchanged with formal and informal canopy plantings and use of other desert plant material. The streetscapes are broken down into three major categories with special features and plant forms as indicated (see Section IV.C., Design Guidelines for details). The proposed plantings along major project roadways are based upon the roadway significance and strategic location within the project site. Because of its importance as an east -west connection, "A" Street is proposed to employ the palm tree planting concept, with breaks in the plantings where tall trees are prohibited through the airport safety zones. Formal canopy streetscape plantings are planned along "B" Street, "C" Street and several local roadways that provide internal circulation between neighborhoods. These streets provide definition to the project neighborhoods. Informal canopy streetscape plantings are recommended for local roads that are more interior to the site. c) Buffers and Land Use Transitions Windrow plantings are recommended to serve as buffers between land use types, along drainage channels and project edges, and within residential neighborhoods to mitigate against high desert winds. Windrows also can be used to provide structure to project neighborhoods and can be integrated with the project trail system. b. Community Structure Development Standards 1) All detailed landscaping programs for planning areas and roadways will be prepared by a qualified landscape architect for review by the County. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -33 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2) Common open space areas within each planning area may be devoted to passive or active uses, and will, to the extent feasible, be coordinated with any open space in adjoining planning areas to create a continuous network. The exact design and layout of facilities will be accomplished in conjunction with detailed future tract layouts. 3) Prior to recordation of any final subdivision map, improvement plans for the respective landscaped common areas shall be submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department for approval. The improvement plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ■ Final grading plan; ■ Irrigation plans prepared by a landscape architect; ■ A landscaping plan with specifications for mulching and staking methods; locations, type, size and quantity of plantings; ■ Fence treatment plans; and ■ Special treatment/buffer area treatment plans. 4) The applicant developer and/or builder shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all common landscaped areas and irrigation systems within its ownership parcels until such time as these operations are the responsibility of other parties. 5) At the time of recordation of any final subdivision map which contains a common open space area, the subdivision shall have those common areas transferred to the master property owners association or an appropriate public maintenance agency who will take responsibility for maintenance. 6) Irrigation of common open space areas and golf courses will be accomplished with canal water and/or reclaimed water to the extent possible. 7) For further landscape development standards, please refer to Section IV.C., Design Guidelines. 5. Water and Sewer Plan a. Water and Sewer Plan Description The project study area is completely within the service boundary of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) which provides water and sewer service to the project area. The water and sewer plan is based on an analysis of water and sewer infrastructure which evaluates availability of services, calculates water demands and sewer generation quantities, and proposes infrastructure facilities which allow for the advancement of development. The purpose of the water and sewer plan is to provide for the backbone improvements which will IV -34 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan be capable of serving the ultimate project, in addition to the individual portions independent of their progression. 1) Existing Water and Sewer Conditions There are no existing domestic water distribution facilities within the project boundary. All domestic water provided within the CVWD service boundary comes from ground water which is chlorinated. Previous studies conducted in the area indicate that ground water meeting the State Drinking Water Standards is currently attainable at depths of between 900 and 1,400 feet. There is an existing "house" well on the property located near the southwest corner of Section 4, north of Avenue 64 on Tyler Street. This well uses a 6 -inch diameter casing to extract low volumes of water from an approximate depth of 440 feet. The water quality meets both State and Federal Standards. There are no existing sewer facilities located within the project boundary. CVWD operates and maintains an 18 -inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) forcemain, 17 feet north of the centerline of Avenue 60. This pipe conveys sewer flows, from west of the project, east to the CVWD treatment facility. Discussions with District staff indicate that while this pipe is not at its full capacity of approximately 5.7 MGD (based on a velocity of 5 fps), there is little additional volume to be used for this project. CVWD may allow the initial phases of development to pump into this line until an alternate conveyance is necessary. CVWD operates and maintains its Wastewater Reclamation Plant No. 4 located between Avenue 62 on the north, Avenue 64 on the south, adjacent to the Whitewater River on the east and approximately 600 feet east of Fillmore Street on the west. This plant has a design capacity of approximately 5.0 MGD, and is estimated to be currently operating at half capacity. The plant currently treats to a secondary treatment level using stabilization ponds for finishing. The ponds are used for flow stabilization by allowing the depth to increase during peak wet water events. 2) Proposed Water and Sewer Facilities The proposed water system will operate within a single pressure zone serving ground elevations from 119 to 167 feet below sea level (Figure IV -7). Hydraulic control for the project should be set using a reservoir high water level of approximately 40 feet above sea level. Recommended pad elevations for storage facilities should range from 8 to 16 feet above sea level; however, the pads and the high water level may vary, as required to conform with established CVWD pressure zones. The system is proposed to be fed by wells to be located within the project boundary. Ten wells are anticipated to pump peak daily demands through an on-site system of from 12 - inch to 24 -inch transmission lines looped for maximum efficiency and fire flow delivery. Excess water during low and average flows will be conveyed to reservoirs to be located near the terminus of Avenue 66 in the foothills, west of the project. Two transmission Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -35 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA mains, of 24 -inch minimum diameter, will convey these flows, providing a dual feed system to the project when operating from gravity flow. Figure IV -8 indicates possible locations for these proposed facilities. Optionally, one 36 -inch transmission main may be utilized to provide water to and from the proposed reservoir. The water system will be designed to deliver gravity flow during high power cost windows. Well pumps will be controlled by level sensing devices and transmitters on the reservoirs. The water system will utilize a certain volume from the tanks, prior to the well pumps cycling, to ensure that adequate circulation of water in the tanks is maintained. The proposed sewage system operates using 4 independent collection systems all conveying flows to a sump located near the intersection of Avenue 63 and Polk Street. By splitting the flows, pipeline diameters can be kept relatively small. Figure IV -9 indicates the location of the four drainage systems. A 24 -inch diameter trunk main will then convey the total flow, by gravity, approximately 6,800 feet to the west side of the existing plant headworks. A new wetwell will be constructed to collect the pipe flow, and pumps installed by CVWD will lift this wastewater into the treatment plant. b. Water and Sewer Development Standards 1) All water and sewer facilities will be designed and constructed in accordance with the CVWD standards and specifications, American Water Works Association (AWWA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1988 edition (GREEN BOOK). 2) The capital cost of on-site and off-site facilities necessary to serve the project site will be the responsibility of the applicant. Such facilities will be dedicated to CVWD, after construction, for the District to maintain and operate. Fee credits may be available for transmission, storage and wells. 3) In accordance with the Water Conservation Plan (see Appendix F), water conservation measures will be incorporated into the project plan to include water saving devices and systems, and the use of surface water or reclaimed water for irrigation where possible. IV -36 The Planning Center W Tr Note: Per CVWD . y ....... w, one well site per 70 acres of development. The location and size of well sites shall be approved by CVWD. THE K Water Plan Coachella Valley, California Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. sede: 1"=2000' aD COO Figure IV -7 R/1317 Ave 60 r. AVE 36 31 0 Proposid 2411 Dia. Water Ave 62 r 1111�limm go go all 11 B1 11112 111 "Ism :0 j.w A R r 1 .4 EZ 3 E R V A T 10 N E—Proposed 24" Dia. Winter < =TORRFS MARTINEZ 12 Prop&-_ 24" Dia. Water--\ I •RESERVATION 12.5 MG Storage VAICie - I larri [ I I I I I I Bp III I I I I a I ff M 111 814 T _r IV KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California 0 M T 11 Off -Site Water Improvements Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Scale. 1"=30W a IV18 IV -38 Sem (Dig Mai Sewer Plan Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Scale: 1"=2000' THE KOHL 11RAN C v� Coachella Valle California Ov Figure IV -9 ni -2n The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 6. Public Facilities Sites and Project Phasing a. Public Facilities Phasing Description In order to insure timely development of public facilities, a phasing plan has been prepared for parks, schools and other public facilities (see Figure IV -10). b. Public Facilities Phasing Schedule Public facilities shall be phased as indicated in Table IV -3, Public Facilities Phasing, below. Table IV -4 PUBLIC FACILITIES PHASING Planning Public Size of Site IMilestones and Requirements Area Facility (acres) I (to be determined) PHASING SCENARIO I A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning A -2/A -3/A-6 Park 7.6 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Neighborhood A. A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning B-2 Park 8.0 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Nes hborhood B. A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning C -5/C-6 Park 4.4 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Nes hborhood C. PHASING SCENARIO II A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning E-1 Park 7.2 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Neighborhood E. A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning D -3/D -4/D-5 Park 15.8 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Neighborhood D. PHASING SCENARIO III A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning G-3 Park 1.8 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Neighborhood G. PHASING SCENARIO IV A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning G -2/G-6 Park 3.6 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Nei hborhood G. A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning G-12/1-1-3 Park 10.0 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Neighborhood G or H. 1-2 Public Facility 4.2 To be developed in coordination with service providers per demand & funding capabilities. 1-4 Public Facility 10.3 To be developed in coordination with service providers per demand & funding capabilities. 1-6 Public Facili 10.2 To be developed in coordination with service providers per demand & funding capabilities. 1-8 Public Facili 2.6 To be developed in coordination with service providers per demand & funding capabilities. PHASING SCENARIO V A schedule for development of the park or payment of fees will be submitted to the County Planning K -5/J-2 Park 20.0 Department at the time the first master tentative map and/or residential subdivision map is filed for Neighborhood K or J. Note: The park acreages assume that the golf course would not be built. IV -40 The Planning Center J Public Facility Sites iWN TONI '02, INS, Coachella Valley, California Scale: 1"=2000' �" Figure IV -10 IV -41 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c. Project Phasing Plan Description Five phasing scenarios have been established for the proposed project. Each scenario represents an area of the site that is likely to develop as a unit. The purpose of a scenario is to establish the infrastructure required to initiate development, assuming that the scenario site is the portion of the total project site to be developed first. However, the scenario numbers do not necessarily indicate the sequence in which the site will be built out. For the purposes of this Specific Plan, it is anticipated that Scenario I will be developed first, followed by Scenarios III and IV, with Scenarios II and V developed last (Figure IV -11). It is anticipated that the project will be developed over a twenty-fiv"ear period, in response to market demands, and according to a logical extension of roadways, public utilities and infrastructure. Recent efforts by state and local government to stimulate economic development in the project area, through the establishment of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, the Thermal Redevelopment Area and planned development at Thermal Airport, can be expected to serve as an impetus to development of revenue-producing land uses in the northern portion of the project site. The project phasing scenarios are summarized in Table IV -4 and are described below. Table IV -5 PHASING SCENARIOS SCENARIO I Land Use Planning Area Acreage I Units Residential Low C-1 38.5 146 C-3 31.1 118 C-7 32.0 122 Residential Medium B-3 32.8 262 C-4 75.2 602 Residential High B-1 7.2 108 B-4 22.3 335 Commercial B-5 44.6 Air Park/Mixed Use A-5 33.7 A-7 37.3 Open Space A-1 0.8 A-2 0.6 A-3 3.6 A-4 1.6 A-6 16.2 B-2 8.0 C-2 5.5 C-5 1.9 C-6 5.9 Subtotal Scenario 1 398.8 I 1693 IV -42 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Table IV -5 PHASING SCENARIOS SCENARIO II Land Use Planning Area Acreage Units Residential High C-8 12.8 192 C-9 9.3 140 C-11 13.5 202 Office B-6 14.5 D-2 28.0 D-6 3.1 Air Park/Mixed Use A-9 29.3 A-11 11.7 Light Industrial F-1 12.7 Heavy Industrial E-2 173.4 Open Space A-8 1.6 A-10 2.5 C-10 3.1 D-1 159.0 D-3 5.6 D-4 7.3 D-5 4.4 E-1 7.2 Subtotal Scenario II 499.0 534 SCENARIO III Land Use Planning Area Acreage Units Light Industrial F-2 77.2 Warehouse/Distribution F-3 94.4 Open Space G-3 1.8 Subtotal Scenario III 173.4 Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -43 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table IV -5 PHASING SCENARIOS SCENARIO IV Land Use Planning Area Acreage Units Residential Low G-5 36.6 139 G-10 19.6 74 G-11 25.5 97 G-13 18.6 71 H-5 14.9 57 H-9 20.8 79 Residential Medium G-7 62.4 499 H-2 19.7 158 H-4 23.5 188 H-7 20.8 166 1-5 22.4 179 Residential High G-8 18.8 282 H-8 13.6 204 Commercial G-1 5.2 Public Facilities 1-2 4.2 1-4 10.3 1-6 10.2 1-8 2.6 Open Space G-2 1.8 G-4 3.5 G-6 14.5 G-9 5.1 G-12 5.0 H-1 5.0 H-3 5.0 H-6 9.5 H-10 3.6 1-1 2.6 1-3 4.6 1-7 2.3 Subtotal Scenario IV 412.2 2193 IV -44 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Table IV -5 PHASING SCENARIOS SCENARIO V Land Use Planning Area Acreage Units Residential Low J-3 26.6 101 J-4 7.1 27 J-7 29.7 106 K-3 40.7 155 K-6 15.3 58 L-1 64.4 245 M-3 8.5 32 Residential Medium K-1 15.3 122 K-4 13.2 106 L-3 26.8 214 L-5 22.7 182 M-4 48.0 384 Residential High J-1 9.4 103 J-5 6.6 79 L-4 22.8 342 M-1 4.8 72 M-5 28.2 423 Commercial L-6 12.5 Open Space J-2 32.7 J-6 25.7 K-2 7.0 K-5 20.9 L-2 6.3 M-2 19.9 Subtotal Scenario V 498.1 2,751 1) Phasiniz Scenario I The Scenario I site is located at the northwestern corner of the project area (Figure IV -11). The infrastructure improvements described in this section assume that Scenario I would be the first area of the site to develop. If the northern golf course is built as part of Scenario 1, the portion of the golf course located within the Scenario II site also would be constructed as part of Scenario I. Transportation improvements would involve both arterial and secondary roadways, including "A" Street between Avenue 60 and "C" Street; "C" Street from Avenue 62 north to the "A" Street connection; and "B" Street between "A" Street and Avenue 62. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -45 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -46 The Planning Center u u 0 Phasing Plan Phasing Scenario Coachella Valley, California Chapter IV • Specific Plan Grading activities would be limited to the Scenario I site, with the exception of a portion of open space area D-1 located in the Scenario II site, which would be used for a borrow/stockpile area. Drainage for Scenario I would require that off-site flows be picked up along the western project boundary, conveyed through the site and then released to the adjacent Scenario II area. Two small off-site retention facilities may be required east of Scenario I. The retention facilities would have overflow weirs on the downstream side to return the storm flow to its original sheet flow condition. Sewer facilities would gravity flow to the southeast corner of the site. Approximately 7,300 linear feet of offsite facilities would then be required to Polk and Avenue 63 near "D" Street. From this location, 6,800 linear feet of master planned 24 -inch diameter sewer would be required to convey the flows to the existing Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) wastewater treatment facility. The portion of this scenario along Avenue 60 may be allowed to sewer into the existing CVWD force main allowing a deferment of off-site sewer improvements. Water facilities to support the development of this scenario could be constructed completely within the scenario boundary. Well(s) could be dug as required, and the water pumped to an above grade storage facility. Hydropneumatic systems could then be used to deliver the water to a limited number of users at the required pressure range while off- site facilities are being constructed. It is possible that CVWD would require that an offsite 5.0 million gallon reservoir be constructed near the terminus of Avenue 66 for the initial phase. In that event, approximately 22,000 linear feet of off-site transmission line would be required to convey the well water to the reservoir. 2) Phasing Scenario II The Scenario II site is situated in the northeast corner of the project area, as shown in Figure IV -11. The infrastructure improvements described in this section assume that Scenario II would be the first area of the site to develop. If the northern golf course is built as part of Scenario II, the portion of the golf course located within the Scenario I site also would be constructed as part of Scenario II. Transportation improvements would involve both arterial and secondary roadways, including "A" Street between "C" Street and Polk; "C" Street between "A" Street and Avenue 62; and Avenue 62 between "C" Street and "A" Street. Grading activities for this scenario would be limited to the Scenario II site. There would be limited (if any) borrow/export required off-site. Drainage for Scenario II would require that off-site flows be picked up in an interim swale along the westerly boundary and conveyed to the proposed on-site open space retention areas. Off-site flows from this basin would be in a sheet flow condition, with no additional drainage facilities required. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -49 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Sewer facilities would gravity flow to the southeast corner of the drainage areas. Approximately 6,800 linear feet of 12 -inch diameter offsite sewer would be required to Polk and Avenue 63 near "D" Street. From this location, 6,800 linear feet of master planned 24 -inch diameter sewer would be required to convey the flows to the existing wastewater treatment facility. A portion of this scenario, within reach of Polk Street, may be allowed to sewer into the existing CVWD force main, allowing deferment of the off- site sewer improvements. Water facilities to support the development of this scenario could be constructed completely within the scenario boundary. Well(s) could be dug as required, and the water pumped to an above grade storage facility. Hydropneumatic systems could then be used to deliver the water to a limited number of users at the required pressure. It is possible that CVWD would require that an offsite 5.0 million gallon reservoir be constructed near the terminus of Avenue 66 for the initial phase. In that event, approximately 27,000 linear feet of off-site transmission line would be required to convey the well water to the reservoir. 3) Phasing Scenario III The Scenario III site is located in the central portion of the project area and abuts the southern boundary of the Scenario II site, as shown in Figure IV -11. The infrastructure improvements described in this section assume that Scenario III would be the first area of the site to develop. Transportation improvements would involve both major and secondary roadways, including Polk Street between "A" Street and the "D" Street connector; "D" Street from Polk to Avenue 62; Avenue 62 between "D" Street and "A" Street; and "A" Street from Avenue 62 to Polk. Grading activities for this scenario would be limited to the Scenario III site, with the exception of a portion of open space area D-1 in the Scenario II site, which would be used for a borrow/ stockpile area. Drainage for this scenario would require that off-site flows be picked up in interim swales along the northerly and westerly boundaries, conveyed through the site and then released to the Scenario III site immediately to the south. In addition, master planned off-site retention facilities would be required immediately to the south. The retention facilities would have overflow weirs on the downstream side to return the storm flow to its original sheet flow condition. Sewer facilities would gravity flow through the site to the southeast comer of the scenario at Polk and Avenue 63. From that location, 6,800 linear feet of master planned 24 -inch diameter sewer would be required to convey the flows to the existing wastewater treatment facility. Water facilities to support the development of this scenario could be constructed completely within the scenario boundary. Well(s) could be dug as required, and the water IV -50 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan pumped to an above grade storage facility. Hydropneumatic systems could then be used to deliver the water to a limited number of users at the required pressure range while off- site facilities are being constructed. It is possible that CVWD would require that an offsite 5.0 million gallon reservoir be constructed near the terminus of Avenue 66 for the initial phase. In that event, approximately 27,000 linear feet of off-site transmission line would be required to convey the well water to the reservoir. 4) Phasing Scenario IV The Scenario IV site encompasses a broad segment of the central portion of the project area, as shown in Figure IV -11. The infrastructure improvements described in this section assume that Scenario IV would be the first area of the site to develop. Transportation improvements would involve major and secondary roadways, including Polk between A Street and E Street; E Street between Polk and C Street; and C Street from E Street to Avenue 62. Grading activities would be limited to the Scenario IV site, with the exception of a portion of open space areas K-5 and J-2 in the Scenario V site, which would be used for a borrow/stockpile area. Drainage for the Scenario would require that off-site flows be picked up along the northerly and westerly boundary, conveyed through the site and then released to the adjacent scenario site. Flows intercepted along the western boundary would be in master planned facilities. Flows from the north would be intercepted in an interim swale. Off- site master planned retention facilities would be required to the southeast of the scenario site. The retention facilities would have overflow weirs on the downstream side to return the storm flow to its original sheet flow condition. Sewer facilities would gravity flow to the northeast corner of the scenario to Polk and Avenue 63 near "D" Street. From this location, 6,800 linear feet of master planned 24 - inch diameter sewer would be required to convey the flows to the existing wastewater treatment facility. Water facilities to support the development of this scenario could be constructed completely within the phase boundary. Well(s) could be dug as required, and the water pumped to an above grade storage facility. Hydropneumatic systems could then be used to deliver the water to a limited number of users at the required pressure range while off- site facilities are being constructed. It is possible that CVWD would require that an offsite 5.0 million gallon reservoir be constructed near the terminus of Avenue 66 for the initial phase. In that event, approximately 21,000 linear feet of off-site transmission line would be required to convey the well water to the reservoir. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -51 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 5) Phasing Scenario V The Scenario V site encompasses the southern segment of the project area, as shown in Figure IV -11. The infrastructure improvements described in this section assume that Scenario V would be the first area of the site to develop. Transportation improvements would involve both major and secondary roadways, including Polk Street from Avenue 66 to the "E" Street intersection; "E" Street from Polk to "C" Street; and "C" Street between "E" Street and Avenue 66. Grading activities for this Scenario would be accomplished by stockpiling export on the Scenario IV site to the north. Drainage for this scenario would require that off-site flows be picked up along the westerly boundary in master planned facilities, conveyed through the site and then released to the adjacent Scenario site. No off-site facilities would be required for this phase. Sewer facilities would gravity flow to the northeast corner of the scenario site. Approximately 2,700 linear feet of offsite sewer would be required from that point to Polk and Avenue 63 near "D" Street. From that location, 6,800 linear feet of master planned 24 -inch diameter sewer would be required to convey the flows to the existing wastewater treatment facility. Water facilities to support the development of this phase could be constructed completely within the phase boundary. Well(s) could be dug as required, and the water pumped to an above grade storage facility. Hydropneumatic systems could then be used to deliver the water to a limited number of users at the required pressure range while off-site facilities are being constructed. It is possible that CVWD would require that an offsite 5.0 million gallon reservoir be constructed near the terminus of Avenue 66 for the initial phase. In that event, approximately 15,000 linear feet of off-site transmission line would be required to convey the well water to the reservoir. d. Project Phasing Standards 1) Prior to recordation of any final subdivision map, improvement plans for the respective landscaped areas for that stage of development, shall be submitted to the County Planning Department for approval. The improvement plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: ■ Final grading plan. ■ Irrigation plans certified by a landscape architect. ■ A hardscaping plan with location, type and quantity of potential recreational amenities/facilities prepared by a licensed landscape architect. IV -52 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan e Wall or fencing treatment details consistent with the Specific Plan. Plans for landscaping, grading and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Water District for review. This is to ensure efficient water management. 2) Construction of the development permitted hereby, including recordation of final subdivision maps, may be done progressively in stages, provided adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided that such phase of development conforms substantially with the Specific Plan Phasing Program. 7. Illustrative Grading Plan a. Illustrative Grading Plan Description The study area is relatively flat with approximately 45 feet of topographical relief. The existing topography tends to slope from the northwest to the southeast at a nominal rate of between 0.30% and 0.40%. Earthwork characteristics and grading recommendations as presented in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report were utilized in this study (Appendix B). The grading concept illustrates site development feasibility and provides a "balanced" earthwork scenario not dependent upon import or export of material. Grading is designed to conform to the drainage conveyance requirements while following existing topographical patterns (see Figure IV -12). All development areas are designed with positive drainage towards acceptable drainage conveyances. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit from Riverside County, the developer's engineer shall submit the grading plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. This is to ensure that all existing facilities and easements are taken into account prior to construction. b. Grading Plan Development Standards 1) All grading activities shall be in substantial conformance with the overall Conceptual Grading Plan, the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 457. 2) Prior to any development within any area of the Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for the portion in process shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The Grading Plan for each such area shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual stages of development within that area, and shall include preliminary pad and roadway elevations. 3) Unless otherwise approved by the County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department, all cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot. Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13. 1996 IV -53 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -54 The Planning Center Grading Plan Hwrison St I tit JKUkiL RAIN U11 Coachella Valley, California :: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Scale: 1"=1500' eltalw) Figure IV 12 IV -55 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 4) A grading permit shall be obtained from the County of Riverside, as required by the County Grading Ordinance, prior to grading. 5) Soil stabilizers should be used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. 6) Erosion control practices shall be implemented during grading activities. 7) The grading contractor shall be required to obtain an encroachment permit from CVWD prior to entering any right-of-ways which belong to CVWD or USBR. 8) All projects proposing construction activities including: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. S. Comprehensive Maintenance Plan Maintenance of open space, recreational facilities and roadways is important in establishing the appearance and quality of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area. It is anticipated that maintenance responsibilities for the project will be shared by several entities, as outlined below. a. Parks and Recreation Local parks will be dedicated to the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District (CVRPD). The CVRPD will be responsible for park maintenance and recreation programs associated with these facilities. Without development of the golf courses, the potential for development of joint -use parks with the Coachella Valley Unified School District may be investigated, to share in the cost of park maintenance. b. Open Space To maintain project open space (arterial and local streetscapes, drainage courses, and natural open space), a new special district is required, such as a landscaping and lighting district, community services district, or county service area. This decision will be made at a future stage in project development, in concert with County agencies. The special district would contract with an existing local agency or a private firm for actual services. c. Street Lighting To operate and maintain local street lighting, a new special district is required, such as a landscaping and lighting district, community services district, or county service area. This decision will be made at a future stage in project development, in concert with County Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -57 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA agencies. The special district would contract with an existing local agency or a private firm for actual services. d. Drainage Facilities CVWD shall not be responsible for the construction, operation or maintenance of stormwater/drainage facilities within the project area. CVWD shall review the hydrology design of the project and evaluate how drainage from the site could affect regional stormwater facilities. The drainage plan shall be subject to mitigation based upon the findings of the CVWD. Riverside County and a homeowners or County Service Area are assumed to be responsible for maintaining any storm drains, canals or basins within the project area. Riverside County will not be responsible for drainage maintenance unless specifically indicated by the County. e. Project Roadways All public project roadways and private streets will be designed and constructed to standards acceptable to the County. All public roadways will be entered into the Riverside County System of roads for operation and maintenance as approved by the Board of Supervisors. 9. Industrial Overlay Designation a. Introduction The Kohl Ranch project is located within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, the Thermal Redevelopment Area, as well as the area under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority. To facilitate development that is compatible with these designations and to afford flexibility to respond to evolving market conditions, the proposed Kohl Ranch project includes five land use concepts in addition to the base land use concept. These five concepts can be implemented through the application of an Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD). Each land use concept includes areas designated for industrial use, providing the project with increased potential for industrial development that supports surrounding airport and agricultural uses. The concepts differ in the amount of acreage and the geographic areas devoted to these industrial designations. The concepts range from 357.7 acres of potential industrial development with Land Use Concept 1, based on the primary land uses identified in the Specific Plan, to approximately 1,413 acres with Land Use Concept 6. The Land Use Concepts are described in greater detail in the following sections. Figure IV -1, Land Use Plan, provides a detailed depiction of Concept 1, which represents the primary land uses proposed for the site. IV -58 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan b. Use of the IOD The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan identifies nearly 100 planning areas on the site grouped within 13 larger areas referred to as neighborhoods (See Figure IV -13). Neighborhoods define logical development areas based on land use and the relationship to planned roadways and infrastructure. Each planning area within these neighborhoods has a primary land use designation. The primary land use designations for all planning areas are depicted in Figure IV -1 and are referred to as Land Use Concept 1. Following approval of the Specific Plan, the Kohl Ranch may be developed in accordance with Land Use Concept 1 without any further zoning approval. All planning areas have a secondary land use designation, the IOD. The IOD is a dormant land use that may be activated through a change of zone process, to replace the primary land use designation. The IOD is intended to accommodate industrial users requiring large land parcels. It cannot be activated for individual planning areas, but instead must be applied concurrently to all planning areas within a neighborhood. By limiting use of the IOD to large areas (i.e., neighborhoods) which are designed with adequate buffer treatments, the balance of the Kohl Ranch site can be developed with its primary land uses, while maintaining land use compatibility. If the IOD is not applied to a given neighborhood, then that neighborhood would develop with the primary land use designations represented by Land Use Concept 1. The IOD will remain dormant unless implemented through a change of zone process. This process requires the authorization of all landowners within the neighborhood to be designated IOD, for a change in the zoning for that neighborhood. The IOD and related development standards and use restrictions will be based on the County M -H Zone (Heavy Manufacturing), as modified for this Specific Plan (see Section III, Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance). Table IV -6 summarizes the purpose, application and implementation of the IOD. Table IV -6 INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DESIGNATION PURPOSE To increase potential for industrial development that is compatible with adjacent land uses and achieves the goals of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Thermal Redevelopment Area, and the Thermal Airport. APPLICATION An Industrial Overlay Designation can be applied to each of the thirteen neighborhoods, but must apply to all planning areas within that neighborhood. Certain neighborhoods can only be designated for industrial use in combination with other neighborhoods (See Table IV -7). IMPLEMENTATION The Industrial Overlay Designation shall be implemented through the zone change process. The allowable land uses under this designation are the same as the County M -H Zone, as modified for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan (see the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance). Draft Si)ecific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -59 Neighborhoods THE KOHLRDANCHscale: 1^=20m, Coachella Valley, California amn;'? Chapter IV • Specific Plan c. Land Use Concepts As described above, the IOD can only be applied to all planning areas within a neighborhood. In addition, the IOD can only be given to multiple neighborhoods in specific combinations. These prescribed groupings of neighborhoods are referred to as overlay districts. The Specific Plan provides for three overlay districts: Overlay Districts • Neighborhoods B, C and D, as a group; • Neighborhoods G and H as a group; and • Neighborhoods I, J, K, L and M, as a group. The activation of the IOD for one of the overlay districts requires that all neighborhoods within that overlay district must be given the IOD designation. For example, activation of the IOD for Neighborhood B requires the use of the IOD in Neighborhoods C and D. The Specific Plan permits the activation of the overlay districts singly or in combinations. The overlay district composed of Neighborhoods I, J, K, L and M can only be activated if the adjacent overlay district consisting of Neighborhoods G and H also is activated. As a result, there are five possible formats in which the overlay districts can be created in combination with unaffected neighborhoods that retain their primary land use designations. Table IV -7 and Figure IV -14 describe these five formats as Land Use Concepts 2 through 6. Build out of the site consistent with the Specific Plan can only occur under Land Use Concept 1, the primary land use designations, or under one of the Land Use Concepts 2 through 6, when one or more of the overlay districts is activated with the IOD. The Land Use Concepts retain the overall community structure, roadway configuration, and open space system of the proposed project, which are designed to buffer off-site and on-site uses from potential adjacent industrial uses and to ensure land use compatibility. Land Use Concepts 2 through 6 are described below. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -61 Concept 1 Concept 4 Concept 2 Concept 5 Industrial Land Use Designation THE KOHLIRANCH Coachella Valley, California Land Use Concepts Concept 3 Concept 6 00�/- I --� COO Fimira T[T_14 Chapter IV - Specific Plan Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -63 Table IV -7 APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DESIGNATION Nelghborhoods Land Use Concepts 1 2 3 4 5 6 (No Application of Overlay) A AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU B R R R HI HI HI C R R R HI HI HI' D -- — 08/0 ` OSlo 0S/0 HI HI HI E HI r 4.�" 4 HI , ° HI i Hf HI HI F LIM LIM LIM LVW LIM LIM G R Ill HI RHI HI H R HI HI R HI HI I - PF PF HI HI J R R HI R R HI K R R HI R R HI L R R HI R R HI M R R Hf R R HI AP/MU = Airpark/Mixed Use R = Residential LIM = Light Industrial & Warehouse OS/0 = Open Space & Office HI = Heavy Industrial PF = Public Facilities Note: Land uses are generalized and represent the predominant land uses for each Neighborhood. Land Use Concept 1 represents the primary land uses identified in the Specific Plan. Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -63 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 1) Land Use Concept 2 Land Use Concept 2 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods G & H are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 2 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential and commercial acreage decreases. This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 5,157 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 670 acres. Approximately 402 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of two golf courses, as secondary allowable land uses. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 157.6, 57.1 and 667.7 acres, respectively. Commercial areas will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 2 are summarized in Table IV -8 and are depicted in Figure IV -15. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -65 Table IV -8 CONCEPT 2 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU / SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 276.9 1,052 DU Residential Medium (RM) 256.4 2,051 DU Residential High (RH) 136.9 2,054 DU Total Residential 670.2 5,157 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 1,370,615 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 483.4 9,475,607 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 2,056,032 SF Total Industrial 667.7 12,902,254 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 45.6 595,901 SF Total Business 157.6 2,303,453 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 57.1 689,773 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 292,297 SF Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 624.6 TOTAL 2,177.0 5,157 DU 16,192,777 SF Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -65 Chapter IV - Specific Plan 2) Land Use Concent 3 Land Use Concept 3 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods G through M are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 3 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential, public facilities and commercial acreage decreases. This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 2,227 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 274.7 acres. Approximately 402 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of one golf course in the northern portion of the site, as a secondary allowable land use. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 157.6, 44.6 and 1,103.0 acres, respectively. The industrial uses located south of Avenue 62 differ from the industrial uses in Concept 1, in that they are designed to accommodate large-scale industrial uses, resulting in a significantly lower intensity of development. The single, large commercial area adjacent to "A" Street will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 3 are summarized in Table IV -9 and are depicted in Figure IV -16. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -67 The Kohl Ranch -,Coachella Valley • CA Table IV -9 CONCEPT 3 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU / SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 101.6 386 DU Residential Medium (RM) 108.0 864 DU Residential High (RH) 65.1 976 DU Total Residential 274.7 2,227 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9' 509,039 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 918.7' 6,444,044 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.43 385,688 SF Total Industrial 1,103.0 7,338,771 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 45.6 595,901 SF Total Business 157.6 2,303,453 COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 44.6 553,648 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) 0.0 Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 597.1 TOTAL 2,177.0 2,227 DU 10,195,871 SF 1 77.2 acres included in large-scale industrial development. 2 745.3 acres included in large-scale industrial development. 3 Al acreage (94.4 acres) included in large-scale industrial development. NOTE: Total developed acreage included in large-scale development is 916.9 acres. IV -68 The Planning Center Permanent Open Space ____r Concept 3 THE KOHLIRANCH Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale C070 Figure IV -16 Residential . Residential Medium -- --- Residential Commercial Air Park/Mixed Use .......... .......... . ice Industrial HeavyLight . Large Scale Industrial Open Space and Roads Permanent Open Space ____r Concept 3 THE KOHLIRANCH Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale C070 Figure IV -16 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3) Land Use Concept 4 Land Use Concept 4 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods B, C and D are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 4 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential and commercial acreage decreases. This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 4,944 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 690.3 acres. Approximately 411 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of one golf course in the southern portion of the site, as a secondary allowable land use. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 143.1, 17.7 and 691.5 acres, respectively. The single, large commercial area along Avenue 66 will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 4 are summarized in Table IV -10 and are depicted in Figure IV -17. IV -70 The Planning Center Table IV -10 CONCEPT 4 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU / SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 311.3 1,183 DU Residential Medium (RM) 274.8 2,198 DU Residential High (RH) 104.2 1,563 DU Total Residential 690.3 4,944 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 1,370,615 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 507.2 9,942,134 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 2,056,032 SF Total Industrial 691.5 13,368,782 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,553 SF Office (0) 31.1 406,415 SF Total Business 143.1 2,113,967 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 17.7 204,079 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 411.6 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 292,297 SF Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 634.4 TOTAL 2,177.0 4,944 DU 15,984,124 SF IV -70 The Planning Center Concept 4 Reside Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale 0� �7 Figure IV -17 MediumResidential _Residential Public Facilities tfffff*f �i�i iiia �f�afti� a afrf�1� �i�i Commercial Air Park/Mixed Use rrrr.r.rs rrr..r..■ rrl.■...■ rrruru■ .■e Office IIIII�IIiIIbVllll�lLight IIIIIIIIIHeavy Industrial Warehouse/Distributior Open Space and Roads Permanent ,,_ Space Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale 0� �7 Figure IV -17 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA 4) Land Use Concept 5 Land Use Concept 5 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods B, C, D, G and H are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 5 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential and commercial acreage decreases. This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 2,930 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 395.5 acres. Approximately 402 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of one golf course in the southern portion of the site, as a secondary allowable land use. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 143.1, 12.5 and 1,001.5 acres, respectively. The single, large commercial area along Avenue 66 will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 5 are summarized in Table IV -11 and are depicted in Figure IV -18. IV -72 The Planning Center Table IV -11 CONCEPT 5 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU/SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 175.3 666 DU Residential Medium (RM) 148.4 1,187 DU Residential High (RH) 71.8 1,077 DU Total Residential 395.5 2,930 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 1,370,615 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 817.2 16,018,754 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 2,056,032 SF Total Industrial 1,001.5 19,445,402 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (APIMU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 31.1 406,415 SF Total Business 143.1 2,113,967 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 12.5 136,125 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 292,297 SF Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 624.6 TOTAL 2,177.0 2,930 DU 21,992,791 SF IV -72 The Planning Center 1 s Resid( Concept 5 1 1 E il \M1, Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale C awAD P imirP TV 1R Residential Medium e—� Residential ' fffifi }fir««« Commercial Air •. • Use ■ua�ou auis�u■ ■I��IrI�rII�IIu • _ I■ �I4��IlIYIIIIFY�IIII Light• IIIIIIIIIIIHeavy Industrial Warehouse/Distributior Open Space and Roads Permanent Open Space 1 1 E il \M1, Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale C awAD P imirP TV 1R The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA 5 Land Use Concept 6 Land Use Concept 6 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods B, C, D, G, H, I, J, K, L and M are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 6 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential, public facilities, commercial and office acreage decreases. This land use concept provides no residential land uses within the project site. The approximately 402 acres of open space primarily provide for drainage and buffering of adjacent land uses. The business and industrial land uses categories will comprise 143.1 and 1,436.8 acres, respectively. Industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The industrial uses located south of Avenue 62 differ from the industrial uses in Concept 1, in that they are designed to accommodate large-scale industrial uses, resulting in a lower intensity of development. The land uses proposed for Concept 6 are summarized in Table IV -12 and are depicted in Figure IV -19. Table IV -12 CONCEPT STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU / SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) Residential Medium (RM) Residential High (RH) Total Residential INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 77.2' 315,415 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 1,265.2 13,236,137 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.43 385,688 SF Total Industrial 1,436.8 13,937,240 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 31.1 406,415 SF Total Business 143.1 2,113,967 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 597.1 TOTAL 2,177.0 0 DU 16,051,207 SF 1 All Acreage (77.2 acres) included in large-scale industrial development 2 745.3 acres included in large-scale industrial development. 3 All acreage (94.4 acres) included in large-scale industrial development. NOTE: Total developed acreage included in large-scale development is 916.9 acres. IV -74 The Planning Center '/Ifr Air Park/Mixed Use Office Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Large Scale Industrial Open Space and Roads 1 Permanent Open Space 1 THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Concept 6 J Not to Scale Fieure IV 19 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 10. Airport Zones and Utility Easement Beltway a. Thermal Airport Land Use Compatibility The Kohl Ranch site is located immediately south of Thermal Airport, a general aviation transport airport. Based on proximity of the site to the airport, the Specific Plan has been designed to meet the following objectives: ■ reflect current use of and future plans for the airport; ■ respond to constraints posed by the airport influenced area, and ensure land use compatibility with respect to noise, safety and height; and ■ maximize opportunities presented by proximity to this resource through careful design of the project circulation system and strategic location of employment -based uses. In October 1990, the Riverside County Department of Aviation prepared the Thermal Airport Master Plan. The Master Plan identifies the potential for limited commercial air carrier and air cargo service, and evaluates several alternatives for expansion of the airport to meet current and future demands through the year 2010. Plans for both airside and landside improvements are identified, including: extension of Runway 17-35 across Avenue 60 onto the Kohl Ranch property; retention of Runway 12-30 as the crosswind runway; general aviation terminal through expansion/redevelopment of existing facilities; separate air carrier and air cargo area; additional T -hangars; and heliport. In accordance with State requirements, the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prepared the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Thermal Airport in August 1992. The Plan designates an airport influenced area and includes land use compatibility guidelines that address airport noise, safety and height restrictions. The "airport influenced area" around Thermal Airport is defined as the composite of the noise and height influenced area. The Kohl Ranch project is consistent with the land use compatibility guidelines for noise, safety and height contained in the Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and the proposed airport expansion and improvement plans described in the Thermal Airport Master Plan. The project supports the development goals for the Thermal Airport by improving circulation in the project vicinity, and through the location of land uses throughout the Kohl Ranch site. Avenue 60 is planned to be closed due to the extension of runway 17-35 across this roadway onto the Kohl Ranch property. Consequently, the Specific Plan proposes the elimination of Avenue 60 where it would intersect with runway 17-35, and proposes a new arterial, "A" Street, connecting Avenue 60 at the northwest corner of the Kohl Ranch with Avenue 62 at the eastern boundary of the project, to maintain east -west access through the site. In addition, land uses planned for the areas closest to the airport property, such as the Airpark/Mixed Use, Warehouse Distribution, and Heavy and Light Industrial designations, respond to and support the master planned development intended for the airport. These more intense uses are clustered around the proposed airport entrance at the intersection of Avenue 60 and "C" Street, as well as along Polk Street, to take advantage of direct access to the airport. Open Space is concentrated in the airport safety zones. IV -76 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 1) Airport Noise Compatibility Guidelines The CLUP presents noise compatibility guidelines for the Thermal Airport vicinity, as follow: ■ Discourage new single-family dwellings and prohibit mobile homes within the 60 CNEL contour. Where homes are permitted within the 60 CNEL contour, the need for sound insulation should be studied and noise easements should be acquired. ■ Within the 65 CNEL, new residential construction should not be undertaken. New hotels or motels are permitted if the need for sound insulation is evaluated. ■ Institutional uses should be discouraged within the 65-70 CNEL range. If no alternative location is available, the need for sound insulation should be studied. ■ Commercial, industrial and recreational uses are considered compatible with noise levels between the 65 and 70 CNEL. As indicated in Figure IV -20, the Kohl Ranch property is impacted by noise from Thermal Airport. To address airport noise in the Specific Plan, primarily open space uses are located within the 65, 70 and 75 CNEL noise contours. A limited amount of airpark/mixed use and industrial uses are within the 65 CNEL contour, consistent with the guidelines. Land uses within the 60 CNEL contour include open space, industrial, office, commercial, and airpark/mixed use. Some low density and high density residential uses also are within the 60 CNEL contour. Cluster provisions have been incorporated into the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III) so that residential uses can be located outside areas impacted by airport noise. In addition, common walls within high density units are anticipated to attenuate airport noise within the 60 CNEL contour. 2 Airport Vicinity Height Guidelines The Federal government has developed standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 define a variety of imaginary surfaces at certain altitudes around airports. The Part 77 surfaces include the primary surface, approach surface, transitional surface, horizontal surface and conical surface. Collectively, the Part 77 surfaces around an airport define a bowl -shaped area with ramps sloping up from each runway end. The Part 77 standards are not absolute height restrictions, but instead identify elevations at which structures may present a potential safety problem. Penetrations of the Part 77 surface generally are reviewed on a case by case basis. The CLUP uses the Part 77 criteria as the basis for height limitations in the vicinity of Thermal Airport. Height limitations are not anticipated to pose a development constraint for the Kohl Ranch site. Based on the Part 77 surfaces identified in the CLUP, structures above approximately 85 feet in height in the vicinity of Avenue 62, 150 feet in height in the Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -77 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -78 The Planning Center Airport Zones and Easement Beltway J Ave 64 _ E OF U) ti oS� 4a C yt N 10 2 Ne cn I 90 L---- W I �__�.. RUNWAY PROTECT N ZONE r t r 12 �T J nl Ave 62 L)Vi ETZ - Emergency Touchdown Zone oi----- v _ r_7 ISZ - Inner Safety Zone OSZ - Outer Safety Zone " ' ERC - Extended Runway Centerline Zone W TPZ - Traffic Pattern Zone i 60 CNEL Noise Contour - 2010TP — r IT4ASE14 N 2. N RL Residential Low I street RM Residential Medium Residential High, ...� PF Public Facilities �' Commercial Air Park/Mixed User - Q Office st�l LI Light Industrial Heavy Industrial cn _ Ave 66 _ W!D Ware house/Distribution 2S Open Space Scale: V= 2000' THE KOHLEXANCH, C Coachella Valle California Valley, Figure ICT 20 IV -79 Chapter IV • Specific Plan vicinity of Avenue 64, and 315 feet in height in the vicinity of Avenue 66 could potentially create a problem. Development in these areas is not expected to exceed the relevant height limitations. 3) Airport Safety Compatibility Guidelines The CLUP for Thermal Airport establishes land use compatibility guidelines for five airport safety zones. These guidelines are summarized in Table IV -13, and are depicted in Figure IV -20. In addition to the guidelines for the five zones, the CLUP prohibits particularly hazardous land uses in all designated safety zones. These land uses include uses which would impede the ability of the pilot to see the airfield (see Footnote 1 in Table IV -13). As illustrated in Figure IV -20, open space is concentrated within the most restrictive safety zones, the Emergency Touchdown Zone (ETZ) and the Inner Safety Zone (ISZ). Land uses proposed in the Specific Plan within the Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) are limited to office, commercial and light industrial land uses. It is intended that parking for these land uses will be located within the portion of the planning areas within the ISZ, to help achieve the density requirements. The Extended Runway Centerline (ERC) zone, while less restrictive, limits the density of uses within the zone. Consequently, open space and low density residential uses have been sited within this area. Residential cluster provisions incorporated into the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III) encourage common open space areas to be located within the ERC, with transfer of residential density to areas outside the safety zone. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -81 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table IV -13 AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES Zone Maximum Lot Maximum Coverage by Symbol Name Density Structures Land Use' ISZ Inner Safety Zone 0 0 No petroleum or explosives. No above -grade (No structures power lines. permitted) OSZ Outer Safety Uses in structures': 25% of net area No residential, hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, Zone 25 persons/acre schools, hospitals, government services, concert halls, auditoriums, stadiums, arenas, public utility Uses not in stations/plants, public communications facilities. structures: 50 persons/acre No uses involving, as the primary activity, manufacture, storage or distribution of explosives or flammable materials. ETZ Emergency 0 0 No significant obstructions, including but not limited Touchdown Zone (No structures to: large trees, heavy fences and walls, tall and permitted) steep berms and retaining walls, non -frangible street light and sign standards, billboards. ERC Extended 3 du/net acre. 50% of gross area or No uses involving as the primary activity, Runway 65% of net area. manufacture, storage or distribution of explosives Centerline Zone Uses in structures': or flammable materials. Does not apply to service 100 persons/acre, stations involving retail sale of motor vehicle fuel if fuel storage tanks are installed underground. TPZ Traffic Pattern 50% of gross area or Discourage schools, auditoriums, amphitheaters, Zone (FAR Part 65% of net area stadiums. 77 horizontal surface) Discourage uses involving as the primary activity, manufacture, storage or distribution of explosives or flammable materials. Does not apply to service stations involving retail sale of motor vehicle fuel if fuel storage tanks are installed underground. 1. The following uses are prohibited in all airport safety zones: a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport. c. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which otherwise may affect safe air navigation within the area. d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 2. A'structure' includes fully enclosed buildings and other facilities with fixed seating and enclosures limiting the mobility of people, such as sports stadiums, outdoor arenas, and amphitheaters. Source: Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Thermal Airport, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, 1992. b. Utility Easement Beltway As depicted in Figure IV -20, an easement beltway traverses the site in an east -west direction, roughly along the Avenue 64 right-of-way. This beltway contains easements for CVWD irrigation pipes, the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel, and a power line easement for an existing 161 kV power line. This area is proposed to remain in open space, and to incorporate an element of the project -wide trail system, connecting with parks and public facilities throughout the site. Residential development in the planning areas immediately to the north of the easement beltway would be clustered outside of the beltway, to maintain the residential densities in these areas and preserve open space areas. IV -82 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan B. NEIGHBORHOOD AND PLANNING AREA LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development standards for the Kohl Ranch have been established at four levels: Project -wide standards which were discussed in Section IV.A., Design Guidelines which are provided below in Section IV.C., and Neighborhood and Planning Area Development Standards which are provided here. Neighborhood Concept The development proposal for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is founded upon the concept of self-sufficient neighborhoods, each defined by strong edges and an internal circulation system, and identified by a similar orientation, intent and theme. Where appropriate, design guidelines are tailored to reinforce the unique character and theme of the project neighborhoods (See Section IV.C.). Linking all of the neighborhoods is an extensive open space and trail system, relating to the airport safety zones and drainageways, which provides residents and workers with active and passive recreational opportunities and scenic amenity. This open space network also serves to buffer incompatible uses and neighborhoods from one another (See Figure IV -13). As described earlier in this chapter, neighborhoods in the northern portion of the site generally have a high concentration of employment -based uses, while neighborhoods in the southern portion are predominantly residential. All of the project neighborhoods are located within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. The northern portion of the site is also within the Thermal Redevelopment Area. The thirteen project neighborhoods were conceived to create cohesive, well-balanced communities, upon completion of the project. The neighborhoods relate generally to the phasing plan for the project, so that infrastructure and amenities can be readily provided as each neighborhood is developed. However, the neighborhood boundaries are slightly different than the boundaries of the project phasing scenarios which are based on the logical provision of infrastructure as well as overall market forces. Definition of the project planning areas was based upon logical, separate units of development, adjoining land uses, available infrastructure and physical landscape features. Flexibility of the Standards The Neighborhood and Planning Area land use, development and planning standards described here and in Section III (Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance) are designed to provide a high degree of flexibility for future development of the Kohl Ranch site. This flexibility is critical, in order to respond to changing market forces during the life of the project, and to accommodate future conditions related to development of Thermal Airport and within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. This flexibility is reflected in provisions for alternate, or secondary allowable land uses that are specified in the descriptions of neighborhoods and planning areas below. Such secondary Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -83 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA land uses include golf courses and related facilities, as well as industrial uses that are permissible through application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD) described in Section IV.A.9. The conditions under which secondary land uses are allowed, along with the planned use of buffers and organization of land uses throughout the project will ensure that development of the project can be managed over time and that incompatibilities between adjacent land uses can be avoided. Flexibility also is evident in the plan through the incorporation of provisions which allow the clustering of residential uses, through the transfer of private open space to common open space. As a result, overall residential densities remain the same, and a shared amenity is created. The cluster option is particularly well-suited to land within airport -restricted zones, and to planning areas that are adjacent to drainage facilities which may be expanded under a golf course scenario. Organization of this Section Detailed descriptions of the neighborhoods are provided below, followed by neighborhood - wide planning standards which describe airport -related constraints, secondary allowable land uses and conditions, neighborhood access, and streetscape, entry and intersection treatments. Following the neighborhood descriptions and planning standards are descriptions and standards for each individual planning area. A brief description, summary of land use and development standards specified in Section III (Specific Plan Zoning), and applicable planning standards are provided for each planning area. For each planning area, these standards describe such features as secondary allowable land uses and conditions, access, and edge and buffer treatments. A foldout, plan view graphic is provided for each of the thirteen neighborhoods. Each of these graphics is located at the end of the corresponding neighborhood section, and should be kept open during review of the planning area descriptions and standards which precede it. These graphics indicate the location of all planning areas, access points, and all landscape features including streetscapes, intersection details, project entries, edges, buffers and windows. Appropriate references in the graphics and text are made to the Design Guidelines in Section W.C. The graphics for the Design Guidelines are derived from the Community Structure Plan and are intended to convey the project intent with respect to open space, landscaping, site planning and architecture. These elements will create the framework for development of the site. Although development may conform closely to elements of the illustrative plans provided in this section, it is anticipated that actual development will respond to market conditions. A Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance (Section III) was prepared in conjunction with this Specific Plan document. The zoning provisions within that ordinance establish allowable uses and development standards for each planning area. The zoning provisions should be used in conjunction with the planning standards for each planning area. IV -84 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 1. Neighborhood A (See Figure IV -21 on page IV -95) a. Neighborhood A Description Neighborhood A, which consists of eleven planning areas, is located in the northwest corner of the project site, just south of Avenue 60 (Figure IV -21). The neighborhood totals 155.0 acres: 29.4 acres of open space, and 112.0 acres of airpark/mixed use. The neighborhood has a natural outward orientation and response to the regional context. It is located within the Thermal Redevelopment Area. Land uses targeted for Neighborhood A are intended to serve an area larger than the neighborhood itself, providing jobs and services to areas north and west of the site. The uses provided for within Neighborhood A relate to planned uses at the Thermal Airport located immediately to the north, and are clustered around the planned airport entrance at Avenue 60 and "C" Street. A minor project entry is provided at this location. A mix of commercial, very light industrial and service uses are intended to support airport development. The open space areas in the neighborhood, which include a local park and elements of the project -wide trail system are generally coincident with drainageways, and can be developed as a golf course use, if desired. Primary access to the neighborhood is provided via "C" Street which connects Avenue 60 with "A" Street. Access also is provided by an extension of Avenue 60 which connects with "A" Street in the western corner of the neighborhood. A major project entry is provided at this location. b. Neighborhood A Planning Standards 1) The northernmost corner of the neighborhood is constrained by the Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) and Emergency Touchdown Zone (ETZ) airport safety zones. The entire neighborhood is within the Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ). The development restrictions which apply to these zones are described in Section IV.A.9. of this Specific Plan. 2) A secondary, golf course use is permitted in nine of the eleven planning areas (See Section III). 3) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas A-5, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10 and A-11 (See Figure IV -21). 4) "A" Street provides access to Planning Area A-7 (See Figure IV -21). 5) Avenue 60 provides access to Planning Areas A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-6, and A-8 (See Figure IV -21). 6) A Major Project Entry is located in the northwest corner of the site at the intersection of Avenue 60 and "A" Street (see Figures IV -21 and IV -37). 7) A Minor Project Entry is located at the intersection of "C" Street and Avenue 60 (see Figures IV -21 and IV -38). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -85 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 8) A Special Intersection Detail is planned for the intersection of "A" Street and "C" Street (see Figures IV -21 and IV -41). 9) "A" Street will be developed with the Arterial Streetscape 1 as described in Figures IV -21 and IV -42. 10) Avenue 60 will be developed with the Industrial Collector Streetscape (78' ROW) as indicated in Figures IV -21 and IV -51. 11) "C" Street will be developed with the Industrial Collector Streetscape (78' ROW) as indicated in Figures IV -21 and IV -51. c. Neighborhood A Planning Areas 1) Planning Area A-1: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-1, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for development of 0.8 acres of open space. This area is to be used as a collection point for storm flows entering the project site. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-1 is located in the OSZ and TPZ airport safety zones. Development in these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Planning Area A-1 is accessed from Avenue 60 (See Figure IV -21). (3) Landscaping for the Major Project Entry at Avenue 60 and "A" Street will be located in this planning area (See Figure IV -37). (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section IV.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -86 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 2) Planning Area A-2:, _Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-2, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for the development of 0.6 acres of open space which will be developed as a local park. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-2 is located in the ETZ and TPZ airport safety zones. Development in these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Golf course is a secondary land use in this planning area. If a golf course is not built in Neighborhood A, Planning Area A-2 will be developed as a local park. (3) Planning Area A-2 is accessed from Avenue 60 (See Figure IV -21). (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 3. Planning Area A-3: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-3, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for the development of 3.6 acres of open space which will be developed as a local park. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-3 is located in the ETZ, OSZ and TPZ airport safety zones. Development in these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -87 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (2) Golf course is a secondary land use in Planning Area A-3. If a golf course is not built in Neighborhood A, Planning Area A-3 will be developed as a local park. (3) Planning Area A-3 is accessed from Avenue 60 (See Figure IV -21). (4) Landscaping for the Major Project Entry at Avenue 60 and "A" Street will be located in this planning area (See Figure IV -37). (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 4) Plannintr Area A-4: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-4, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for the development of 1.6 acres of open space. This area will be part of the project drainage network. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-4 is located in the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development in this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) The drainageway in Planning Area A-4 will be designed to provide a trail that connects with the project -wide trail system. (3) Planning Area A-4 is accessed from Avenue 60 (See Figure IV -21). (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -88 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 5) Planning Area A-5: Air Park/Mixed Use a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-5, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for 33.7 acres of air park/mixed use development. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) The western portion of Planning Area A-5 is located within the Thermal Airport OSZ. The entire area is within the TPZ. Development in these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area A-5 accessed from Avenue 60 and "C" Street (See Figure IV -21). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the airpark/mixed use development in this planning area and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 6) Planning Area A-6: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-6, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for the development of 16.2 acres of open space that will be part of the project drainage system. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -89 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-6 is located within the Thermal Airport ISZ, ETZ and TPZ. Development in these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area A-6 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -21). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the drainage uses and the airpark/mixed land uses in the adjacent planning area is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) Please refer to Section W.C. for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 7) Planning- Area A-7: Air Park/Mixed Use a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-7, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for 37.3 acres of air park/mixed use development. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) The western portion of Planning Area A-7 is located within the airport OSZ. The entire planning area is within the TPZ. Development in these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in Planning Area A-7. IV -90 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (3) Planning Area A-7 is accessed from "A" Street and "C" Street (See Figure IV -21). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the airpark/mixed land uses in this planning area and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C, for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 81 Plannine Area A-8: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-8, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for the development of 1.6 acres of open space that will be part of the drainage system for the project site. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-8 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) The drainageway in Planning Area A-8 will be designed to provide a trail that connects with the project -wide trail system. (3) Planning Area A-8 is accessed from Avenue 60 (See Figure IV -21). (4) Please refer to Section IV.C, for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -91 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 9 Planning Area A-9: Air Park/Mixed Use a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-9, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for 29.3 acres of air park/mixed use development. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-9 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area A-9 is accessed from Avenue 60 and "C" Street (See Figure IV -21). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the airpark/mixed land uses in this planning area and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 10) Planning Area A-10: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-10, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides for the development of 2.5 acres of open space that will be part of the drainage system for the project site. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning- ). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-10 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. IV -92 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area A-10 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -21). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the drainage uses and the airpark/mixed land uses in the adjacent planning area is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 11) PlanninLr Area A-11: Air Park/Mixed Use a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area A-11, as depicted in Figure IV -21, provides 11.7 acres of air park/mixed use development. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area A-11 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area A-11 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -21). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the airpark/mixed land uses in this planning area and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -93 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -94 The Planning Center LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY Planning Area LEM Un Acreage I Target ftWty (DUTArxe) DwWng Unit Neiglthoritood A A-1 Open Space (OS) 0.8 NA NA A-2 Open Space (OS) 0.6 NA NA A-3 Open Space (OS) 3.6 NA NA A-4 Open Space (OS) 1.6 NA NA A-5 Airport/Mixed Use (APIMU) 33.7 NA NA A-6 Open Spaced (OS) 1&2 NA NA A-7 Airport/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 37.3 NA NA A-8 Open Space (OS) 1.6 NA NA A-9 Airport/Mixed Use (APIMU) 29.3 NA NA A-10 Open Space (OS) 2.5 NA NA A-11 Airport(Mixed Use (APIMU) 11.7 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 13.1 NA NA Subtotal I I 155.0 Kay Map: THE KOHL RANCH, Coachella Valley, California Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) Industrial Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -51) Neighborhood A A-1 os -: 1.9 AC ! ,; •�• �' A AC A-5 CS . AP/MU 3.6 AC•. 35.7 AC C 16.2 AC Typical Access Points Edge Conditions for Drainage Canal and --N for Golf Course Edge (See Figures IV -58 & IV -59) • Arterial Streetscape 1 (See Figure IV -42) Industrial Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -51) Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -41) s �• �g A'/MU 37.3 AC / Minor Entry (See Figure IV -38) A-8 1.9 AC A-9 AP/MU 29.3 AC t A-10,. • •'03 .-% $ AC ARM 1 11.7 AC u Edge Condition —r (See Figure IV -58 & IV -59) R� � i�. Ji IV -95 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 2. Neighborhood B (See Figure IV -22 on page IV -105) a. Neighborhood B Description Neighborhood B contains six planning areas and is comprised of 141.0 acres (Figure IV -22). It is located in the northwestern portion of the project site, just south of "A Street, and is entirely within the Thermal Redevelopment Area. Proposed land uses are focused along "A" Street, and include residential high (29.5 acres), residential medium (32.8 acres), commercial (44.6 acres), office (14.5 acres) and open space to be developed as a local park (8.0 acres). There are a total of 705 residential units planned for Neighborhood B. These units are intended to provide housing for employees of the business, commercial and industrial areas in the northern portion of the project site. The concentration of higher density uses around a commercial center is intended to create a community core. These uses are located within walking distance of residential areas immediately to the south. Primary access to the neighborhood is provided via "A" Street, "B" Street and "C" Street. A major project entry is located within the neighborhood at the point where "A" Street enters the site from the west. A special intersection detail is planned for the intersection of "A" and "C" Streets in the southeast corner of the neighborhood. b. Neighborhood B Planning Standards 1) The open space in the northwestern portion of the neighborhood is constrained by the OSZ and ETZ airport zones. The entire neighborhood is located within the TPZ. The development restrictions which apply to these zones are described in Section IV.A.10 of this Specific Plan. 2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods C and D are also designated for an industrial use. 3) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 4) "A" Street provides access to Planning Areas B-1, B-2, and B-5 (See Figure IV -22). 5) "B" Street provides access to Planning Areas B-3, B-4 and B-5 (See Figure IV -22). 6) "C" Street provides access to Planning Area B-6 (See Figure IV -22). 7) A Major Project Entry is located in the northwest corner of the neighborhood (see Figures IV -22 and IV -37). Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -97 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 8) A Special Intersection Detail is provided for the intersection of "A" and "C" Streets (see Figures IV -22 and IV -41). 9) "A" Street will be developed with the Arterial Streetscape 1 as indicated in Figures IV -22 and IV -42. 10) "B" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary as indicated in Figure IV -47 (88' ROW). 11) "C" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary as indicated in Figure IV -47. 12) Avenue 61 will be developed with the streetscape and buffers described in Figure IV -66 (66' ROW). c. Neighborhood B Planning Areas 1) Planning Area B-1: Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area B-1, as depicted in Figure IV -22, provides for the development of 7.2 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 108 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area B-1 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods C and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area B-1 is accessed from "A" Street (See Figure IV -22). (4) Landscaping for the Major Project Entry at Avenue 60 and "A" Street will be located in this planning area (See Figure IV -37). IV -98 The Plannina Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (5) Planning Area B-4 will be developed with the park edge buffer condition as indicated in Figure IV -60. (6) Planning Area B-1 will be developed with a buffer between the high density residential uses in the planning area and the medium density residential uses in the adjacent planning area (see Figure IV -67). (7) This planning area will be developed with the project edge treatment as depicted in Figure IV -64. (8) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (9) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. 2) Planning Area B-2: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area B-2, as depicted in Figure IV -22, provides for the development of 8.0 acres of open space which will be developed as a local park. This planning area shall remain in permanent open space, regardless of whether the IOD is applied. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area B-2 is located within the Thermal Airport OSZ, ETZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods C and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area B-2 is accessed from "A" Street (See Figure IV -22). (4) The park in Planning Area B-2 will be developed with the edge treatment depicted in Figure IV -60. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -99 The Kohl Ranch o Coachella Valley o CA (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 3) Planning Area B-3: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area B-3, as depicted in Figure IV -22, provides for the development of 32.8 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 262 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area B-3 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods C and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area B-3 is accessed from "B" Street (See Figure IV -22). (4) This planning area will be developed with the project edge treatment as depicted in Figure IV -64. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. IV -100 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 4) Planning Area B-4: Residential Hieh a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area B-4, as depicted in Figure IV -22, provides for the development of 22.3 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 335 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area B-4 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods C and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area B-4 is accessed from "B" Street (See Figure IV -22). (4) Planning Area B-4 will be developed with a buffer between the high density residential uses in the planning area and the medium density residential uses in the adjacent planning area (see Figure IV -67). (5) Planning Area B-4 will be developed with the park edge buffer condition as indicated in Figure IV -60. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area B-5: Commercial a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area B-5, as depicted in Figure IV -22, provides for the development of 44.6 acres of commercial land uses. Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -101 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area B-5 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods C and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area B-5 is accessed from "A" Street, "B" Street and Avenue 61 (See Figure IV -22). (4) This planning area will be developed with the commercial land use buffer as indicated in Figure IV -66. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 6) Plannine Area B-6: Office a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area B-6, as depicted in Figure IV -22, provides for the development of 14.5 acres of office land uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area B-6 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B to be IV -102 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods C and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area B-6 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -22). (4) This planning area will be developed with the land use buffer indicated in Figure IV -65. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -103 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -104 The Planning Center LAMD USE DIAGRAM STATiSTIC1Ai. SUMMARY Planning Area Land LIU Acreage Target Dmft MWS) Do eft Un b Nel#Iood B B-1 High Density Residell M (RH) 72 15 106 B-2 Open Space (OS) 8.0 NA NA B-3 Medium Density Resdemtial (RM) 328 8 252 9-4 High Density Residential (RH) 223 15 335 B-5 Commercial (C) 44.6 NA NA B-6 Office (0) 14.5 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 11.6 NA NA Subtotal 141.0 705 Key Map: Typical Access Points THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Neighborhood B Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) Product Type Buffer (See Figure IV -67) Project Edge Condition 'B- (See Figure IV -64) 7.2 AC B-2 Park Edge Buffer Condition IND + p= I (Sae Figure IV -60) 6.0 AC I ! Arterial Streetscape 1 B- '`' (See Figure IV -42) 22.3 AC s�3 ou Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -41) "M B-5 32.0 AC C 1 202 DU 44.6 AC M I B-6 North/South Streetscape 1 jM.A.P. 14.3 AlI Secondary Commercial Land Use ._L__ �^ , (See Figure IV -47) Suffer/Avenue 61 Streetscape (See Figure IV -66) North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Land Use Buffer - (See Figure IV -65) Y IV -105 Chapter IV a Specific Plan 3. Neighborhood C (See Figure IV -23 on page IV -119) a. Neighborhood C Description Neighborhood C is located just north of Avenue 62 in the northwestern portion of the project site (Figure IV -23), and is entirely within the Thermal Redevelopment Area. This 245.8 -acre neighborhood contains the following land uses within its eleven planning areas: residential low (101.6 acres), residential medium (75.2 acres), residential high (35.6 acres) and open space (16.4 acres). Dwelling units total 1,522. The predominantly residential uses are intended to house employees working in the employment -based neighborhoods located nearby. The proximity of these residential areas to job opportunities is designed to reduce the number and length of home -to -work trips that would otherwise be generated by these land uses. The higher density residential uses are located in closer proximity to office and commercial uses, while the lower density residential uses are located at the project periphery. If developed with a golf course, a permitted use under provisions of the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III), residents would be provided with a high quality recreational and scenic amenity. A number of the neighborhood planning areas would be afforded golf course frontage. In the absence of the golf course, drainageways would function to provide more natural open space, providing structure and definition to the neighborhood. In addition, a local park would be developed roughly in the center of the neighborhood to serve neighborhood residents. Primary access to the neighborhood is from "B" Street, "C" Street and Avenue 62. b. Neighborhood C Planning Standards 1) Neighborhood C is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development standards associated with this zone are contained in Section IV.A.10 of this Specific Plan. 2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. 3) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 4) A secondary, golf course use is permitted in eight of the eleven planning areas (See Section III). 5) Avenue 62 provides access to Planning Areas C-3, C-7 and C-11 (See Figure IV -23). 6) "B" Street provides access to Planning Areas C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6 and C-7 (See Figure IV -23). Draft Saecific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -107 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 7) Tyler Street north of Avenue 62 provides access to Planning Areas C-4, C-6, C-7, C-9 and C-11 (See Figure IV -23). 8) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas C-4, C-8, C-9 and C-10 (See Figure IV -23). 9) A Minor Entry is located at "B" Street and Avenue 62 (See Figures IV -23 and IV -39). 10) "B" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary, as described in Figures IV -23 and IV -47. 11) "C" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary, as depicted in Figures IV -23 and IV -47. 12) Tyler Street north of Avenue 62 will be developed with the Collector Streetscape - as illustrated in Figures IV -23 and IV -54. 13) Avenue 61 will be developed with the streetscape and buffers described in Figure IV -66 (66' ROW). 14) Avenue 62 will be developed with the Avenue 62 Streetscape - Secondary, as depicted in Figures IV -23 and IV -49. 15) A local park will be provided in Planning Area C-5 and portions of Planning Area C-6, to serve neighborhood residents (See Figure IV -23). c. Neighborhood C Planning Areas 1) Planning Area C-1: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-1, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 38.5 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 146 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-1 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation IV -108 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) Planning Area C-1 is accessed from "B" Street (See Figure IV -23). (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses in this planning area and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course use is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) The Project Edge Treatment for this planning area is illustrated in Figure IV -57. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. 2) Planning Area C-2; Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-2, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 5.5 acres of open space which will be part of the project drainage system. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-2 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. Draft Specific Plan - Mav 13, 1996 IV -109 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (4) Planning Area C-2 is accessed from "B" Street (see Figure IV -23). (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the drainage uses and the residential land uses in the adjacent planning areas is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. 3) Plannia Area C-3, Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-3, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for 31.1 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 118 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-3 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) Planning Area C-3 is accessed from "B" Street and Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -23). (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and the drainage uses in the adjacent planing area is illustrated in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. IV -110 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 4) Planning Area C-4: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-4, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 75.2 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 602 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-4 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) Planning Area C-4 is accessed from "B" Street, "C" Street, Tyler Street and Avenue 61 (See Figure IV -23). (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is illustrated in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Planning Area C-4 will be developed with the Land Use Buffer/Avenue 61 Streetscape as illustrated in Figure IV -66. (7) This planning area will be developed with the Buffer Condition along the adjacent property to the east which is depicted in Figure IV -64. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -111 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (8) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (9) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area C-5. Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-5, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 1.9 acres of open space that will be developed as a local park and as part of the project drainage network. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-5 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. If a golf course is not developed in Neighborhood C, Planning Area C-5 will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning Area C-5 is accessed from "B" Street (See Figure IV -23). (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -112 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 6) Planning Area C-6: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-6, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 5.9 acres of open space that will be part of the project drainage system. A portion of the planning area will be developed as a local park. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-6 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) If the golf course is not developed, this drainage way will be designed to provide a trail that connects with the project -side trail system. (5) Planning Area C-6 is accessed from "B" Street and "C" Street (See Figure IV -23). (6) The edge treatment for the interface between the drainage uses and the residential land uses in adjacent planning areas is illustrated in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -113 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA 7) Plannini Area C-7: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-7, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for 32.0 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 122 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-7 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) Planning Area C-7 is accessed from "B" Street, "C" Street and Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -23). (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is depicted in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 81 Plannine Area C-8: Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-8, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 12.8 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 IV -114 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 192 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-8 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area C-8 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -23). (4) The buffer planned between the high density residential land uses and the adjacent office uses is illustrated in Figure IV -65. (5) If a golf course is developed in Neighborhood C, the eastern edge of Planning Area C-8 will be developed with the golf course edge treatment shown in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 9) Planning, Area C-9: Residential Hikh a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-9, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 9.3 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 140 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -115 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley a CA c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-9 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) Planning Area C-9 is accessed from "C" Street and Tyler Street (See Figure IV -23). (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential land uses and the adjacent drainage uses is illustrated in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 10) Planning Area C-10: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-10, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 3.1 acres of open space as part of the drainage system for the project site. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-10 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise IV -116 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) If the golf course is not developed, this drainageway will be designed to provide a trail that connects with the project -wide trail system. (5) Planning Area C-10 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure (IV -23). (6) The edge treatment between the drainage uses and the adjacent residential uses is described in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section IV.A., for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 11) Planning Area C-11: residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area C-11, as depicted in Figure IV -23, provides for the development of 13.5 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 202 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area C-11 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood C to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods B and D are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -117 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (4) Planning Area C-11 is accessed from Tyler Street and Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -23). (5) The edge treatment between the residential land uses and the adjacent drainage facilities is described is Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -118 The Planning Center LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY Planning Area Law Use Acreage Target Density (DU/Akre) Dwelling Units Neighborhood C C-1 Low Density Residential (RL) 38.5 3.8 146 C-2 Open Space (OS) 5.5 NA NA C-3 Low Density Residential (RL) 31.1 3.8 118 C-4 Medium Density Residential (RM) 75.2 8 602 C-5 Open Space (OS) 1.9 NA NA C-6 Open Space (OS) 5.9 NA NA C-7 Low Density Residential (RL) 320 3.8 122 C-8 High Density Residential (RH) 128 15 192 C-9 High Density Residential (RH) 9.3 15 140 C-10 Open Space (OS) 3.1 NA NA C-11 High Density Residential (RH) 13.5 15 202 ROW Right -of -Way 17.0 NA NA Subtotal I 245.8 J 1,522 Key Map: Typical Access Points THE KOHL. RANCH Coachella Valley, California Land Use Buffer/Avenue 61 Streetscape (See Figure IV-" North/South Streetscape 1 Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Lrr�+w Project Edge (See Figure IV -51) L� i C-1 FIL 38.5 1N DUU a5- 1.9 AC C-3 RL 31.1 AC r 11i DU Land Use Buffer - (See Figure IV -65) Outparcel Buffer - (See Figure IV -64) FIM 75.2 AC 902 DU Minor Entry (See Figure IV -39) Avenue 62 Streetscape - Secondary (See Figure IV -49) Edge Condition for Drainage Canal and Golf Course Edge (See Figures IV -58 & IV -59) Neighborhood C Edge Condition — (See Figure IV -59) C-8 1N 12.8 AC 1192 DU C-6 \`• as\� � '�•�. C-11' � C&7 C-10 115 AC .., o8 32.0 AC ■ 3.1 AC 122 DU Minor Entry (See Figure IV -39) Avenue 62 Streetscape - Secondary (See Figure IV -49) Edge Condition for Drainage Canal and Golf Course Edge (See Figures IV -58 & IV -59) Neighborhood C Edge Condition — (See Figure IV -59) C-8 1N 12.8 AC 1192 DU Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) North/South Streetscape 1 Secondary (See Figure IV -47) ?a V71M Figure IV 23 IV -1 19 !.3 A DU � '�•�. C-11' � AN C-10 115 AC .., o8 202 DU ■ 3.1 AC Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) North/South Streetscape 1 Secondary (See Figure IV -47) ?a V71M Figure IV 23 IV -1 19 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 4. Neighborhood D (See Figure IV -24 on page IV -129) a. Neighborhood D Description Neighborhood D is located in the northern portion of the project site, between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 (Figure IV -24). This neighborhood is intended to function as a buffer between the business, commercial and residential uses to the west, and the heavy industrial uses to the east. The neighborhood is 215.2 acres in size and consists of 176.3 acres of open space and 31.1 acres of office uses. Much of the open space is within airport influenced areas and is designed to handle storm drainage. This open space also provides a local park and incorporates a portion of the project -wide trail system. The office uses are in close proximity to residential uses in neighborhoods B, C and G, and are intended to provide employment to neighborhood residents. Primary access to the office uses in the neighborhood is provided via "A" Street, "C" Street, and Avenue 62. If developed with a golf course, a permitted use under provisions of the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III), Neighborhood D would be equipped with a clubhouse and driving range, which would provide meeting, dining and recreational opportunities to neighborhood residents. b. Neighborhood D Planning Standards 1) The open space in the neighborhood is constrained by the OSZ, Inner Safety Zone (ISZ) and ETZ airport zones. The entire neighborhood is within the TPZ. The development restrictions which apply to these zones are described in Section IV.A.10. of this Specific Plan. 2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B and C are also designated for an industrial use. 3) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 4) A secondary, golf course use is permitted in two of the six planning areas (See Section III). 5) "A" Street provides access to Planning Area D-2 (See Figure IV -24). 6) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas D-2, D-4 and D-6 (See Figure IV -24). 7) Avenue 62 provides access to Planning Areas D-3, D-4, D-5 and D-6 (See Figure IV -24). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -121 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA 8) "A" Street will be developed with Arterial Streetscape 2 as illustrated in Figures IV -24 and IV -43. 9) "C" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary, as illustrated in Figures IV -24 and IV -47. 10) Avenue 62 will be developed with the Avenue 62 Streetscape - Secondary (See Figures IV -24 and IV -49). 11) Planning Areas D-3 and D5, and portions of Planning Area D-4 will be developed as a local park. c. Neighborhood D Planning Areas 1) Planning Area D-1: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area D-1, as depicted in Figure IV -24, provides for the development of 159.0 acres of open space. A portion of this area will be used to handle storm flows. Much of the planning area is described in the Thermal Airport Master Plan as proposed for acquisition for the runway clear zone. This planning area shall remain in permanent open space, regardless of whether the IOD is applied. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area D-1 is located within the Thermal Airport ETZ, OSZ, ISZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B and C are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) This planning area will include provisions for a pedestrian trail that links the trail along Avenue 60 with the trail through open space and drainage areas to the south. (5) Planning Area D-1 is accessed from Avenue 60 (See Figure IV -24). IV -122 Tke DI --- ;.... f'.,...,.. Chapter IV • Specific Plan (6) The Buffer Condition between Planning Area D-1 and adjacent airpark/mixed use and industrial development will be as illustrated in Figure IV -63. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. 2 Planning -Area D-2: Office a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area D-2, as depicted in Figure IV -24, provides for the development of 28.0 acres of office uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) The eastern portion of Planning Area D-2 is located within the Thermal Airport OSZ. The entire planning area is within the TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B and C are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. The golf course use would include the driving range. (4) Planning Area D-2 is accessed from "A" Street and "C" Street (See Figure IV -24). (5) The edge treatment between the office uses and adjacent drainage areas is illustrated in Figure IV -58. (7) If the golf course use is developed, the edge treatment for the interface with residential uses in Neighborhood C will be as described in Figure IV -59. (8) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -123 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 3 Planning Area D-3: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area D-3, as depicted in Figure IV -24, provides for the development of 5.6 acres of open space. This area has been designated for the development of a local park. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area D-3 is located within the Thermal Airport ETZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. This planning area will remain in permanent open space, regardless of whether the IOD is applied. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B and C are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) If a golf course is developed in Neighborhood D, a portion of Planning Area D-3 (5.6 acres) will be developed as a local park. If a golf course is not developed, all of the planning area will be a park. (5) Planning Area D-3 is accessed from Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -24). (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section IV.A., for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -124 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 4) Plannine Area D-4: _ Open Space._ a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area D-4, as depicted in Figure IV -24, provides for the development of 7.3 acres of open space which will be part of the project drainage system and developed as a local park. This planning area will remain in permanent open space, regardless of whether the IOD is applied. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area D-4 is located within the Thermal Airport ETZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B and C are also designated for an industrial use. (3) This planning area will include provisions for a pedestrian trail that links this park with the trail to the north and the parks and trail system to the south. (4) Planning Area D-4 is accessed from Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -24). (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area D-5: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area D-5, as depicted in Figure IV -24, provides for the development of 4.4 acres of open space. This open space area will be used for the development of a local park. This planning area will remain in permanent open space, regardless of whether the IOD is applied. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -125 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area D-5 is located within the Thermal Airport ETZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B and C are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area D-5 will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning Area D-5 is accessed from Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -24). (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 6) Planning Area D-6: Office a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area D-6, as depicted in Figure IV -24, provides for the development of 3.1 acres of office uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area D-6 is located within the Thermal Airport OSZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood D to be IV -126 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood B and C are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (4) Planning Area D-6 is accessed from Avenue 62 (See figure IV -24). (5) The edge treatment between the office uses and adjacent drainage facilities is illustrated in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -127 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] IV -128 The Planning Center LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY Phnnirg Axes Land Use Acreage Target DMarnity (DWAcre) D+wrMrg Units Neiglilm ad D D-1 Open Spaci (OS) 159.0 NA NA D-2 Ofte (0) 28.0 NA NA D-3 Open Space (OS) 5.6 NA NA D-4 Open Space (OS) 7.3 NA NA D-5 Open Space (OS) 4.4 NA NA D-6 Office (0) 3.1 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 7.8 NA NA Subtotal 1 215.2 Key Map: THE KOHL RANCH.. Coachella Valley, California Air Park Drain (See Figure IV - Edge Conditions (See Figures IV -5 IV -58) Typical Access P, North/South Stre Secondary (See Figure IV -47 Neighborhood D rial Streetscape 2 Figure IV -43) e 62 Streetscape - dary 'figure IV -49) IV -129 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 5. Neighborhood E (See Figure IV -25 on page IV -135) a. Neighborhood E Description Neighborhood E is situated in the northeastern corner of the project site and is bounded by Thermal Airport and Avenue 60 on the north, Polk Street on the east and "A" Street on the south (Figure IV -25). This neighborhood has a strong regional orientation as a result of its excellent access to the regional circulation system and to Thermal Airport. The neighborhood also looks eastward by virtue of its potential connection to the proposed interchange at Avenue 62 and the new Highway 86, just a few miles to the east. Primary access is provided by Polk Street, "A" Street and Avenue 60. The land uses proposed in this 189.4 -acre neighborhood include heavy industrial (173.4 acres) and open space (7.2 acres). The open space in the northeastern corner of the neighborhood responds to airport -related constraints, and is planned for a local park. Land designated for heavy industry abutting the airport property offers the potential for airport uses to extend southward into the site. This area also has potential for rail service to be provided from the north via a rail spur from the Southern Pacific main line. Development along Polk Street has convenient access to the planned entrance to Thermal Airport from Polk Street into the air cargo terminal identified in the 1990 Airport Master Plan. Agricultural operations to the east of Polk Street offer the potential for development of compatible agriculture -related uses on the property. b. Neighborhood E Planning Standards 1) The open space in Neighborhood E is constrained by the OSZ and ETZ airport zones. The entire neighborhood is within the TPZ. The development restrictions which apply to these zones are described in Section IV.A.10 of this Specific Plan. 2) Neighborhood E is equipped with a 7.2 -acre local park to serve the employees of industrial land uses in the neighborhood. 3) "A" Street provides access to Planning Area E-2 (See Figure IV -25). 4) Avenue 60 provides access to Planning Area E-1 and E-2 (See Figure IV -25). 5) Polk Street provides access to Planning Area E-2 (See Figure IV -25). 6) A Major Project Entry is located at "A" Street and Polk Street (See Figures IV -25 and IV -37). 7) A Special Intersection Detail is located at "A" Street and Avenue 62 as illustrated in Figures IV -25 and IV -41. 8) Polk Street will be developed with Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major (See Figures IV -25 and IV -44). Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13. 1996 IV -131 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 9) "A" Street will be developed with Arterial Streetscape 1 as illustrated in Figure IV -25 and IV -42. 10) Avenue 60 will be developed with the Industrial Collector Streetscape as illustrated in Figures IV -25 and IV -51. c. Neighborhood E Planning Areas 1) Planning Area E-1: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area E-1, as depicted in Figure IV -25, provides for the development of 7.2 acres of open space which will be developed as a local park to serve employees of the adjacent industrial uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area E-1 is located within the Thermal Airport ETZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) This planning area will be developed as a local park. (3) Planning Area E-1 is accessed from Avenue 60 (See Figure IV -25). (4) Please refer to Section N.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section IV.A., for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. 2) Planning Area E-2: heavy Industrial a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area E-2, as depicted in Figure IV -25, provides for the development of 173.4 acres of heavy industrial land uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). IV -132 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan c) Planning Standards (1) A portion of Planning Area E-1 is located within the Thermal Airport OSZ. The entire planning area is within the TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Access to Planning Area E-2 is from Avenue 60, Polk Street and "A" Street (See Figure IV -25). (3) The edge treatment for the interface between the planned industrial uses and adjacent open space is illustrated in Figure IV -63. (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. Draft Specific Plan 9 Mav 13. 1996 IV -133 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank] IV -134 The Plannina Center Key Map: Coachella Valley, California Industri`' Streets( (See Fig Intersection Doti (See Figure IV -4' Neighborhood E Typical Access Points Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major (See Figure IV -44) Lrterial Streetscape 1 See Figure IV -42) Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) 00 Figure IV -25 IV 135 LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SLIMMARY Planning Area Land Use Acreage Target Density (DU/Acre) Dweiiing Units Neighborhood E E-1 Open Space (OS) 7.2 NA NA E-2 Heavy Industrial (HQ 173.4 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 8.81 NA NA Subtotal I J 189.4 Key Map: Coachella Valley, California Industri`' Streets( (See Fig Intersection Doti (See Figure IV -4' Neighborhood E Typical Access Points Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major (See Figure IV -44) Lrterial Streetscape 1 See Figure IV -42) Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) 00 Figure IV -25 IV 135 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 6. Neighborhood F (See Figure IV -26 on page IV -141) a. Neighborhood F Description Neighborhood F totals 200.9 acres, and is located along Polk Street, just south of "A" Street (Figure IV -26). Its light industrial (89.9 acres) and warehousing/distribution (94.4 acres) land uses are positioned to take advantage of proximity to the Thermal Airport to the north and the new Highway 86 to the east. Development along Polk Street has convenient access to the planned entrance to Thermal Airport from Polk Street into the air cargo terminal identified in the 1990 Airport Master Plan. Primary access is provided by "A" Street, "D" Street, Avenue 62 and Polk Street. It is anticipated that the planned land uses will provide employment to project area residents and will service an area larger than the site itself. A vegetated open space buffer along the western and southern boundaries prevents adverse effects on adjacent residential neighborhoods. b. Neighborhood F Planning Standards 1) Portions of the light industrial land uses in Neighborhood F are constrained by the OSZ, ERC and ETZ airport zones. The entire neighborhood is within the TPZ. The development restrictions which apply to these zones are described in Section IV.A.10 of this Specific Plan. 2) Major project entry is located at the intersection of "A" Street and Polk Street (See Figures 26 and IV -37.) 3) An intersection detail is planned for "A" Street and Avenue 62 (See Figures IV -26 and IV -41). 4) "D" Street will provide access to Planning Areas F-2 and F-3 (See Figure IV -26). 5) Avenue 62 provides access to Planning Area F-1 (See Figure IV -26). 6) Polk Street provides access to Planning Area F-3 (See Figure IV -26). 7) "A" Street will be developed with Arterial Streetscape 1 (See Figures IV -26 and IV -42). Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -137 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 8) Polk Street will be developed with the Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major, as illustrated in Figures IV -26 and IV -44. 9) "D" Street will be developed with the Industrial Collector Streetscape as illustrated in Figures IV -26 and IV -51. 10) Avenue 62 will be developed with the Avenue 62 Streetscape - Secondary, as depicted in Figures IV -26 and IV -49. c. Neighborhood F Planning Areas 11 Plannine Area F-1: Licht Industrial a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area F-1, as depicted in Figure IV -26, provides for the development of 12.7 acres of light industrial land uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area F-1 is located within the Thermal Airport OSZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Planning Area F-1 is accessed from Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -26). (3) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (4) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. IV -138 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 2) Planning Area F-2: Light Industrial a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area F-2, as depicted in Figure IV -26, provides for the development of 77.2 acres of light industrial land uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area F-2 is located within the Thermal Airport ERC and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Planning Area F-2 is accessed from "D" Street (See Figure IV -26). (3) The edge treatment for the interface between the planning area and adjacent drainage channel is shown in Figure IV -62. (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section IV.A., for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. 3) Planning Area F-3: Warehouse/Distribution a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area F-3, as depicted in Figure IV -26, provides for the development of 94.4 acres of warehouse/distribution land uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -139 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area F-3 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) Planning Area F-3 is accessed form "D" Street and Polk Street (See Figure IV -26). (3) A Major Project Entry is located in the northeast corner of this planning area (See Figure IV -37). (4) A Minor Entry is located in the southeast corner of the planning area (See Figure IV -39). (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section N.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. IV -140 The Planning Center Key Map: Ave. 62 Streetscape Secondary (See Figure IV -49) Typical Access Points Channel Detail' j (See Figure IV -62) f I t THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -41) Arterial Streetscape /San Plntira MAM Neighborhood F Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) Industrial Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -51) Polk St Streetscape 1 - Major (See Figure IV -44) Minor Entry (See Figure IV -39) Y IV -141 LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY Planning Area Land Use I Acfup I I(DU1Acrs) Targat Density DweWng Unb Neighborhood F F-1 Light Industrial (Ll) 12.7 NA NA F-2 Light Industrial (U) 77.2 NA NA F-3 Warehouse/Distribudon (W/D) 94.4 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 16.6 NA NA Subtotal 200.9 Key Map: Ave. 62 Streetscape Secondary (See Figure IV -49) Typical Access Points Channel Detail' j (See Figure IV -62) f I t THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -41) Arterial Streetscape /San Plntira MAM Neighborhood F Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) Industrial Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -51) Polk St Streetscape 1 - Major (See Figure IV -44) Minor Entry (See Figure IV -39) Y IV -141 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 7. Neighborhood G (See Figure IV -27 on page IV -151) a. Neighborhood G Description Neighborhood G is a predominantly residential neighborhood located roughly in the center of the project site, just east of Tyler Street (Figure IV -27). Primary access to the neighborhood is provided by "C" Street and Avenue 62. This is a self-contained, inward focused community that is physically separated from the airport and major circulation routes. A small neighborhood commercial area (5.2 acres) at the northern end of the neighborhood is intended to serve residents of Neighborhood G as well as Neighborhoods C and H. Residential uses include: residential high (18.8 acres), residential medium (62.4) and residential low (100.3). It is envisioned that this 242.4 -acre neighborhood will be a retirement/second home community with a total of 1,162 dwelling units. Airport safety zones impacting the neighborhood dictate the location of low density residential uses to the east of "C" Street and discourage the siting of public facilities within the neighborhood. Consequently, the neighborhood is served by public uses to the south in Neighborhood 1, just outside the airport TPZ. Open space totals 31.7 acres, functioning as part of the storm drainage system and enhanced by windrow plantings, provides a buffer from adjacent neighborhoods and off-site uses. A neighborhood park is located along the eastern edge of the neighborhood, serving Neighborhood H as well. A component of the project -wide trail system is integrated with a power line easement along the neighborhood's southern edge. This trail connects local parks to the north with public facilities to the south. b. Neighborhood G Planning Standards 1) Portions of the residential and open space land uses in Neighborhood G are constrained by the OSZ, ERC and ETZ airport zones. The entire neighborhood is within the TPZ. The development restrictions which apply to these zones are described in Section IV.A.10. of this Specific Plan. 2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. 3) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 4) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas G-1, G-4, G-5, G-6, G-8, G-10, G-11 and G-13 (See Figure IV -27). 5) Avenue 62 provides access to Planning Area G-1, G-2, G-3 and G-6 (See Figure IV -27). Draft Specific Plan 9 MaV 13, 1996 IV -143 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA 6) The interior east -west loop road provides access to Planning Areas G-7, G-8, G-9, G-10, G-11, G-12 and G-13 (See Figure IV -27). 7) Avenue 62 will be developed with the Avenue 62 Streetscape - Secondary, as illustrated in Figure IV -27 and IV -49. 8) "C" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape 2 - Secondary, as described in Figures IV -27 and IV -48. 9) The interior loop road will be developed with the Collector Streetscape (See Figures IV -27 and IV -54). 10) Windrow plantings will be provided as a buffer between land uses and along drainage channels, and will be integrated into the trail system (See Figure IV -27). c. Neighborhood G Planning Areas 1) Planning Area G-1: Commercial a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-1, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 5.2 acres of neighborhood commercial land uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Areas G-1 is located within the Thermal Airport OSZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-1 is accessed from Avenue 62 and "C" Street (See Figure IV -27). (4) The edge treatment between the commercial and adjacent land uses is illustrated in Figure IV -65. IV -144 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. 2) Planning Area G-2: OpenSpace a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-2, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for 1.8 acres of open space that will be developed as a local park. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-2 is located within the thermal Airport ETZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-2 will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning Area G-2 is accessed from Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -27). (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 3) Planning Area G-3: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-3, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides of 1.8 acres of open space that will be developed as a local park. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -145 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-3 is located within the Thermal Airport ETZ and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-3 will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning Area G-3 is accessed from Avenue 62 (See Figure IV -27). (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 4) Planning Area G-4: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-4, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 3.5 acres of open space that will be part of the drainage system for the site. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-4 is located within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise IV -146 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-4 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -27). (4) This planning area will be developed with the cross-section shown in Figure IV -48. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area G-5: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-5, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 36.6 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 139 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) The eastern half of Planning Area G-5 is within the Thermal Airport ERC. The entire planning area is within the TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-5 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -27). (4) The edge treatment between the residential land use and the adjacent commercial uses to the north is illustrated in Figure IV -65. (5) The edge treatment between the residential land use and the adjacent drainage channel is shown in Figure IV -62. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -147 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 6) Planning Area G-6; Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-6, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 14.5 acres of open space. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-6 is within the Thermal Airport ETZ, ERC and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) The northern most portion of the planning area (1.8 acres) will be developed as a local park. (4) The remainder of this planning area (12.7 acres) will be developed as a graded drainage channel, with a trail provided to connect with local parks to the north and to the south. (5) Planning Area G-6 is accessed from Avenue 62 and "C" Street (See Figure IV -27). (6) This Planning Area will be developed with the channel cross-section described in Figure IV -62. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site - wide. IV -148 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 7) Planning Area G-7: Residential_ Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-7, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 62.4 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 499 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-7 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-7 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -27). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between this planning area and the adjacent Evacuation Channel is shown in Figure IV -61. (5) The Project Edge Condition for this planning area adjacent to Tyler Street, is shown in Figure IV -57. (6) The Project Edge Condition for this planning area and adjacent properties is shown in Figure IV -64. (7) Planning Area G-7 will be developed with a windrow/trail detail, as illustrated in Figure IV -56. (8) The southern edge of this planning area will be developed with a trail that will be integrated with the power line easement that runs east -west through the neighborhood (See Figure IV -61). (9) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -149 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (10) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 8) Plannigg Area G-8: Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-8, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 18.8 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 282 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-8 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-8 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -27). (4) Planning Area G-8 will be developed with a windrow/trail detail, as shown in Figure IV -56. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 9) Planning Area G-9: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-9, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides of 5.1 acres of open space to be developed as part of the project drainage system. IV -150 The Planning Center Chapter IV - Specific Plan b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-9 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-9 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -27). (4) The project edge condition for this planning area is indicated in Figure IV -57. (5) The southern edge of this planning area will be developed with a trail that will be integrated with the power line easement that runs east -west through the neighborhood (See Figure IV -61). (6) The edge treatment for the interface between this planning area and the adjacent Evacuation Channel is illustrated in Figure IV -61- (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 101 Planning Area G-10: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-10, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 19.6 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 74 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -151 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-10 is within the Thermal Airport ERC and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-10 is accessed from "C" Street and the interior east -west loop road (Figure IV -27). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and adjacent drainage facilities is illustrated in Figure IV -62. (5) The trail along the eastern edge of the planning area will be developed as described in Figure IV -56. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 11 Planning Area G-11: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-11, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 25.5 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 97 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-11 is within the Thermal Airport ERC and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise IV -152 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-11 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figures IV -27). (4) The edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent park will be as described in Figure IV -60. (5) Planning Area G-11 will be developed with a windrow/trail detail, as illustrated in Figure IV -56. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 12) Planning Area G-12: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-12, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for 5.0 acres of open space to be developed as a local park. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-12 is within the Thermal Airport ERC and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-12 will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning Area G-12 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -27). (5) The park buffer between adjacent residential uses is illustrated in Figure IV -60. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -153 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley s CA (6) Please refer to Section W.C. for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 13) Planninz Area G-13: Residential_ Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area G-13, as depicted in Figure IV -27, provides for the development of 18.6 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 71 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area G-13 is within the Thermal Airport ERC and TPZ. Development within these zones will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area G-13 is accessed from "C" Street and the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -27). (4) The edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent Evacuation Channel is illustrated in Figure IV -61- (5) The southern edge of this planning area will be developed with a trail that will be integrated with the power line easement that runs east -west through the neighborhood (See Figure IV -61). (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -154 The Planning Center LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL StNMARY Planning Area Land Use Acreege Target Denlaity (DU/Acre) Dwelling UrA3 Neighborhood G G-1 Commercial (C) 5.2 NA NA G-2 Open Space (OS) 1.8 NA NA G-3 Open Space (OS) 1.8 NA NA G-4 Open Space (OS) 3.5 NA NA G-5 Low Density Residential (RL) 36.6 3.8 139 G-6 Open Space (OS) 14,5 NA NA G-7 Medium Density Residentlal (RM) 624 8 499 G-8 High Density Residential (RH) 18.8 15 282 G-9 Open Space (OS) 5.1 NA NA G-10 Low Density Residential (RL) 19.6 3.8 74 G-11 Low Density Residenliai (RL) 25.5 3.8 97 G-12 Open Space (OS) 5.0 NA NA G-13 Low Density Residential (RL) 18.6 3.8 71 ROW Right -of -Way 24.0 NA NA Subtotal 2424 1,162 Key Map: Ave. 62 Streetscape - Secondary (See Figure IV -49) North/South Streetscape 2 - Secondary—\ (See Figure IV -48) Typical Access Points Adjacent Property Buffer (See Figure IV -64) Project Edge Condition (See Figure IV -57) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) KOHL RANCH, Coachella Valley, California Evacuation Canal Buffer (See Figure IV -61) X G-7 AM 52.4 AC i aN DU i . 3A AC r G-8 18.9 AC 252 DU G-1 L i/1 i .'. i L .L. i 1.5 ACI I I I l -5 i s i�5 AC 13i DU I E I i I i I I I e I � G-10 L I RL 15.5 AC 7s DU i G-11 RL 25.5 AC !7 DU ;G-13 y At 11/.4 AC 1.71 DLI Neighborhood G Land Use Buffer (See Figure IV -65) -0--- 1 1.5 AC J I Channel Buffer Detail (See Figure IV -62) 1 k-5 AC I 0 -Windrow/Trail Detail (See Figure IV -56) i "r 2IPark Edge Buffer (See Figure IV -60) I Figure IV -27 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 8. Neighborhood H (See Figure IV -28 on page IV -167) a. Neighborhood H Description Neighborhood H, like Neighborhood G, is a residential neighborhood located in the central portion of the site. It is bounded by Polk Street on the east and the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel to the south. The neighborhood is accessed from Polk Street and "C" Street. It is separated from the industrial uses to the north and off-site uses to the east by a landscaped buffer. Residential uses include: residential high (13.6 acres), residential medium (64.0 acres) and residential low (35.7 acres). Dwelling units in this 150.9 -acre retirement/second home community total 852. The airport safety zone impacting the neighborhood discourages the siting of public facilities within Neighborhood H. However, the neighborhood is served by public uses located to the south in Neighborhood I, just outside the airport TPZ. Open space totals 23.1 acres, functioning as part of the storm drainage system, and enhanced by windrow plantings, and provides a buffer from adjacent neighborhoods and off-site uses. A neighborhood park is located along the western edge of Neighborhood H, serving Neighborhood G as well. A component of the project -wide trail system is integrated with a power line easement along the neighborhood's southern edge. This trail connects local parks to the north with public facilities to the south. b. Neighborhood H Planning Standards 1) The entire neighborhood is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. The development restrictions which apply to these zones are described in Section IV.A.10 of this Specific Plan. 2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. 3) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 4) The interior loop road provides access to Planning Areas H-1, H-2, H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6, H-7, H-8, H-9 and H-10 (See Figure IV -28). 5) Polk Street provides access to Planning Areas H-6 and H-10 (See Figure IV -28). 6) The interior east -west loop road will be developed with the Collector Streetscape, as shown in Figures IV -28 and IV -54. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -157 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 7) The interior north -south loop road will be developed with the Collector Streetscape, as shown in Figures IV -28 and IV -54. 8) The project entry from Polk Street will be developed with the Entry Road Detail (Industrial Collector), as shown in Figures IV -28 and IV -52. 9) Polk Street will be developed with the Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major (See Figures IV -28 and IV -45. 10) Windrow plantings will be provided as a buffer between land uses and along drainage channels, and will be integrated into the trail system (See Figure IV -28). c. Neighborhood H Planning Areas 1) Planning Area H-1: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-1, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 2.6 acres of open space. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-1 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-1 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road, through Planning Areas H-2 and H-6 (See Figure IV -28). (4) This planning area will be developed with the channel cross-section illustrated in Figure IV -62. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. IV -158 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 2) Planning Area H-2: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-2, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 19.7 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 158 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-2 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section W.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-2 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). (4) The trail along the western edge of the planning area will be developed as described in Figure IV -56. (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the planning area and adjacent drainage channel is illustrated in Figure IV -62. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -159 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA 3) Planniniz Area H-3: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-3, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for 5.0 acres of open space to be developed as a local park. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-3 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-3 will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning Area H-3 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). (5) The edge treatment for this planning area will be as described in Figure IV -60. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 4 Planning Area H-4: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-4, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 23.5 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 188 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). IV -160 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-4 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-4 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). (4) The trail/windrow detail for this planning area will be as described in Figure IV -56. (5) The edge treatment for this interface between the planning area and the adjacent local park will be as illustrated in Figure IV -60. (6) Planning Area H-4 will be developed with a buffer between the medium density residential uses in the planning area and the high density residential uses in the adjacent planning area (See Figure IV -67). (7) This planning area will be developed with a windrow/trail detail, as illustrated in Figure IV -56. (8) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (9) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area H-5: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-5, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 14.9 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 57 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -161 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-5 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-5 is accessed from the interior east -west and north -south loop roads (See Figure IV -28). (4) The trail along the western edge of the planning area will be as shown in Figure IV -56. (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the planning area residential use and the Evacuation Channel is illustrated in Figure IV -61. (6) The southern edge of this planning area will be developed with a trail that will be integrated with the power line easement that runs east -west through the neighborhood (See Figure IV -61). (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 6) Planning Area H-6: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-6, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 9.5 acres of open space which will be part of the project drainage network and trail system. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). IV -162 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-6 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-6 will be developed to incorporate an element of the project - wide trail system. (4) Planning Area H-6 is accessed from Polk Street and the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). (5) This planning area will be developed with the cross-section shown in Figure IV -45. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 7) Planning Area H-7: residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-7, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 20.8 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 166 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-7 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -163 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-7 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the planning area and adjacent drainage channel is illustrated in Figure IV -45. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 8) Planning Area H-8: Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-8, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 13.6 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 204 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-8 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-8 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). IV -164 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (4) Planning Area H-8 will be developed with a buffer between the high density residential uses in the planning area, and the medium density residential uses in the adjacent planning area (See Figure IV -67). (5) This planning area will be developed with a windrow/trail detail, as illustrated in Figure IV -56. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 9) Planning Area H-9: Residential Low Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-9, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 20.8 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 79 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-9 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-9 is accessed from the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). (4) The edge treatment for the interface with the planning area and the adjacent drainage channel is illustrated in Figure IV -45. (5) The edge treatment for the interface with the Evacuation Channel is shown in Figure IV -61. IV -165 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (6) The southern edge of this planning area will be developed with a trail that will be integrated with the power line easement that runs east -west through the neighborhood (See Figure IV -61). (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 10} Planning Area H-10: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area H-10, as depicted in Figure IV -28, provides for the development of 3.6 acres of open space as part of the project drainage network and trail system. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) Planning Area H-10 is within the Thermal Airport TPZ. Development within this zone will comply with all applicable restrictions and requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood H to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning Area H-10 is accessed from Polk Street and the interior east -west loop road (See Figure IV -28). (4) The edge treatment between the planning area and adjacent residential uses is depicted in Figure IV -45. (5) The southern edge of this planning area will be developed with a trail that will be integrated with the power line easement that runs east -west through the neighborhood (See Figure IV -61). (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -166 The Planning Center LAND USE DIAGRAM STA71STiCAL SUMMARY Planning Area Land Use Acreage Target ftnity (DU/Acfe) Dwelling Units NeighNwhoad H H-1 Open Space (OS) 5.0 NA NA H-2 Medium Density Resides Wal (RM) 19.7 8 158 H-3 Open Space (OS) 5.0 NA NA H-4 Medium Density Resido lal (RM) 23.5 8 188 H-5 Low Density Residenthd (RL) 14.9 3.8 57 H-6 Open Space (OS) 9.5 NA NA H-7 Medium Density Re3ldwt1sl (RM) 20.8 8 166 H-8 High Density Residential (RH) 13.6 15 204 H-9 Low Density Residential (RL) 20.8 3.8 79 H-10 Open Space (OS) 3.6 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 14.5 NA NA Subtotal I I 150.9 852 YxY Map: Channel Buffer Detail (See Figure IV -62) Windrow/Trail Detail (See Figure IV -56) Park Edge Buffer (See Figure IV -60) Typical Access Points THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Evacuation Canal Buffer (See Figure IV -61) Product Type Buffer (See Figure IV -67) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) Neighborhood H Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major (See Figure IV -45) Windrow/Trail Detail (See Figure IV -56) Entry Road Detail (See Figure IV -52) -H-10 os 3.8 AC 4 --Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) Figure N 28 IV 1117 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 9. Neighborhood I (See Figure IV -29 on page IV -177) a. Neighborhood I Description Neighborhood I is located just south of the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel, between Tyler and Polk Streets (Figure IV -29). It is the northernmost neighborhood outside of the airport TPZ. Consequently, public facilities (27.3 acres) are located here, making this 68.4 -acre neighborhood a unifying element between the retirement/second home communities to the north and to the south. The residential medium land use designation totals 22.4 acres and provides 179 dwelling units. A total of 9.5 acres of open space are provided, which serve as a land use buffer and part of the drainage network. The neighborhood is accessed from "C" Street and "E" Street, which connects the neighborhood with Polk and Tyler Streets. b. Neighborhood I Planning Standards 1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. 2) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 3) Major Project Entries are located at the intersections of "E" Street with Polk and Tyler Streets (See Figures IV -29 and IV -37). 4) Primary access to the neighborhood is provided from "E" Street and "C" Street (See Figure IV -29). 5) "E" Street provides access to Planning Area I-5 (See Figure IV -29). 6) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas I-1, I-2, I-3 and I-4 (See Figure IV -29). 7) The eastern interior north -south loop road provides access to Planning Areas I-6, I-7 and I-8 (See Figure IV -29). 8) "E" Street between Tyler Street and "C" Street will be developed with the "E" Street Streetscape 1 - Collector as shown in Figures IV -29 and IV -53. 9) "E" Street between "C" Street and the north -south loop road will be developed with the "E" Street Streetscape 2 - Secondary as shown in Figures IV -29 and IV -49. Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -169 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 10) "E" Street between the north -south loop road and Polk Street will be developed with the "E" Street Streetscape 3 - Secondary as shown in Figures IV -29 and IV -50. 11) The Evacuation Channel will be developed with the Canal Buffer depicted in Figures IV -29 and IV -61. 12) The intersection of "C" Street and "E" Street will be developed with the Intersection Detail as shown in Figures IV -29 and IV -41. 13) The intersection of the eastern interior north -south loop road and "E" Street will be developed as shown in Figures IV -29 and IV -41. c. Neighborhood I Planning Areas 1) Planning Area I-1: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-1, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for the development of 2.6 acres of open space that includes the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel and land adjacent to the channel. This land is not part of the Specific Plan and is not under the jurisdiction of the property owner. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) The project will require minimal disruption of the Evacuation Channel for construction of "C" Street which will bridge over the channel, and will conform to Bureau of Reclamation requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (3) This planning area is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -29). (4) This planning area will be developed with the canal buffer shown in Figure IV -61. (5) This planning area will incorporate a trail to connect with the local parks to the north and the public facilities to the south. IV -170 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 2) Planning Area 1-2:__Public Facilities a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-2, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for the development of 4.2 acres of public facilities. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) This planning area is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -29). (3) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (4) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 3 Planning Area I-3: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-3, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for the development of 4.6 acres of open space that includes the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel. This land is not part of the Specific Plan and is not under the jurisdiction of the property owner. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -171 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Planning Standards (1) The project will require minimal disruption of the Evacuation Channel for the construction of the north -south loop road which will bridge over the channel, and will conform to Bureau of Reclamation requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (3) The planning area is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -29). (4) This planning area will be developed with the canal buffer shown in Figure IV -61. (5) This planning area will incorporate a trail to connect with the local paths to the north and the public facilities to the south. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 44) Planning Area I-4: Public Facilities a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-4, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for the development of 10.3 acres of public facilities. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. IV -172 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (2) This planning area is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -29). (3) The edge between the public facilities and adjacent residential uses will be developed with the buffer shown in Figure IV -65. (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. ,5) Planning Area I-5: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-5, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for 22.4 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 179 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Lund Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Planning Area I-5 is accessed from "E" Street (See Figure IV -29). (3) The edge between the planning area and adjacent public facilities will be developed as shown in Figure IV -65. (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -173 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 6) . Planning Area I-6: Public Facilities a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-6, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for the development of 10.2 acres of public facilities. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Planning Area I-6 is accessed from the north -south interior loop road (See Figure IV -29). (3) The edge between the planning area and adjacent residential uses will be developed as shown in Figure IV -65. (4) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (5) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 7) Planning Area I-7: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-7, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for the development of 2.3 acres of open space that includes the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel and land adjacent to the channel. This land is not part of the Specific Plan and is not under the jurisdiction of the property owner. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). IV -174 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan c) Planning Standards (1) The project will require minimal disruption to the Evacuation Channel for the construction of the north -south loop road which will bridge over the channel, and will conform to Bureau of Reclamation requirements. (2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (3) Planning area I-7 is accessed from the interior north -south loop road (See Figure IV -29). (4) This planning area will be developed with the canal buffer shown in Figure IV -61. (5) This planning area will incorporate a trail to connect with the local parks to the north and the public facilities to the south. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 8) Planning Area 1-8 _Public Facilities a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area I-8, as depicted in Figure IV -29, provides for the development of 2.6 acres of public facilities. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning), c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood I to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, J, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -175 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (2) Planning Area I-8 is accessed from the interior north -south loop road (See Figure IV -29). (3) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (4) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -176 The Planning Center FIND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY Planning Area Lmw Use Acreage Target Density (DWAcre) Dlrlreliing Units Neighborhood 1-1 Open Space (OS) 2.6 NA NA 1.2 Public Facility (PF) 4.2 NA NA 113 Open Space (OS) 4.6 NA NA I-4 Public Facility (PF) 10.3 NA NA I� Medium Density Residential (RM) 224 8 179 I-6 Public Facility (PF) 10.2 NA NA 1-7 Open Space (OS) 23 NA NA 1-8 Public Facility (PF) 26 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 9.2 NA NA Subtotal NA 179 Key Map: THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Collector Streetscape Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -54) (See Figure IV -37) Evacuation Canal Buffer (See Figure IV -61) I os J r i 2.6 AC '1 ■ / Li —J r I-2 PF Y -3 i 4.2 AC 1-4 1-5 I-6 I PF RM 4.6 AC PF l 10.2 AC 2 10.3 AC y 22.4 AC 179 DU Intersection Detail ' ' `-- (See Figure IV -41) E Streetscape 1 - Land Use Buffer Collector (See Figure IV -65) (See Figure IV -53) Neighborhood I Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) E Streetscape 2 - Secondary (See Figure IV -49) Typical Access Points U) Y 1-7 I OS 2.3 AC PF 2.6 �— E Streetscape 3 - Secondary (See Figure IV -50) Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -411) Not to Scale C QQ 0) Figure IV 29 IV -177 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 10. Neighborhood J (See Figure IV -30 on page IV -187) a. Neighborhood J Description Neighborhood J is part of the larger retirement/second home community which is planned for the southernmost section of the project site (Figure IV -30). The 148.3 -acre neighborhood is located along Polk Street, just south of "E" Street. It consists of the following land uses: residential high (16.0 acres), residential low (46.4 acres) and open space (58.4). A total of 416 units is planned. Access to the neighborhood is provided from "E" Street and Polk Street. The significant amount of open space within and adjacent to the neighborhood functions as part of the drainage system and provides a scenic amenity and buffer along Polk Street, as well as a local park. If developed with a golf course, a permitted use under provisions of the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III), Neighborhood J would be equipped with a clubhouse which would provide meeting, dining and recreational opportunities to neighborhood residents. The neighborhood is designed so that each planning area is afforded golf course frontage. b. Neighborhood J Planning Standards 1) A secondary, golf course use is permitted in all of the seven planning areas (See Section III). A clubhouse is permitted in one of the planning areas. 2) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. 3) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 4) Primary access to Neighborhood J is from "E" Street, Polk Street and the interior loop roads. 5) "E" Street provides access to Planning Area J-1 and J-5 (See Figure IV -30). 6) The north -south interior loop road provides access to Planning Areas 1-1, J-2, J-3, J-5, J-6 and J-7 (See Figures IV -30). 7) The east -west interior loop road provides access to Planning Areas J-3, J-4 and J-7 (See Figure IV -30). 8) A Major Project Entry is located at the intersection of "E" Street and Polk Street (See Figures IV -30 and IV -37). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -179 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 9) A Minor Entry is located at the intersection of Polk Street and the interior east -west loop road (See Figures IV -30 and IV -39). 10) "E" Street between "C" Street and the north -south loop road will be developed with the "E" Street Streetscape 2 - Secondary, as shown in Figures IV -30 and IV -49. 11) "E" Street between the north -south loop road and Polk Street will be developed with the "E" Street Streetscape 3 - Secondary, as shown in Figures IV -30 and IV -50. 12) The north -south loop road will be developed with the Collector Streetscape (See Figures IV -30 and IV -54). 13) The east -west loop road will be developed with the Collector Streetscape (See Figures IV -30 and IV -54). 14) Polk Street will be developed with the Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major with the golf course (see Figures IV -30 and IV -45) or Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major without the golf course (see Figure IV -30 and IV -46). 15) The intersection of "E" Street and the north -south loop road will be developed with the special Intersection Detail as shown in Figures IV -30 and IV -41. c. Neighborhood J Planning Areas 1) Planning Area J-1: Residential Hieh a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area J-1, as depicted in Figure IV -30, provides for 9.4 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 103 dwelling units is planned for this planning area. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. IVA80 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (3) Planning Area J-1 is accessed from "E" Street and the north -south loop road (See Figure IV -30). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and adjacent park is shown in Figure IV -60. (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and adjacent drainage facilities is shown in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) The northeast corner of the planning area will be developed with the intersection treatment illustrated in Figure IV -41. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 2) Planning Area J-2: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area J-2, as depicted in Figure IV -30, provides for the development of 32.7 acres of open space to be developed as a local park and as part of the project drainage network. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) If the golf course is not developed, a portion of this planning area (12.3 acres) will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning area J-2 is accessed from the north -south interior loop road (See Figure IV -30.) Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -181 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the park and adjacent residential uses is shown in Figure IV -60. (6) The edge treatment for the interface between the drainage facilities and adjacent residential uses is shown Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 3) Planning Area J-3- Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area J-3, as depicted in Figure IV -30, provides for the development of 26.6 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 101 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning area J-3 is accessed from the north -south and east -west interior loop roads (See Figures IV -30). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and adjacent park is shown in Figure IV -60. (5) The edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent drainage facilities is shown in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. IV -182 The Planning Center Chapter IV - Specific Plan (6) Planning Area J-3 will be developed with a windrow/trail detail, as illustrated in Figure IV -56. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 4) Planning Area J-4: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area J-4, as depicted in Figure IV -30, provides for the development of 7.1 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 27 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course, including clubhouse facilities, is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area J-4 is accessed from the east -west loop road (See Figures IV -30). (4) If the golf course is not developed, this planning area will be developed with the edge treatment shown in Figure IV -58. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -183 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 5 Planning Area J-5: Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area J-5, as depicted in Figure IV -30, provides for the development of 6.6 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 79 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 12 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area J-5 is accessed from "E" Street and the interior north -south loop road (See Figure IV -30). (4) The north-west corner of the planning area will be developed as shown in the intersection detail in Figure IV -41. (5) The edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent drainage facilities is shown in Figures IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 61 Planning Area J-6: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area J-6, as depicted in Figure IV -30, provides for the development of 25.7 acres of open space as part of the project drainage network. IV -184 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area J-6 is accessed from the north -south interior loop road (See Figure IV -30). (4) The northeast corner of the planning area will be developed with a Major Project Entry, as shown in Figure IV -37. (5) The southeast corner of the planning area will be developed with a Minor Entry as depicted in Figure IV -39. (6) The edge treatment for the interface with adjacent residential land uses is illustrated in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 7) Planning Area J-7: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area J-7, as depicted in Figure IV -30, provides for the development of 29.7 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 106 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -185 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood J to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise irnpact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, K, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning area J-7 is accessed from the north -south and east -west interior loop roads (See Figure IV -30). (4) This planning area will be developed with the edge treatment for the interface with adjacent drainage facilities, as shown in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) The Windrow/Trail Detail for this planning area will be developed as illustrated in Figure IV -56. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section IV.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. IV -186 The Planning Center LAND USE DIAGRAM STA71STICAL SUMMARY Planning Lww Use Area I JAcreage I Target Densrrlty (ifll/Acre) Dm" Units Neighborhood J J-1 High Density Residential (RH) 9.4 11 103 J-2 Open Space (OS) 327 NA NA J-3 Low Density Residential (RL) 26.6 3.8 101 J-4 I Low Density Residential (RL) 7.1 3.8 27 J-5 High Density Residential (RH) 6.6 12 79 J-6 Open Space (OS) 25.7 NA NA J-7 Low Density Resid%*W (RL) 27.9 3.8 106 ROW Right -of -Way Subtotal 12.3 148.3 NA NA 416 Key Map: E Street Streetscape 3 - Secondary (See Figure IV -50) Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -41) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) E Street Streetscape 2 - Secondary (See Figure IV -49) Edge Condition–�--Er (See Figures IV -58 & IV -59) Typical Access Points TIS KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California •` J-1' RH 9.4 AC --•---•-�. 103 DU I J-2 os 32.7 AC r i J-3 • RL 26.6 AC 101 DU • e r /tis •J-4 •�'� RL 7.1 AC !•• • _ 27 DU rte` %J-5 J-6 ~RH �• 2S0 AC UAC /' 079 vu' ,• r i J-7 I RL I 27.9 AC 106 DU I I r Park Buffer (See Figure IV -60) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) H Neighborhood J Major Project Entry (See Figure IV -37) -Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major (See Figure IV -45) or Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major (See Figure IV -46) 'L—Minor Entry (See Figure IV -39) Wlndrow/Trall Detail (See Figure IV -56) Figure N 30 IV -1 87 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 11. Neighborhood K (See Figure IV -31 on page IV -197) a. Neighborhood K Description Neighborhood K is located in the southern portion of the site, within the second home/retirement community planned for the southernmost section (Figure IV -31). The neighborhood is 126.1 acres in size, and includes 27.9 acres of open space, 28.5 acres of residential medium and 56.0 acres of residential low land uses. A total of 441 dwelling units is planned. The significant amount of open space within and adjacent to the neighborhood provides a scenic amenity, includes a local park, and functions as part of the project drainage network. Each of the six planning areas in Neighborhood K would be provided with golf course frontage, in the event that this scenario, provided for in the Specific Plan Zoning (See Section III) is selected. Primary access to the neighborhood is taken from "E" Street, "C" Street and the interior loop road. b. Neighborhood K Planning Standards 1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. 2) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 3) A secondary, golf course use is permitted in all of the six planning areas (See Section III). 4) Primary access to the neighborhood is provided by "E" Street, "C" Street and the interior loop road (See Figure IV -31). 5) "E" Street provides access to Planning Area K-4 (See Figure IV -31). 6) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas K-1, K-2 and K-3 (See Figure IV -31)- 7) The interior loop road provides access to Planning Areas K-1, K-2, K-3, K-4, K-5 and K-6 (See Figure IV -31). 8) The intersection of "E" Street and "C" Street will be developed with the Intersection Detail shown in Figures IV -31 and IV -41. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -189 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 9) "E" Street will be developed with the "E" Street Streetscape 2 - Secondary, as depicted in Figures IV -31 and IV -49. 10) "C" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape - Secondary, as shown in Figure IV -31 and IV -47. 11) The interior loop road will be developed with Collector Streetscape, as shown in Figures IV -31 and IV -54. 12) The interior roadway connecting "C" Street with the loop road will be developed with the Collector Streetscape depicted in Figures IV -31 and IV -54. c. Neighborhood K Planning Areas 1) Planning Area K-1; Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area K-1, as depicted in Figure IV -31, provides for the development of 15.3 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 122 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area K-1 is accessed from "C" Street and the interior loop road (See Figure IV -31). (4) The northwest corner of the planning area will be developed with the Intersection Detail shown in Figures IV -31 and IV -41. (5) The northeast corner of the planning area will be developed with the Minor Entry as shown in Figures IV -31 and IV -39. IV -190 The Planning Center Chapter IV . Specific Plan (6) The edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent drainage facilities is depicted in Figure IV -58. If the adjacent planning area is developed for a golf course use, the edge treatment will be as shown in Figure IV -59. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 2) Planning Area K-2: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area K-2, as depicted in Figure IV -31, provides for 7.0 acres of open space to be developed as part of the project storm drainage system. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area K-2 is accessed from "C" Street and the interior loop road (See Figure IV -31). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the drainage facilities and the adjacent residential land uses is shown in Figure IV -58. If the planning area is developed as a golf course, the edge treatment will be as depicted in Figure IV -59. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -191 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3) Planning Area K-3; _Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area K-3, as depicted in Figure IV -31, provides for the development of 40.7 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 155 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area K-3 is accessed from "C" Street, the interior loop road and the Collector connecting "C" Street and the loop road (See Figure IV -31). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the planning area and adjacent drainage facilities is shown in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (5) Planning Area K-3 will be developed with the Windrow/Trail Detail shown in Figure IV -56. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section IV.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 4) Planning Area K-4: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area K-4, as depicted in Figure IV -31, provides for the development of 13.2 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of IV -192 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 106 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area K-4 is accessed from "E" Street and the interior loop road (See Figure IV -31). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and adjacent park is shown in Figure IV -60. (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the planning area and adjacent drainage facilities is shown in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area K-5: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area K-5, as depicted in Figure IV -31, provides for the development of 20.9 acres of open space that will be developed as a local park and as part of the project drainage network. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -193 The Kohl Ranch o Coachella Valley • CA c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area, including the golf course driving range. (3) If the golf course is not developed, a portion of this planning area (7.7 acres) will be developed as a local park. (4) Planning Area K-5 is accessed from the interior loop road (See Figure IV -31). (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the park and adjacent residential land use is shown in Figure IV -60. (6) This planning area will be developed with the edge treatment for the interface with adjacent residential land uses, as shown in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 6) Planning Area K-6: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area K-6, as depicted in Figure IV -31, provides for the development of 15.3 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 58 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K. The overlay IV -194 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood K to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, L and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area K-6 is accessed from the interior loop road (See Figure IV -31). (4) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and adjacent park is shown in Figure IV -60. (5) The edge treatment for the interface between the planning area and adjacent drainage facilities is shown in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (6) Planning Area K-6 will be developed with the Windrow/Trail detail shown in Figure IV -56. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section IV.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -195 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley a CA [This page intentionally left blank]. IV -196 The Planning Center Key Map: THEE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Edge Conditions - (See Figures IV -58 & IV -59) Windrow/Trail Dotal (See Figure IV -56) North/South Streetscape 1 Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -41) Neighborhood K E Street Streetscape 2 - Secondary (See Figure IV -49) K-1 --------- - r RM 15.3 AC 122 DU RM J s •� 13.2 AC K-2 •�` 106 DU •� 7.0 Ac K-5 os •�. 20.9 AC K-6 Park Buffer RL K-3 15.3 AC `\ (See Figure IV -W) RL DU 60.7 AC 155 DU \ _. Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) 88 Figure IV -31 IV -197 LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY Planning Area Land Use Acreage Target Density (DU/Acre) DwoWng Units Neighborhood. K K-1 Medium Density Residential (RM) 15.3 8 122 K-2 Open Space (OS) 7.0 NA NA K-3 Low Density Residential (RL) 40.7 3.8 155 K-4 Medium Density Residential (RM) 13.2 8 106 K-5 Open Space (OS) 20.9 NA NA K-6 Low Density Residential (RL) 15.3 3.8 58 ROW Right -of -Way 13.7 NA NA Subtotal I 126.1 441 Key Map: THEE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Edge Conditions - (See Figures IV -58 & IV -59) Windrow/Trail Dotal (See Figure IV -56) North/South Streetscape 1 Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Intersection Detail (See Figure IV -41) Neighborhood K E Street Streetscape 2 - Secondary (See Figure IV -49) K-1 --------- - r RM 15.3 AC 122 DU RM J s •� 13.2 AC K-2 •�` 106 DU •� 7.0 Ac K-5 os •�. 20.9 AC K-6 Park Buffer RL K-3 15.3 AC `\ (See Figure IV -W) RL DU 60.7 AC 155 DU \ _. Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) 88 Figure IV -31 IV -197 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 12. Neighborhood L (See Figure IV -32 on page IV -207) a. Neighborhood L Description Neighborhood L is part of the larger retirement/second home community which is planned for the southernmost portion of the project site. The 173.1 -acre neighborhood is located in the southeast corner of the project site, and is bounded by and accessed from Polk Street on the east, Avenue 66 on the south and "C" Street on the west (Figure IV -32). Land uses consist of residential low (64.4 acres), residential medium (49.5 acres), residential high (22.8 acres), commercial (12.5 acres) and open space (6.3 acres). A total of 983 dwelling units would be provided. Higher density residential uses are located at the project periphery, with lower density uses more interior to the site. The commercial use is proposed at the neighborhood and project entry along Avenue 66 and "C" Street, and is expected to serve an area larger than the neighborhood itself. If developed with a golf course, a permitted use under the provisions of the Specific Plan Zoning (See Section III), Neighborhood L would be equipped with a significant recreational and visual amenity. b. Neighborhood L Planning Standards 1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and M are also designated for an industrial use. 2) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 3) A secondary, golf course use is permitted in five of the six planning areas (See Section III). 4) Primary access is taken from "C" Street, Avenue 66, Polk Street and the interior loop road (Figure IV -32). 5) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas L-1 and L-6. 6) The interior loop road which outlets on Polk Street provides access to Planning area L-1 (See Figure IV -32). 7) The southern most interior loop road which connects with "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas L-3, L-4, L-5 and L-6 (See Figure IV -32). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -199 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 8) The northernmost interior loop road which connects with "C" Street provides access to Planning Area L-1 (See Figures IV -32). 9) Avenue 66 provides access to Planning Area L-6 (See Figure IV -32). 10) Polk Street provides access to Planning Areas L-2 and L-3 (See Figure IV -32). 11) A Major Project Entry is located at the intersection of "C" Street and Avenue 66 (See Figures IV -32 and IV -37). 12) A Minor Entry is located at the intersection of Polk Street with the interior loop road (See Figures IV -32 and IV -39). 13) A Project Window is located at the intersection of Polk Street and Avenue 66 (See Figures IV -32 and IV -40). 14) Avenue 66 will be developed with the Secondary Streetscape, as shown in Figures IV -32 and IV -49). 15) "C" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape - Secondary, as shown in Figures IV -32 and IV -47). 16) Under the golf course scenario, Polk Street will be developed with Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major, as depicted in Figures IV -32 and IV -46. 17) Without the golf course, Polk Street will be developed with Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major in the northern portion of the neighborhood (see Figures IV -32 and IV -44), or Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major in the southern portion of the neighborhood (see Figures IV -32 and IV -46). 18) The interior loop roads will be developed with the Loop Road Collector Streetscape, as shown in Figures IV -32 and IV -54. c. Neighborhood L Planning Areas 1) Planning Area L-1:_ Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area L-1, as depicted in Figure IV -32, provides for the development of 64.4 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 245 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). IV -200 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area L-1 is accessed from the three interior loop roads (See Figure IV -32). (4) Under the golf course scenario, this planning area will be developed with the golf course edge shown in Figure IV -58. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 2) Planning Area L-2: Open Space a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area L-2, as depicted in Figure IV -32, provides for 6.3 acres of open space to be developed as part of the project drainage network. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and M are also designated for an industrial use. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -201 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area L-2 is accessed from Polk Street (See Figure IV -32). (4) The northeast corner of this planning area will be developed with a Minor Entry, as shown in Figures IV -32 and IV -39. (5) The edge treatment for this planning area is shown in Figure IV -46. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and Standards that apply site -wide. 3) Planning Area L-3: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area L-3, as depicted in Figure IV -32, provides for the development of 26.8 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 214 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area L-3 is accessed from Polk Street and the interior loop road (See Figure IV -32). (4) If developed with a golf course use, the edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent golf course and drainage facilities is depicted in Figure IV -46. (5) If developed without a golf course, the edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent drainage facilities is depicted in Figure IV -45; the edge treatment for IV -202 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan the portion of the planning area south of the drainage facilities is shown in Figure IV -46. (6) This planning area will be developed with the Product Type Buffer at the interface with the adjacent high density residential use, as shown in Figure IV -67. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section IV.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. 4) Planning Area L-4: Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area L-4, as depicted in Figure IV -32, provides for the development of 22.8 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 342 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area L-4 is accessed from the interior loop road (See Figure IV -32). (4) If developed with the golf course use, a Project Window will be located in the southeast corner of the planning area, as shown in Figures IV -32 and IV -40. (5) This planning area will be developed with the Product Type Buffer at the interface with adjacent medium density residential uses (See Figure IV -67). Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -203 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley - CA (6) If developed with a golf course use, the golf course edge adjacent to the residential uses will be as shown in Figure IV -59, and IV -46, except that no drainage facilities will be provided. (7) If developed without a golf course, the edge treatment will be as shown in Figure IV -44. (8) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (9) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area L-5: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area L-5, as depicted in Figure IV -32, provides for the development of 22.7 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 182 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area L-5 is accessed from the interior loop road (See Figure IV -32). (4) This planning area will be developed with the Product Type Buffer at the interface with adjacent high density residential uses (See Figure IV -67). (5) The edge treatment for the interface with adjacent commercial uses will be as shown in Figures IV -32 and IV -65). (6) The edge treatment, if the adjacent planning area to the east is developed with a golf course use, will be as shown in Figure IV -59. IV -204 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. 6) Planning Area L-6: Commercial _ a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area L-6, as depicted in Figure IV -32, provides for the development of 12.5 acres of commercial land uses. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood L to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and M are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Planning Area L-6 is accessed from "C" Street, Avenue 66 and the interior loop street (See Figure IV -32). (3) A Major Project Entry is located in the southwest corner of the planning area (See Figures IV -32 and IV -37). (4) The edge treatment for the interface with adjacent residential land use is depicted in Figure IV -65. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -205 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA [This page intentionally left blank] IV -206 The Planning Center Key Map: Typical Access Points THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major (See Figure IV -45) or Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major (See Figure IV -46) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) Golf Course Edge (See Figure IV -58) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) North/South --- Streetscape 1- V Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Major Project Ent (See Figure IV -37) L-1 RL $4.4 AC 245 DU IF I LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY L-6 Planning Area Land Use Acmage Target Density (DU/Acre) DwOM Unb Neighborhood L L-1 Low Density Residential (RL) 64.4 3.8 245 L-2 Open Space (OS) 6.3 NA NA L-3 Medium Density Realdential (RM) 26.8 8 214 L-4 High Density Residential (RH) 228 15 342 L-5 Medium Density Relitlential (RM) 227 8 182 L-6 Commercial (C) 125 NA NA ROW Right -of -Way 17.6 NA NA Subtotal 1 1 173.1 963 Key Map: Typical Access Points THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major (See Figure IV -45) or Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major (See Figure IV -46) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) Golf Course Edge (See Figure IV -58) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) North/South --- Streetscape 1- V Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Major Project Ent (See Figure IV -37) L-1 RL $4.4 AC 245 DU IF I L-6 RN C 227 AC 1 12.5 AC 182 DU Land Use Buffer - (See Figure IV -65) Collector Streetscape (See Figure IV -54) Neighborhood L Minor Entry -- (See Figure IV -39) I - L-2 l03 .2 AC j. L-3 RM i L_ 26.8 AC 214 DU r Product Type But (See Figure IV -67) L-4 RH 225 AC 242 DU Project Window Detail (See Figure IV -4O) Avenue 66 Streetscape- (See Figure IV -49) Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major (See Figure IV -44) or Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major (See Figure IV -46) IV -207 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 13. - Neighborhood M (See Figure IV -33 on page IV -215) a. Neighborhood M Description Neighborhood M is part of the larger retirement/second home community planned for the southernmost portion of the project site, and is located in the southwest comer of the site, extending along "C" Street from Avenue 66 to "E" Street (Figure IV -33). This 123.5 -acre neighborhood contains all three residential density classifications: residential high (33.0 acres), residential medium (48.0 acres) and residential low (8.5 acres). A total of 983 dwelling units is planned. Open space totals 19.9 acres and functions as part of the drainage network, providing a buffer along Tyler Street. Under a golf course scenario, open space would provide active recreational benefits as well. The neighborhood is designed so that each planning area is afforded golf course frontage. Primary access to Neighborhood M is from "C" Street, Avenue 66 and "E" Street. b. Neighborhood M Planning Standards 1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and L are also designated for an industrial use. 2) If the neighborhood is developed for industrial use through the application of the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD), the landscape features, open space and roadways identified in the Specific Plan will serve to buffer the industrial uses from adjacent land uses. In addition, as indicated in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, a 25 foot setback would apply where the development is adjacent to a residence or a street. 3) A secondary, golf course use is permitted in all of the five planning areas (See Section III). 4) Primary access is provided by "C" Street, Avenue 66 and "E" Street (Figure IV -33)- 5) A Major Project Entry is located at the intersection of "C" Street and Avenue 66 (See Figures IV -33 and IV -37). 6) A Major Project Entry is located at "E" Street and Tyler Street (See Figure IV -37). 7) A Project Window is located in the southwest corner of the neighborhood at the intersection of Avenue 66 and Tyler Street, under the golf course scenario (See Figure IV -33 and IV -40). 8) The intersection of "E" Street and "C" Street will be developed with the Intersection Detail as illustrated in Figure IV -33 and IV -41. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -209 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 9) "C" Street provides access to Planning Areas M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4 and M-5 (See Figure IV -33). 10) "E" Street between Tyler Street and "C" Street will be developed with the "E" Street Streetscape 1 - Collector, as shown in Figures IV -33 and IV -53. 11) "C" Street will be developed with the North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary, as shown in Figures IV -33 and IV -47. 12) Avenue 66 will be developed with the Avenue 66 Streetscape, as shown in Figures IV -33 and IV -49. 13) Tyler Street will be developed with the Edge Conditions as shown in Figures IV -33 and IV -55. c. Neighborhood M Planning Areas 1) Planning Area M-1. Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area M-1, as depicted in Figure IV -33, provides for the development of 4.8 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 72 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and L are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area M-1 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -33). (4) A Major Project Entry is located in the northwest corner of the planning area (See Figures IV -33 and IV -37). IV -210 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan (5) The northwest corner of this planning area will be developed with the Intersection Detail as shown in Figures IV -33 and IV -41. (6) The edge treatment for the interface between the residential uses and the drainage uses in the adjacent planning area is depicted in Figure IV -58. If the golf course is developed, the edge treatment will be as described in Figure IV -59. (7) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. 2) Planning Area M-2; Oren Space_ a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area M-2, as depicted in Figure IV -33, provides for the development of 19.9 acres of open space. b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and L are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area M-2 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -33). (4) This planning area will be developed with the project edge conditions as shown in Figure IV -55. (5) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (6) Please refer to Section N.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -211 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA 3). Planning Area M-3: Residential Low a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area M-3, as depicted in Figure IV -33, provides for the development of 8.5 acres of low density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 32 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 3.8 du/acre (density range 1-5.9 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and L are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area M-3 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -33). (4) This planning area will be developed with the edge conditions for the interface with the adjacent golf course and drainage facilities, as shown in Figure IV -55. (5) Planning Area M-3 will be developed with the Windrow/Trail Design shown in Figure IV -56. (6) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (7) Please refer to Section N.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. 4). Planning Area M-4: Residential Medium a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area M-4, as depicted in Figure IV -33, provides for the development of 48.0 acres of medium density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 5,500 square feet under conventional development. A maximum of 384 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 8 du/acre (density range 6-11.9 du/acre). IV -212 The Planninq Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and L are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf Course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area M-4 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -33). (4) The edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent golf course is illustrated in Figure IV -55. (5) This planning area will be developed with the Product Type Buffer for the interface with the adjacent high density residential uses, as shown in Figures IV -33 and IV -67 (See Figure IV -59 for the golf course scenario edge treatment). (6) Planning Area M-4 will be developed with the Windrow/Trail Detail shown in Figure IV -56. (7) Please refer to Section N.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (8) Please refer to Section W.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. 5) Planning Area M-5: Residential High a) Descriptive Summary Planning Area M-5, as depicted in Figure IV -33, provides for the development of 28.2 acres of high density residential land uses with minimum lot sizes of 7,200 square feet under cluster development. A maximum of 423 dwelling units is planned at a target density of 15 du/acre (density range 12-18 du/acre). b) Land Use and Development Standards Please refer to Ordinance No. 348 (See Section III, Specific Plan Zoning). Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -213 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Planning Standards (1) As described in Section IV.A.9. of this document, an overlay designation can be applied to all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M. The overlay designation would allow all of the planning areas within Neighborhood M to be developed for an industrial use, consistent with airport safety, height and noise impact requirements, provided that all of the planning areas within Neighborhood G, H, I, J, K and L are also designated for an industrial use. (2) Golf course is a secondary use in this planning area. (3) Planning Area M-5 is accessed from "C" Street (See Figure IV -33). (4) A Major Project Entry is located in the southeast corner of the planning area (See Figures IV -33 and IV -37). (5) The Project Window in the southwest corner of the planning area will be developed under the golf course scenario, as indicated in Figure IV -55. (6) This planning area will be developed with the Product Type Buffer between adjacent medium density land uses, as shown in Figures IV -33 and IV -67. (7) The edge treatment for the interface with the adjacent property that is not a part (N.A.P.) is shown in Figure IV -64. (8) Under the golf course scenario, the edge treatment for the interface between residential and golf course uses within the planning area is shown in Figure IV -59. (9) Please refer to Section IV.C., for specific Design Guidelines and other related design criteria. (10) Please refer to Section IV.A. for Development Plans and standards that apply site -wide. IV -214 The Planning Center Key Map: THE KOHL RANCH. Coachella Valley, California Neighborhood M E Street Streetscape 1 - Collector M-1" (See Figure IV -53) Major Project Entry'` R" •• (See Exhibit IV -37) '\ rz v Intersection Detail . ti M-2 (See Figure IV -41) '� 08 1 19.9 AC k I N = R3 32 DU North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Tyler Street Edge H (See Figure IV -55),, M-4 � � Typical Access Points 3" DU Windrow/Trail Detail y'' .,, r,,. Product Type Buffer (See Figure IV -56) �, (See Figure IV -67) or Golf •, Course Edge (See Figure IV -59) Major Project Entry _.___,_,__ ____.,., :,F(See Figure IV -37) Avenue 66 Streetscape (See Figure IV -491) Project Window D (See Figure IV -40) IH 24.2 AC 423 Du Outparcel Buffer - (See Figure IV -64) Figure IV 33 IV 215 LAND USE DIAGRAM STATISTICAL SUMMARY Planning Area Land Use A"up Target Dmft (DU/Acre) Dwelling Units Neighbarhood M M-1 High Density Residential (RH) 4.8 15 72 M-2 Open Space (OS) 19.9 NA NA M-3 Low Density Residential (RL) 8.5 3.8 32 M-4 Medium Density Residential (RM) 48.0 8 384 M-5 High Density Residential (RH) 28.2 15 423 ROW Right -of -Way 14.1 NA NA Subtotal 123.5 911 Key Map: THE KOHL RANCH. Coachella Valley, California Neighborhood M E Street Streetscape 1 - Collector M-1" (See Figure IV -53) Major Project Entry'` R" •• (See Exhibit IV -37) '\ rz v Intersection Detail . ti M-2 (See Figure IV -41) '� 08 1 19.9 AC k I N = R3 32 DU North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary (See Figure IV -47) Tyler Street Edge H (See Figure IV -55),, M-4 � � Typical Access Points 3" DU Windrow/Trail Detail y'' .,, r,,. Product Type Buffer (See Figure IV -56) �, (See Figure IV -67) or Golf •, Course Edge (See Figure IV -59) Major Project Entry _.___,_,__ ____.,., :,F(See Figure IV -37) Avenue 66 Streetscape (See Figure IV -491) Project Window D (See Figure IV -40) IH 24.2 AC 423 Du Outparcel Buffer - (See Figure IV -64) Figure IV 33 IV 215 DESIGN GUIDELINES Chapter IV • Specific Plan C. DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. Purpose and Intent The following Design Guidelines have been developed as a method of achieving a high quality, cohesive design fabric for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area. Objectives of these guidelines are: ■ To provide the County of Riverside with the necessary assurance that the Specific Plan area will develop in accordance with the quality and character proposed herein; ■ To serve as design criteria for developers, builders, engineers, architects and landscape architects, and other professionals in preparing plans for construction; and ■ To lend guidance to staff, the Joint Powers Authority and the Board of Supervisors in the review and evaluation of future development projects in the Specific Plan area. Certain key design elements will contribute significantly to the visual order and consistency of the entire Specific Plan area. These common features — site planning, architecture, landscape architecture, signage, lighting and other details — are the subject of the Design Guidelines. The guidelines express the desired character of future development, which is represented conceptually in Figure IV -34, Community Character. Each guideline will be considered in terms of how it relates to a given development proposal, during the review process, and will be applied to the selected land use concept, as appropriate. The Design Guidelines are intended to be flexible and are illustrative in nature. Therefore, over time they can respond to unanticipated conditions, such as changes in taste, community desires and the marketplace. Fundamental principles that are the foundation of the Design Guidelines include the coordinated use of land for passive and active recreational open space, to handle storm drainage and to comply with restrictions of the Thermal Airport Safety Zones. In addition, use of landscaping materials and architectural treatments should be compatible with the desert landscape as well as the rich agricultural tradition of the Coachella Valley. Draft Specific Plan 9 Mav 13. 1996 IV -217 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank] IV -218 The Planning Center Multi -Family - Town Center Commercial I f, C) Office 1. ..moi... �. �Kya- 4) Park THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley,"California ( Collector Street w.. .7v " q � Trail Community Character 10 Golf Course Edge �w y.,r.� -_.�� ""'-`-•ar,>-,.-, moi.'.: iR%�_.""" a Trail Along Drainage 0 Streetscape �TU Figure IV -34 IV -219 Chapter IV • Specific Plan 2. Landscape Guidelines a. Landscape Concept The landscape guidelines for the Kohl Ranch shall contribute greatly to the establishment of a community theme for the project. The landscape concept shall transcend all individual parcel boundaries and unify the community "edges," those areas along roadways, parks, commercial shopping areas, undisturbed areas and drainageways and the adjacent residential development areas. The landscape concept provides criteria for the treatment of all areas within roads and easements, medians, development edges and project entries. The concept has been conceived to organize and present a memorable image for the Kohl Ranch project. Its purpose is to establish a unified landscape framework that provides continuity throughout the project area, and encourages the desert community theme. To accomplish this purpose, these guidelines should be consistently applied to define major project roadways (arterials, secondary and major highways, collectors, industrial collectors and loop roads) roadway medians, internal circulation routes, major entries and intersections (See Figure IV -35 for the Landscape Key Map). Landscape materials within these areas should direct and guide the resident or visitor to the development, screen sensitive views, and frame or create focal points and views as the motorist, pedestrian, or bicycle moves through and around the project. A high degree of landscape quality is to be maintained throughout the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area. Key elements of the concept are presented in the Community Structure Plan (Figure IV -36). The following are key objectives that the landscape concept should foster: ■ The Kohl Ranch project should create a landscape theme that is compatible with the native desert community, and architectural and site planning themes. ■ The landscape is intended to work in association with the architectural guidelines and the grading plan to create screens and buffers where needed and views where the opportunity exists. ■ The landscape should serve to augment sound attenuation efforts made with the landform or hardscape elements. ■ Plant material selection for streetscapes, entry areas and development areas should be limited to those plants listed in the suggested plant palette. ■ Landscape plant materials should be "long lived" varieties. "Short lived" materials such as flowering annuals and perennials may be utilized to accent or augment the "longer lived" base elements which form the landscape framework. Draff SnPcifin Plan 9 Mav 11 1996 IV -221 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA r-, [This page intentionally left blank] IV -222 The Planning Center Landscape Key Map imi-trwi collector StreelStepe Flgura IV -51 lhlruor Entry MaloI E""Y Figure IV -38 %P11V- I 13 Floor Ave A,, Park Drainage Buffer Figure IV -83 Adjacent Pro party Buffer' FiguIV-64 Arterial Streelscap- Figure IV -42 'Ir Altatial sifootscapo 2 Land Use Buffer/Ave. 61 Flguro IV-4� Sar-lecape Figure IV -67 Oulparcel S.flof Flgure IV -64 elk St. Streetscape 1 Major Figure IV -44 Ave 62_ �j 1 Edge and Golf Course Edge Condltlon for Drainage Industrial Collector Canal Sir .... ... Figure IV -57 & IV -59 I 111111 Figure IV -512 Ave- 62 Streeiscape -Secondary I— Figure IV -48 ikon of Delallill Figure IV -62 Nodho5c6fls Streetscape 2— Secondary Figure IV WYndruw'T" 'toll Rgu'. IV -$a I f �Palk St. Streeiscape 2 Major Figure IV -45 Project Edge Cookdillon3— la Figure IV -55 d Arterial Streetscape/ IIBurePalm Tree Entry Road 11,1111 Intersection Outall— Figure IV -52 Arterial StricaMcgpe/ Figure IV -41 Evacuation Canal Buffer Informal Canopy IISure IY41__j Major Streetscape/------- Informal Canopy SeCOIALkIry Streetscape/ St. St,e.t-ap. 3 Palm Tree E St Streetscape 11 E E Street Secondary Collector Figure IV -50 SeCO11dary Streetscape/ Figure IV -53 — ------ Formal Canopy jE St, St'"ImcPPo2 Soco"1`Polk Street Strestacape 3 2 SCCOodary Streetscape/ Figure IV•4i Major Informal Canopy :Igum N446 nd —A�Coilocw Since lsc.p� Polk Street Streat—pe 2 ll�id[LlStrial Collector Strectscape/ formal Canopy Figure IV -S4 Major Figure IV -45 Collector StrectSCalle/ Palm Tree North/South Streeiscape I— —Mlitor Entry Collector Strectwapc/ Secondary - Figure IV -39 Formal & informal Canopy Figure IV -47 Major Entry udfrype Buffer Minor Entry Igure ttf+i!115 P1* Street Stmetsc.pe I - Major (S" Figure IV44) Project Window Prole or Polk Street Stivatacape1l - Major :1,Wlndo. Detail Figur V-40 (Sm Figure IV48) Ave �L6 Intersection Detail Av 7d 511.alacapai �Land Use Buffer IF Ave. , Figure IV -85 Secondary Figure IV -49 Scale: V=2000' THE KOHL IRAN CHaA;.,? Coachella Valley, California : Figure IV- 35 IV -223 J /Aye a L c� 0 a M i I NO TREES IN ETZ AREA PF R ALONG EDGE L 62 MINOR PROJECT Community Structure PROJECT ENTRY 'S- -PAMi Y '6m-�oo III .ttIIrOs SPECIAL INTERSECT TREATMI WINDROWBUFFER ALUMSA DRAINAGE CHANNEL BUFFER ALONG EDGE INTEGRATE WINDROW PLANTING INTO TRAIL SYSTEM MAJOR PROJECT ENTRY L11 E Note: At -grade fairway crossings on public roads 4 will not be allowed. j BUFFER ALONG DRAINAGE CHANNEL j Park ' 4 Open Space Drainage Channel Club House I` Golf Course Palm Tree Streetscape ' ...... _.. Formal Canopy Streetscape_ Ave 66 Informal Canopy Streetscape P .. MAJOR PROJECT Windrow Planting THE KOHL 11RANCH Coachella Valley, California TREES IN ETZ AREA MAJOR PROJECT ENTRY PROJECT MAJOR PROJECT ENTRY I ��• f I MINOR PROJECT ENTRY R ` �'''� ,•off:. � � VIEW INTO PROJECT FROM AVE. 66--' Scale:1"=2000' elo:j;' Figure IV -36 IV- 225 Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Landscape elements within the front building setback visible from the public rights-of- way should blend with street edge landscaping. ■ All common landscaped areas shall be designed with the objective of reducing long term water use to a minimum in accordance with the project's Water Conservation Plan (see Appendix F). Native and drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation practices shall be used. Within the golf courses, water efficient landscaping shall be encouraged in the "rough" and peripheral areas. ■ Recycling of irrigation water is encouraged. It is the intent of the landscape guidelines to foster innovative design and discourage the bland and mediocre. The design of the Kohl Ranch draws upon the character of the natural setting and applies this theme to concepts which are both cost effective and maintainable. Furthermore, the landscape guidelines foster a spirit of stewardship for the project open spaces and create a symbiotic existence with the developed areas, ultimately creating a unique recreational amenity for the community. The essence of the landscape guidelines consists of the elements described below. 1) Community Identity These guidelines establish a benchmark for high quality community landscape architecture by establishing guidelines for essential landscape elements that carry forth the landscape concept rather than relying upon a static and all inclusive plant palette. This flexible concept will allow for personal expression for individual builders and their designers within the community while maintaining a community structure and theme. 2) Visual Screens The guidelines form a program which mitigates the effects of the built environment upon the undisturbed open space. The landscape guidelines also provide concepts for buffering buildings from adjacent land uses, both on- and off-site. 3) Conservation of Resources The landscape plan and suggested plant materials have been selected with careful regard for the Coachella Valley's water supply and CVWD requirements and therefore, the resulting long term viability of the landscape. The landscape will be efficient in terms of water consumption as well as maintenance requirements. Resources shall be concentrated in those areas of most intense human use, such as parks and other high use areas. All common landscaped areas shall be designed with the objective of reducing long-term water use to a minimum. The use of native and drought tolerant plant materials and the use of water efficient irrigation practices and the development of programs which "wean" plant materials from irrigation after their establishment are encouraged, while the use of high water -consuming plant materials shall be limited to selected areas. The landscape concept should encourage minimizing long-term maintenance for the majority of Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -227 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA landscaped areas. This will be achieved by limiting areas of turf, clipped hedges, and exotic ornamentals to special places where they can be emphasized. Drainage channels through the site will be developed with native desert landscaping. Alternative sources of irrigation water shall be considered, including reclaimed water, Colorado River water and surface runoff. The proximity of the site to Water Reclamation Plant No. 4 would allow for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation once tertiary water becomes available. Neighborhood Park The landscape guidelines encourage the use of the landscape as more than a visual aesthetic by creating environments that use plant materials as architectural elements which define space, establish proportion, and influence climate. The guidelines will encourage spaces which will, through the thoughtful arrangement of plant materials, encourage a range of emotions from intimate enclosure to vast openness. The landscape should affect the tactile senses by creating microclimates where people can escape the heat of summer or be warmed by the sun in the winter. The landscape should provide pleasing odors of flowers, rustling sounds of leaves in the wind, in addition to visual screens and focal points. 4 Application of Concepts The guidelines provide a detailed, user-friendly landscape plan and plant matrix which outlines specific treatments and suggested plant materials to carry out the community theme. This plan and matrix should be easily understood by individual developers, builders, and designers. IV -228 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan The Community Structure Plan (See Figure IV -36) shows how the various landscape conditions interact with one another to create the overall community landscape theme. In general, the plan is concerned with those areas within road rights -of -ways, drainage areas, parks, and visually sensitive development areas such as entries and focal points. b. Entries Entries or focal points are those key areas along the roadway where change in travel direction may occur. Often at these points a different land use may occur and the landscape should announce this change. Working in concert with signage, lighting and hardscape elements, the landscape plant materials will create "outdoor rooms" with an individual identity and level of importance that creates a unique mood as the motorist, pedestrian or cyclist passes through each space. Often a stoppage in movement occurs at these points; therefore, design elements that create a more lush effect of color, texture, and form should be concentrated at these locations. 1) Maior Project Entries The landscapes at the project entries along with the signage, lighting and hardscape elements will form a gateway into the Kohl Ranch and set the stage for the community identity. The landscape should draw views into the site and toward important development features. Tasteful plantings should indicate a transition from the surrounding land uses to the more formal roadways. Water resources should be concentrated toward irrigation of trees and shrubs. Ground covers may be of a more xeric nature. lu Major Entry Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -229 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Major project entries are located at the following intersections (See Figure IV -36): • "A" Street and Avenue 60; • "A" Street and Polk Street; • "E" Street and Polk Street; • "E" Street and Tyler Street; and • "C" Street and Avenue 66. Major project entries will be landscaped with palm trees, with a maximum spacing of 30 feet on -center, with a citrus understory (See Figure IV -37). These plantings will be underlain by a drought tolerant groundcover. Community walls will create a backdrop for the entry landscape features. Figure IV -37 • Major Project Entry IV -230 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 2) Minor Entries The minor entries should convey the same objectives as the major entries but on a less grand and more intimate scale. Figure IV 38 depicts the minor entry at Avenue 60 and "C" Street. Figure IV -39 suggests the landscape concept for minor entries at the following locations: • "B" Street and Avenue 62; • "D" Street and Polk Street; and the interior loop road and Polk Street. TO Tre mal Ailrport l?alRi�d Left Tum Lww AVENUE Figure IV -38 • Minor Entry Avenue 60 CANAL AlrparW Mixed Use Draft Snenifin Plan 9 Mav 13. 1996 IV -231 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The plantings which create the walls of the outdoor "room" should be pulled in and a greater sense of enclosure should be created. Elements of color, form, and texture should be highly developed for these intensely visible areas. Palm tree groves should be supplemented with native/desert landscape elements. Lams LAR Turn Lane Figure IV -39 ■ Minor Entry IV -232 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 3) - Proiect Windows In the two southernmost corners of the Kohl Ranch site at the intersections of Avenue 66 with Tyler and Polk Streets, project windows should be developed to offer views of the golf course. Along with view fences at these key intersections, landscaping with palm trees will draw attention to the project windows (See Figure IV -40). Figure IV -40 • Project Window c. Intersections wr Fence Project wall VENUE 66 1Yare1 Lanes Nota: Fi wem at the corner of Polk and Avenue 66 Within the project site, certain key intersections will have special landscape treatments to denote the entry into a project neighborhood. This intersection treatment is illustrated in Figure IV -41. The landscape concept will be adapted to three-way intersections. Three-way intersections include the intersection of "A" Street and "B" Street, and the intersection of "A" Street and Avenue 62. Four-way intersections with special intersection treatments include the intersection of "A" Street and "C" Street, "C" Street and Avenue 62, "C" Street and "E" Street, and "E" Street and the interior north -south loop road. Major intersection landscapes should act as terminus points along the project roadways. They should appear as large enclosed outdoor rooms where the traveler can easily decide their direction of travel, react, then continue moving through the site. The edges of the Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -233 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA room should be vertical to provide enclosure, with plant material located so that signage is emphasized. Color, form and texture should further define the importance of these decision points through an increased emphasis on water resources and plant materials. ARTERIAL Palm Understory r r--Native/DeseR LandacRpa Not*: Landscape concept will be acted to 3 -way Intw*octlons. Figure IV -41 - Intersection Detail d. Streetscapes In order to achieve a cohesive overall circulation system for the Kohl Ranch and provide a strong community structure and identity, a consistent level of landscape design quality for public and private rights-of-way will be maintained. A consistent streetscape treatment will be implemented throughout the project as well as for the roadways surrounding the site. The general streetscape concept combines the use of palm trees with citrus understory, massed in selected locations, supported by turf and plantings of lush desert plants and annual color. The streetscapes are broken down into four major categories with special features and plant forms as indicated, and are applied to the hierarchy of the project roadways: IV -234 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan • Palm Tree Streetscape • Formal Canopy Streetscape • Informal Canopy Streetscape • Windrow Planting Plant materials within these areas are intended to create a mood of movement and procession. Plant materials should direct and guide the traveler, screening sensitive views, or framing and creating focal points or "rooms" as the motorist, cyclist or pedestrian moves through the streetscape. The streetscapes as applied to the hierarchy of project roadways can be broken down into five categories with special features and suggested plant forms as follows. 1) Arterial Highway Streetscape (110' ROW) This streetscape is intended for "A" Street, the single project arterial, to serve as a formal progression through the site in the "grand allee" tradition of an estate roadway (Figures IV -42 and IV -43). The Palm Tree Streetscape is interspersed with the Informal Canopy Streetscape, which should include trees which create a canopy by touching at their edges, providing an overhead plane which will impart a feeling of enclosure and provide dappled shade. Arterial Highway Streetscape Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -235 The Kohl Ranch o Coachella Valley • CA Is The primary use for this roadway shall be restricted to automobiles with minimal bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, foreground treatment should be designed with regard to automobile speeds and viewing angles. WWI Wall Planting lla Lands"" Nrt \ I ft -7. V I it Figure IV -42 • Arterial Streetscape 1 ■ Water resources should be minimized through the use of drip irrigation systems for trees and shrubs, and groundcovers which are attractive and thrive with limited irrigation or seasonal rains. IV -236 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Landscape material should be tall and columnar in form creating a vertical spine that separates and defines the roadway travel lanes, essentially cutting the cold mass of the roadway in half with a soft plant wall. The plant materials will open and close sequentially to provide or control the view as one travels along the roadway. 0 0 F" S a a o - 110, Aigt-01way Figure IV -43 • Arterial Streetscape 2 ■ Arterial Streetscape 1 should include more formal elements near the entry focal points including a citrus understory to further emphasize the project entry. ■ Where the arterial passes through the airport Emergency Touchdown Zone (ETZ), no trees should be planted (See Figure IV -36). miff Snarifir. Plan 9 Mav 13. 1996 IV -237 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2) Maier, Highway StreetscMe (100' ROW) This streetscape is intended for the project edge along Polk Street. Three streetscapes are proposed, utilizing the windrow planting concept to screen views and provide privacy to the residential neighborhoods. Figure IV -44 illustrates the edge treatment for heavy industrial uses along Polk Street. This edge treatment is also used for the southeastern corner of the project adjacent to Polk Street under the no golf course scenario dntad Medi" TWn e t � Chalnllnk Fence w/Oleanders i2'Clan I Regional Wkswy Informal Canopy $' W W 12' 12' V W 12'. 1 ' Ir I 1 ow Right-ol- Wy Figure IV -44 • Polk Street Streetscape 1 - Major IV -238 The Planninq Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Figure IV -45 depicts the project edge where the drainage facilities abut Polk Street. Access RoaWftll Decomposed Granite 3:1 Slope 11� � IIIIIIIIR. A i Rplonal Blke 160' DrainM CmW I I W R19hlt9W—M 4— Figure IV -45 • Polk Street Streetscape 2 - Major Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -239 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley -CA Figure IV -46 illustrates the streetscape for the condition where the southern golf course parallels this Major Highway. %j .1 Slope Elevate Ties and Greens out of Low Flow Arse r -O tch for M. r Golf Fairway and Drainage Course Figure IV -46 • Polk Street Streetscape 3 - Major 3) Secondary Streetscaue (88` ROW) Area Painted Median iI i '! 1 Parking Fence This roadway treatment is intended as a scaled down "grand allee." This roadway is the next progression from an automobile dominated streetscape to a more bicycle and pedestrian -oriented streetscape. Design speeds along this roadway will be slower, views from passing motorists will be longer, and occasional bicyclists and pedestrians will be present, therefore plant material color and texture will be of importance along this roadway. Just as along the arterial streetscape, the plant material will open and close to provide or control the view along the roadway. IV -240 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Three streetscapes are proposed for the Secondary Highways in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area. Figure IV -47 illustrates the Formal Canopy Streetscape, using upright trees, with a maximum spacing of 35 feet on center to shade the sidewalk area. This streetscape should be used for "B" Street and "C" Street. r � Maxlr lum 'Tree Spacing Travel Lama Parking r k Larndacapad Area Sldswalk Upright/Formal • ft"tacapa �1`11 6° W 12' 12' 12' 12' 8° Is B' 88' Flight -of -Way Figure IV -47 • North/South Streetscape 1 - Secondary Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13. 1996 IV -241 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA Figure IV -48 illustrates the Formal Canopy Streetscape along side the drainage channel. Upright trees are used at the edge between the roadway and the 3:1 side slope of the drainage facilities. 81di .lk f R Chatnlink Fence w/Oleanders UprlgMFormal Strefte w 3 1-3:1 Slope , n 8' 1 12' 1 12' L 12' Drainage Canal --- 10' 178.5' 88' Right -of -Way Note: Typical channel section - widtha may vaNy. Figure IV -48 - North/South Streetscape 2 - Secondary IV -242 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan An Informal Canopy Streetscape is proposed for Avenue 62, 66 and "E" Street between "C" Street and the eastern north -south interior loop road (See Figure IV -49). The informal trees plantings should have native/desert groundcover plantings. S. W 12' 12' 12' IV e' s' e' M' 111119M-of-Wxy Figure IV -49 • Avenue 62, 66 and "E" Street Streetscape 2 Draft Specific Plan " Mav 13, 1996 IV -243 4' The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA A Palm Tree Streetscape should be used along "E" Street at the entry into the project site from Polk Street (See Figure IV -50). Palm trees provide a vertical element that denotes the project entries, and should be spaced at 40 feet on center with a native/desert ground cover. 11f��J r+f b' r 12' 12' 12' 1 s' - 0' 112' RIOM-0-'Way Figure IV -50 • "E° Street Streetscape 3 - Secondary IV -244 The Planning Center Chapter IV - Specific Plan 4) Industrial Collector StreetscM (78' ROW) Two streetscapes are proposed for the Industrial Collector roadway classification. Figure IV -51 illustrates "D" Street as it passes through the light industrial and warehouse/distribution land uses in Neighborhood F, and Avenue 60. Informal canopy trees should be used to frame the roadway, augmented by the community walls and native/desert ground cover. A painted median is proposed. For the stretch of roadway along "C" Street between Avenue 60 and "A" Street, the section in Figure IV -51 should be used, with a Formal Canopy Streetscape, to reflect the importance of this roadway as a gateway to Thermal Airport. A pedestrian trail should be incorporated into the landscaping plan for the drainage channel that parallels Avenue 60. C °1P Note:tumid canopy etrMMespe betwom A Street north to A". e0. b' 6' 1 10' 13' r S" 1r I 10' e' e' 7e' MO*01-Way Figure IV -51 - Industrial Collector Ped Draft Saecific Plan 1, Mav 13. 1996 IV -245 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley - CA The second Industrial Collector Streetscape, illustrated in Figure IV -52, is located at the project entry from Polk Street and the interior loop road. This streetscape features plantings of informal canopy trees along the roadway edge and within the raised median. 7!' RIS Figure IV -52 • Entry Road Detail (Industrial Collector) IV -246 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 5 Collector Streetsca e (66' ROW) Collector roadways provide access to residential areas beyond the arterial roadways. Pedestrian and bicycle uses will be of a major concern in the development of the landscape plan for these intimate streetscapes. Front yard landscapes may be increased along this low speed roadway to create a more detailed streetscape of interesting forms, colors, textures, odors and sounds. Residential units front this roadway and access to driveways and compatibility of right-of-way landscapes to residential front yard landscapes must be carefully integrated. Residential Collector Draft Saecific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -247 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Three streetscapes are proposed for the Collector Streets within the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area. Figure IV -53 illustrates the landscaping for "E" Street between the major project entry at Tyler Street and "C" Street. Palm trees are utilized with a maximum spacing of 40 feet on center, underlain by natural desert groundcover. �Prolect Fence at Rseldentle�l Land Uses Vlew Fence for Non•Rsslderrtlal Us" 5` IV 12' 12' IOP as' RIpM-of-Way Figure IV -53 • "E" Street Streetscape 1 - Collector nsa IV -248 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan The second collector streetscape is utilized on the more interior loop roads within the residential neighborhoods. It should be developed with the Informal Canopy Streetscape shown in Figure IV -54. A variation of this streetscape, with Formal Canopy plantings, should be utilized on the more significant interior loop roads and the portion of Tyler Street between Avenue 60 and "C" Street. eId RIM rormal Canopy Tres i a Landscaped Ge Area 1 I7 Sidewalk WO Note: Formal canopy streelscepe for outer loop on eastslde of neighborhoods H,I,J & 1, connection between Inner and outer loops, I and Tyler Street north of Avenue M Ed' Right"-of��Wa�y �i Figure IV -54 • Collector Streetscape nraft SnPcifir. Plan 9 Mav 13. 1996 IV -249 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA e. Edges Landscape edges are the landscape treatment areas that create an envelope around roadways and development parcels, softening and buffering their harsh effects upon the landscape. These landscapes are very important in developing the community theme spilling over into residential and roadway landscape treatments. Resources of water and plant materials should be minimized in these areas with the intent of forming landscapes which require minimal maintenance. These areas additionally may be used as a continuation of adjacent passive recreation or open space areas. Formal landscape treatment areas are intended to establish an organized, structured and even at times homogeneous landscape that is characteristic of more ordered forms. These treatment areas should appear lush and should contrast rather than blend with the natural desert landscape. The plant material should be used as a tool for space articulation, emphasizing topography and creating overt spacial relation statements. A grove should be visualized as the ultimate intent of treatment when designing these rural themed landscapes. Further, areas that are in direct contact with development areas may include plant materials which will foster a sense of security and privacy while maintaining views. Plant materials along these contact points may be slightly taller to screen and buffer the effects of rooflines and building facades. Natural landscapes composed of xeric (drought resistant) plant species are intended to blend with the existing landscape in color, form and texture. These landscapes occur along the project edges and drainage corridors, and will require a minimum of water resources. Only sporadic irrigation should be used to establish growth and little or no irrigation should be required after maturity. They should be organically arranged, reflecting the growth patterns of existing vegetation. Their primary intent is to screen and buffer residential developments. ■ Landscape plantings are used as screens to block views, create microclimates, or as architectural space articulation elements. Plant materials should be thick and full, defining an edge of space or thick elongated masses. These screens may occur along the edges of development or within development parcels. ■ Small structures can be easily screened with shrubbery, larger two-story structures can be buffered through the use of vertical trees. All plants should be chosen from the plant matrix. Care should be taken when selecting plants to consider their size, so that desirable views are not blocked. ■ In certain cases, proper screening may be more easily achieved by building a wall or fence. Material selection must be compatible with the adjacent architecture. It is encouraged to soften walls and fences with vines and shrubs. Combinations of tree masses will be effective in screening non -desirable views from one area to another. Shrub masses can also help when placed correctly. IV -250 The Planning Center Chapter IV a Specific Plan 1) Tyler Street Project Edges The project edges along Tyler Street will vary depending on whether or not the southern golf course is developed. Figure IV -55 illustrates the relationship between residential uses, the drainage channel and Tyler Street. The interface between the golf course and adjacent uses is also shown. A TYW Street A OrWnspe Canes ttselder�tlel lilevaft Tees and Greens out of Low Flow Area r Ditch for Ndlssrtce W 3:1 Tyler Street : 3W Golf Fe! B Figure IV -55 • Tyler Street Edges Draft Sr)ecific Plan • Mav 13. 1996 IV -251 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2) Windrow/Trail Windrows are used to define land use areas, provide a wind break, and to structure and enclose pedestrian trails throughout the residential neighborhoods. The Windrow/Trail Detail in Figure IV -56 illustrates this landscape edge. I 11= ! iih- 20' max Figure IV -56 • Windrow/Trail Detail IV -252 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Draina __2roiect_Edge Where drainage facilities are proposed along the Kohl Ranch property boundary, adjacent to residential uses, a special edge treatment is needed. Figure IV -57 illustrates this condition, and the use of windrow plantings to buffer the residences. Windrow Tree Plard! Praperty un Property Una/Fence Trail i NufNr—� Access RoW C I r-3:1 Slope Note. Typical channel ssctlon - widths may very. Figure IV -57 • Project Edge Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -253 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 4) Drainame Canal or Golf Course Edge Conditions In a number of instances, through the Kohl Ranch site, drainage facilities and a golf course are integrated into residential neighborhoods and the Air Park/Mixed Use center. The edge condition created by these relationships are shown in Figures IV -58 and IV -59. Canal Figure IV -58 - Drainage Canal Edge Condition RayldwdW Note: Goff county may or may not Includo dralnep canal. Figure IV -59 - Golf Course Edge Condition RmldantW IV -254 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan .• - Drainage Channel and Trail nraff Snecific Plan 9 Mav 13- 1996 IV -255 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA With the golf course alternative, the approximately 500 -foot section (widths may vary) should include an area of elevated trees and greens out of the low flow area, and a ditch for nuisance water. A view fence should be placed along the interface with non-residential uses. Without the golf course, an approximately 184 -foot wide ROW should be provided for the drainage channel, including side slopes and access roads (widths may vary). Golf Course Edge f. Buffers Landscape treatments are used to buffer adjacent land uses within the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area. These landscape treatments should be a thoughtful blending of edges of plant materials from one treatment type to another. The transitions may be abrupt or a slow fading effect, depending on the desired effect. ■ In order to provide privacy from one unit to another, it is encouraged that vertical tree masses be planted along side yards slopes where practical. ■ Human use of natural open space areas will be accommodated by a limited number of trails and parks. These areas shall consist of native and xeric plant materials which shall be retained in their natural condition with no water, other than natural rainfall. IV -256 The Plannina Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Maintenance will consist of only occasional trail maintenance. This landscape will serve as a visual amenity for the community, and will also buffer adjacent uses outside the Specific Plan area. 1) Park Special landscape treatments are recommended where residential dwellings abut the high use local parks. An informal landscape grouping at the park edge, with native/desert groundcover should be planted along the view fence, to ensure privacy and to aid in noise attenuation. A 15 -foot minimum rear yard setback is recommended between the residential building and the view fence (See Figure IV -60). Landscape Grouping of Landscape vsrres (ip- Min.) Figure IV -60 • Park Buffers Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13. 1996 IV -257 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2) Evacuation Channel and Utility Easernent $eltwav The Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel runs across the Kohl Ranch site in an east -west direction, between Tyler and Polk Streets, to the north of Neighborhood I and to the south of Neighborhoods G and H. At its proposed final elevation, the channel should be lower than the adjacent land on either side of the channel, screening the concrete bottom from view (See Figure IV -61). The Evacuation Channel is within the utility easement beltway which also runs east -west through the site. This beltway contains easements for CVWD irrigation pipelines, the channel, and a power line easement for an existing 161 kV power line. This area will remain in open space and will incorporate a segment of the project -wide trail system. Residential land uses should be clustered to the north of the beltway, to preserve this area as a common open space amenity. Chalnlink Fence with Planting Meandering Trail Chainlink Fence -Within Easement with Plantlng—, Powertins Easement 1 CVWD, Evacuation Channel Easement Figure IV -61 • Evacuation Channel Buffer and Utility Easement Beltway IV -258 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 3) Drainape Channel Drainage channels are located throughout the Kohl Ranch, to handle storm flows and to provide a linkage between park and open space amenities. The proposed buffers for these drainage facilities are indicated in Figure IV -62. As indicated, informal plantings are recommended adjacent to the view fence to screen adjacent residential and non-residential land uses. Trails should be sited along the top of the 3:1 side slope and should consist of decomposed granite. Industrial Row YAW Drat Cann Land Use MIn.15' 1210 12N 10' Figure IV -62 - Channel Buffer Detail Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -259 The Kohl Ranch o Coachella Valley • CA 4)- Ai ark/Draina e The drainage channel which winds through the airpark/mixed use development should receive special buffer treatment. A chain link fence with oleander plantings should be provided along the rear parking lot of the airpark uses. Tree plantings with random spacing should be used to provide additional screening and to discourage unwanted use of and intrusion into the drainage areas (See Figure IV -63). s 11 -o, Nfrpa* �f�11n,� Parking LotNIMI oPgMPaG!jP einage - Figure IV -63 • Airpark Drainage Buffer IV -260 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 5 Out Parcel/Adjacent Properties Where proposed land uses are located adjacent to properties that are "Not a Part" of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area, buffers are recommended. Dense windrow plantings along the rear yard property line, along with fencing and an increased rear yard setback of 15 feet, should serve to minimize potential conflicts (See Figure IV -64). Dense windrow Screening, � Property UnalFsncs 1 ' NAP) Increase Setback to-- � 5'y aRatlon Amu15' Min Hoar Ysrd WP a%*—' 4 Figure IV-64.Out Parcel/Adjacent Property Buffer Draft Specific Plan • Mav 13, 1996 IV -261 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 6) Residential/Non-Residential As part of the town center concept, residential uses are located near commercial areas to minimize vehicle trips and instill a sense of community. At the interface between residential and commercial land uses, buffers are needed to minimize potential adverse effects. As indicated in Figure IV -65, a 15 -foot backyard setback for the residential uses is recommended. In addition, a windrow screening tree mass should be planted along the rear property line, along an 8 -foot solid wall, creating a 10 -foot wide buffer area. A minimum 50 -foot setback for the commercial property, inclusive of this buffer, should be maintained with parking; without parking, the buffer should be 25 feet. Non-Rssldontw, Industrial or Public FacINUm Windrow Screening Tree Me" Solid Wall Reeldsntlel 15' lo' € w d �n� Setucck i� 50' Saftnck with Perking, T 25' wlehout Perking Figure IV -65 • Land Use Buffer IV -262 The Planning Center Chapter IV *Specific Plan Figure IV -66 depicts the scenario where commercial uses are located across the street from residential uses, as is the case along Avenue 61. A landscape buffer should be planted adjacent to an 8 -foot solid wall and the parking and service area for the commercial use, within the 50 -foot setback. This will provide both a physical and visual separation between the commercial and residential uses. Ing of Area I WX %q7 Figure IV -66 - Commercial Buffer/Avenue 61 Streetscape Draft Specific Plan - Mav 13, 1996 IV -263 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 7) Sinzle Family/Multi-Family Residential Where single family residential dwellings are located adjacent to multi -family residential units, a product type buffer should be implemented, consisting of windrow screening along the back side of the multi -family parking area, a community wall, and an increased backyard setback for the single family uses (See Figure IV -67). 50' Seftck with PwMng [I Siiiiiiii 25' wMhout PwMng "`1-01, 15' Figure IV -67 • Product Type Buffer IV -264 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan g. Landscape Palette The following plant palette has been derived to enhance the Kohl Ranch desert landscape theme. The plant material has been selected to accent the desert environment while providing important functional characteristics. This list is intended to be a menu from which landscape architects can mix and match plant materials for various situations (Table IV -14). The following general criteria have been established to determine plant selections: ■ Desert Compatible Plants — Plants shall be tolerant of the harsh desert environment. ■ Low/Moderate Water Consumption — Plants should not be high water consumers. Vast expanses of lawn areas are discouraged. Golf courses shall be primary water consumers and shall be irrigated with canal water to the extent possible. ■ Broadleaf Deciduous Trees — These plants should be used where the need for summer shade and winter sunshine is important. ■ Groundcover — Use of drought tolerant groundcovers and decomposed granite should be encouraged to reduce blowing dust. ■ Maintenance of Established Themes — The Kohl Ranch streetscape and entry themes should be maintained (i.e., Palm trees evenly spaced with citrus understory and desert groundcover throughout). nraft Snarifir Plan • Mnv 11 1QQR IV.9gG The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table IV -14 KOHL RANCH PLANT PALETTE Plant Form Botanical Name Common Name Location PALMS Aim •Arecastrum romanzoffianum Queen palm Palm Tree Streetscape for Major and Minor entries, • Brahea armata Mexican blue palm Intersection Details, Project Windows, Arterial • Chamaerops humilis Mediterranean fan palm Streetscape 1, "E" Street Streetscape 1 and "E" Street • Phoenix dactylifera Date palm Streetscape 3. • Washingtonia filifera California fan palm • Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm 1 LARGE SHADE TREES • Brachychiton populneus Bottle tree Formal Canopy Streetscape for North/South • Ficus nitida Indian laurel fig Streetscape 1 - Secondary, North/South Streetscape 2 • Fraxinus velutina Arizona ash - Secondary, and Collector Streetscape (Interior Loop • Platanus wrightii Arizona sycamore Roads). • Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' olive DESERT TREES • Acacia stenophylla Shoestring acacia Formal Canopy Streetscape for North/South • Cercidium floridum Blue palo verde Streetscape 1 - Secondary, North/South Streetscape 2 • Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican palo verde - Secondary, and Collector Streetscape (Interior Loop • Prosopis alba Argentine mesquite Roads). • Prosopis chilensis Chilean mesquite • Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' olive STREET TREES (NON -DESERT) • Brachychiton populneus Bottle tree Informal Canopy Streetscape for Arterial Streetscape • Eucalyptus species Various 2, Polk Street Streetscape 1, 2 and 3 - Major, Avenue • Fraxinus velutina Arizona ash 62, Avenue 66, and "E" Street Streetscape 2 - • Platanus wrightii Arizona sycamore Secondary, Industrial Collector Streetscape, Collector -4— Streetscape (Interior Loop Roads), and Tyler Street Project Edge. STREET TREES (DESERT THEME) • Cercidium floridum Blue palo verde Informal Canopy Streetscape for Arterial Streetscape • Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican palo verde 2, Polk Street Streetscape 1, 2 and 3 - Major, Avenue • Prosopis alba Argentine mesquite 62, Avenue 66, and "E" Street Streetscape 2 - • Prosopis chilensis Chilean mesquite Secondary, Industrial Collector Streetscape, Collector Streetscape (Interior Loop Roads), and Tyler Street Project Edge. ACCENT TREES • Albizia julibrissin Silk tree Palm Tree Streetscape for Major and Minor Entries, • Bauhinia variegata Purple orchid tree Intersection Details, Project Windows, Arterial • Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda Streetscape 1, "E" Street Streetscape 1 and "E" Street • Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle Streetscape 3. • Thevetia peruviana Yellow oleander • Citrus sp Orange IV -266 The Plannina Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan Table IV -14 KOHL RANCH PLANT PALETTE Plant Form Botanical Name Common Name Location WINDROW • Eucalyptus species Various Edge and buffer conditions. • Tamarisk Various • Popular Various • Oleander Various LARGE SHRUBS • Baccharis sarothoides Desert broom Throughout Streetscapes and Edge and Buffer • Caesalpinea pulcherrima Red bird of paradise conditions. • Cassia nemophylla Senna • Cistus purpureus Orchid rock rose • Cistus ladaniferus Crimson spot rock rose • Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed bush • Fouquieria splendens Ocotillo • Leucophyllum frutescens Texas Ranger • Liqustrum japonicum Japanese privet • Nerium oleander Petite Pink & 'Petite • Photinia fraseri Salmon' • Pittosporum tobira Fraser photinia • Pittosporum tobira 'variegata' Mock orange • Thevetia peruviana Variegated tobira • Xylosma congestum Yellow oleander Shiny xylosma MEDIUM/SMALL SHRUBS • Agave shawii Shaw's century plant Throughout Streetscapes and Edge and Buffer • Aloe species Aloe conditions. • Encelia farinosa Encelia • Euonymus japonica Euonymus • Euryops virides • Ferocactus species Green euryops Barrel cactus • Hemerocallis Daylily • Hesperaloe parviflora Red yucca • Lantana camara Radiation lantana • Lysiloma thomberi Fern of the desert • Opuntia violacea `San Rita' prickly pear • Santolina virens Santolina • Simmondsia chenensis Jojoba GROUNDCOVER • Acacia redonlens prostrata' Trailing acacia Throughout Streetscapes and Edge and Buffer • Baccharis pilularis 'Centennial' conditions. .■� • Lantana sellowiana Trailing lantana • Lonicera japonica Honeysuckle • Santolina chamaecyparissus Lavender cotton • Trachelospermum jasminoides Star jasmine Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -267 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA Table IV -14 KOHL RANCH PLANT PALETTE Plant Form Botanical Name Common Name Location VINES • " • Bougainvillea spectablis • Ficus pumila • Lonicera japonica • Rose banksiae Various Creeping fig Hall's honeysuckle Lady Bank's rose Throughout Streetscapes and Edge and Buffer conditions. TURF • Hybrid bermuda Tifgreen or 'Santa Ana' Throughout Streetscapes and Edge and Buffer conditions. IV -268 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan h. Paths and Trails 1) Pedestrian Trails The Kohl Ranch shall have improved trails which will access the extensive open space and recreation areas of the site, and connect with regional trail systems. The trails should be incorporated into the project drainage network, and should connect residential areas with schools, commercial areas, public facilities and parks. Improved trails dimensions and surface material should be governed by the County of Riverside standards for construction. Please refer to Figure IV -56 for an illustration of the trail and windrow concept. Special landscape statements should be created for locations where trail segments intersect, and especially where they cross roadways. Boulders can be used to call attention to trail crossings and intersections, and can function as seats. A large shade tree also should be provided. Trail 2) Bicycle Paths Bicycle trails may be incorporated as a portion of the project roadways. Mountain bicycles should not be allowed off-road except on improved trails. Draft Snecifir. Plan • Mav 13. 1996 IMAQ The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA L Walls and Fences Walls and fences are of particular functional importance for the Kohl Ranch (See Figure IV -68). Two plans have been developed, one without the golf course (Figure IV -69) and one with the golf course (Figure IV -70). View Fence wAstw 6' Buller Wall Figure IV -68 • Walls and Fences Walls and fences establish enclosure, confer physical and visual privacy and also provide vertical texture. Walls and fences are especially important in creating a theme for the residential portion of the community. They should, however, be used sparingly and with great consideration so as not to detract from the open space or to simply demark property lines. The material, style and height of walls and fences shall provide an element of continuity throughout the project to insure visual consistency. The walls and fences should be designed with the intent of furthering the architectural character of the site. IV -270 The Pinnninn Center J 1 Note: This plan app Overlay Designatior fencing plan will be Walls and Fencing ( Without Golf Course) [K 0 HSL IRAN FIT Coachella Valley, California Scale: P=20w AOIQ I f/— I C0 I Figure N 69 IV 971 J Note: This plan apph( Overlay Designation fencing plan will be pi Com Corn View Buff( QQOQ° Chai Walls and Fencing (With Golf Course) Coachella Valley, California Scale: 1^=2000' Figure IV 70 1%1_ n,703 Chapter IV • Specific Plan Walls may be solid, perforated, or hidden from view when security is required, but view retention is desired. As fences are subject to severe exposure they must be well -made. All community and perimeter project walls and fencing are to be provided by the project builder at the time of development. Wherever practical, plant material should be used as a barrier rather than walls and fences. l) General Guidelines The horizontal mass of continuous walls should be softened by landscaping as specified in the landscape guidelines. No wall or fence shall exceed 6 feet in height unless it is used for noise attenuation where a combination of wall and berming is not sufficient. If retaining walls are necessary they should be terraced and should not exceed this 6 -foot height limit. Long stretches of unrelieved walls and fences should be broken up with varied setbacks or recesses for plantings. When a change in pad elevation occurs, the wall or fence should be stepped in equal vertical intervals. No step should exceed 12 inches in height. 2) Community Walls and Fences Community walls and fences will provide community identity, security, privacy and sound buffering for residential units adjacent to project streets or incompatible land uses. ■ Solid theme walls may be required along major thoroughfares where sound attenuation and privacy are required and when residential areas are adjacent to schools, commercial areas, or parks. ■ Solid walls along residential development edges visible from surrounding arterial roadways shall be composed of solid masonry covered with smooth stucco. The wall will stand six (6) feet in height. Walls should be planted with vines or screened with other plant materials to reduce their visual impact. This will contribute to the shade and residential environment of the development the wall is intended to screen. ■ Wall materials shall consist of simple masonry construction finished with colored smooth stucco, consistent with the desert color palette. 3) Perimeter Walls and Fences Chain link fencing should be allowed within the project area and along the project boundaries. Landscape hedges and other screening measures should be used to reduce the visual incongruity of such fences. nr.nft Cnorifir Plan • Mnv 11 1QQR IV -273 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 4) View Fences These fences should be used to increase the sense of openness in rear yards, along open space, golf courses, parks and schools. ■ Fences adjacent to golf courses visible from surrounding arterials should be view fences. Recommended material includes wrought iron, wood pickets, or welded wire on wood posts. Spires, spikes or other detailing consistent with the community theme may be used to impede trespassing over metal rails. 5) Privacy Walls and Fences The privacy walls and fences are utilized along side and rear lot lines where residential units need more privacy. Recommended material includes wood panels, masonry, stucco and stone. 6) Theme Walls and Fences In certain instances such as project entries and at restaurants, thematic fences or walls may be appropriate. An example would be a western steak house with a low profile split rail fence at the entry. Special conditions that warrant thematic uses shall be approved by the County of Riverside. j. Lighting Lighting should be designed to ensure compatibility with the community architectural and street furniture themes, and the safety of the site users. An effort should be made to emphasize "human scale" in public areas adjacent to buildings and along walks. Streetlight standards, traffic signal poles, and pedestrian and building lighting play a vital role in defining a safe and secure appearance. This lighting concept has been devised to provide a hierarchy of lighting effects which will contribute to the overall cohesiveness of the community image. 1) General Guidelines ■ Warm white lighting is encouraged. Bright colored or blinking lights are not encouraged except in theme restaurants and shops of commercial development areas. ■ Building or roof outline tube lighting shall be subject to County of Riverside approval. ■ Design and placement of site lighting should minimize glare affecting adjacent properties, buildings, and roadways. ■ Careful consideration and coordination shall be given to avoid any potential conflicts with Thermal Airport operations. IV -274 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Lighting shall be designed to minimize sky glow and effects on the Mt. Palomar Observatory and the nighttime desert sky. ■ Fixtures and standards shall conform to state and local safety and illumination requirements. In particular, lighting shall conform to Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, which includes requirements related to the Mt. Palomar Observatory. ■ Automatic timers on lighting should be designed to maximize personal safety during nighttime use while saving energy. 2) Roadway Lighting Lighting fixtures and standards within the public right-of-way play a crucial role in displaying a level of quality for the development. ■ Lighting shall be positioned to enhance the safety of vehicular and pedestrian flows at key points along the roadway. Light shall be concentrated at intersections and pedestrian crosswalks. Intersections may have increased wattage for definition and to alleviate automobile/pedestrian conflicts. ■ The maximum height of roadway lighting should be twenty-five (25) feet with a minimum clearance of sixteen (16) feet above roadways. 3) Parking Area Lighting Since landscaped islands within parking areas are adjacent to high use commercial, office, and recreation buildings, they typically may be hidden from view by landscaping and trees, therefore requiring a less overt lighting standard. Conversely, they may be highly refined and emphasized as a design element within commercial areas where visibility to buildings is crucial. ■ Stone or concrete, limited to twenty-four (24) inches in height, may be used for light standard bases in parking area islands to protect lighting from automobile damage. 4) Pedestrian and Entry Area Lighting Pedestrian and entry area lighting should be provided at plaza areas, improved trails, entryways, courtyards, parking lots and other public spaces requiring night illumination. it For all uses permitted within the Kohl Ranch, where above ground illumination is desired, a lighting fixture and standard compatible with the community theme is recommended. x In pedestrian areas the use of low level walkway lighting is preferred over lighting from above. Lights shall be positioned no higher than four feet above grade. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -275 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley 6 CA ■ Concrete or metal light bollards not exceeding four feet in height may be used to accentuate building entrance areas or to provide separation for pedestrians from vehicular traffic lanes. ■ For pedestrian walkways, point-to-point lighting is acceptable with no specific illumination levels required. The main emphasis shall be to clearly identify the pedestrian walkway and direction of travel. These lamp elements may become an important design element on the landscape, or they may be sublime and unobtrusive. ■ Fixtures which shield and limit spillover light into the night sky are recommended. 5) Architectural Lighting ■ To highlight monument signs or architectural features such as walls, entry ways or lobbies, dramatic lighting should be used. Spillover lighting from lobby areas is acceptable although glare onto adjacent properties should not occur. Service area lighting shall be contained within service yard boundaries, with light sources concealed. ■ Building illumination and architectural lighting shall be creative and must reinforce the design theme. Indirect wall lighting or "wall washing", overhead down lighting, or interior illumination which spills outside is encouraged. Wall "washing" effects shall be sparingly used to accentuate architecture at key visual areas and not an attempt to advertise buildings to roadways. ■ Lighting shall not cast any glare onto adjacent lots and streets in such a manner as to decrease the safety of pedestrian and vehicular movement. ■ Architectural lighting shall be used to articulate the particular building design. Rim lighting of eaves, bending, uplighting, wall washing, and other effects shall be used in compliance with the design theme for the planning area. Architectural lighting shall be integrated with building elements and concealed flush with grade wherever possible. ■ Building or wall lighting shall be indirect. A limited number of lights may be used to create shadow, relief and outline effects. ■ Lighting shall be used to enhance landscaping and reinforce architecture, with dramatic uplighting or wall shadow effects with plant materials encouraged. ■ Parking lot light fixtures and bollards shall be consistent in styling with the design theme proposed for that subarea. ■ Light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height or the height of the building, whichever is less. IV -276 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ All architectural lighting should be carefully integrated into design themes and should not be visually obtrusive and incongruent during the daytime. 5} Landscape Lighting ■ Landscape lighting can be used to highlight landscape features such as specimen trees, and pedestrian areas. As with architectural lighting, light sources should be designed as an integral design element, concealed flush with grade, or hidden by vegetation during the daytime. ■ String lights, with small nonflashing bulbs, may be used to highlight trees and similar features within the golfcourse clubhouse, commercial areas in interior courts only, and other similar outdoor areas at night to create excitement and a festive ambiance. 7) Athletic Field, Court and Driving Range Lighting ■ For proper lighting of athletic fields, driving ranges and courts in recreation facilities of parks and schools, spillover lighting may occur. Lighting shall be designed to minimize the spillover effect. These areas shall be carefully site planned to impact as few neighbors as possible. Hours of operation shall be established which restrict intrusion of nighttime lighting, and posted at visible locations at these recreations areas. k. Signage 1) General Guidelines ■ All signs within the project should be designed to provide a consistent reinforcement of the Kohl Ranch character. Signs must communicate not only specific information but should, in themselves, add to the attractiveness of the area. ■ Signs in the project area should advertise a place of business, a residential area or provide directions and information. ■ Signs should not compete with each other or dominate the setting via inconsistent height, size, shape, number, color, lighting or movement. ■ Signs shall conform to the guidelines set forth herein and with Riverside County Ordinances. ■ No signs shall be placed upon or project into or above public property or the public right-of-way, except as noted herein. ■ Signage typeface should be consistent with building architectural style. ■ Public signs should be limited to those absolutely necessary for smooth traffic flow, safety, and public information. nraft Snarifir. Plan • Mav 11 199Fi IV -977 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA ■ Clear sight triangles should be observed and enforced at all intersections, corners, parking areas and drives at all times. ■ All signage should be maintained in good repair, including the display surface, which shall be kept neatly painted or finished. ■ The exposed backs of all signs visible to the public should be suitably finished and maintained. ■ All signage should be designed free of bracing, angle -iron, guy wires, cables or similar devices, except for commercial advertising signs as hereafter noted. ■ Painted signs should use fade -resistant, durable, exterior finish paint. No luminous, fluorescent or iridescent paints or plastics are permitted. Permanent wooden signs or materials that may be degraded by the climate should be avoided unless adequately sheltered. ■ An effort shall be made to achieve consistency between building style and sign design. In all cases, signage should be complimentary to the exterior treatment of the building or location involved. ■ Color schemes for signage shall relate to other signs, graphics and color schemes in the vicinity in order to achieve an overall sense of identity. ■ Signs may be lighted; however, no light that flashes or blinks or affects changes in hue or intensity of illumination is permitted. Illumination sources for any sign shall be hidden from view. 2) Community Monuments The following sign standards will effectively regulate the placement, erection and maintenance of permanent signage within the Kohl Ranch. These standards are intended to provide equitable standards for the protection of property values, visual quality and public health, safety and general welfare. The hierarchy of signs for the Kohl Ranch is as follows: a) Project Entries ■ Monument signs shall identify the Kohl Ranch community at key project entry points. These monuments should be the most prominent in scale and should set the overall theme for the entire community. ■ The wall or monument materials should establish the project theme which other developments should use as a general guide. IV -278 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Project entry signs should be designed with the angle, distance and length of view in mind. Signage viewed from vehicles should be large and/or conspicuous enough to be read quickly. Signs designed to be viewed from slower speeds or at shorter distance may have more attention given to details such as texture, and may have a reduced text size. ■ Building materials should consist of native stone, river rock cobblestone, concrete, brick, stuccoed concrete block, wood rails and boards, metal lettering systems and logos, sheet metals and wires, and special architectural elements such as weather vanes or windmills. ■ Maximum dimensions for message areas of signs should be limited to those established in the County of Riverside Ordinance No. 348. ■ Lighting should be limited to those fixtures which are at grade or are concealed by landscape planting. ■ Signage typography should be limited to bronze, copper, or any quality steel logos or channel letters. b) Residential Neighborhood Entries ■ Residential neighborhood entries should establish the theme of the individual development while continuing the community theme. ■ Recommended building materials may consist of native stone, river rock cobblestone, concrete, brick, stuccoed concrete block, wood rails and boards, and special architectural theme elements. ■ Residential entry monuments should be less grand in scale than the major intersection treatments. The monuments should be in proportion with the surrounding streetscape and should be highlighted by landscape plant materials and site furnishings. The monument may be part of a wall, or stand alone. ■ Maximum dimensions for message sign areas shall be limited to dimensions established by Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. ■ Graphic signage materials should be limited to bronze, copper or any other high quality steel logos or channel letters. ■ Back -lit letters or a concealed lighting source, located flush with grade or within a covered entry structure may be used. c) Commercial Entries ■ Commercial entries should incorporate the commercial center building materials, while continuing the community theme. Entry monuments should be subdued n a c..e,.a;,. Dl- . Ke.,,, is 100a IV_970 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA and not over -powering. They should simply and discreetly identify the development rather than create a grand entry statement. ■ The maximum dimensions of the sign base and message area shall adhere to Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. ■ Signage typography should be limited to bronze, copper or quality finished steel logos or channel letters. Sign text should be limited to identification of the street address, project name, and major retailers. ■ Back -lit letters or a concealed lighting source, located flush with grade may be used. ■ Signs may be constructed on brick, native stone, wood or metal. Letters may be mounted upon the signage base. ■ Monuments shall be integrated with berming and landscape materials with established streetscape design themes. 3) Retail Signs ■ Only one monument sign shall be allowed per building. These signs shall be located at entry points from parking areas, adjacent to walkways, in planting beds or within building setback landscape areas adjacent to the street right-of-way. * Signs constructed of brick and/or native stone base, a smooth finished concrete, carved wood or metal panel systems are recommended. ■ Sign dimensions shall adhere to those established by County Ordinance No. 348. Letters should be consistent with the architectural material of the establishment. +� A street address is recommended to be incorporated into the sign banner. Lighting should be concealed by plants or flush with grade. 4) Directional Sijzns Directional signage, used to identify and direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic to on-site destinations shall be provided along roadways and within all multi -parcel and multi -tenant developments. Directional signage should be of consistent design throughout each project. All such signage should be fabricated from the same materials, with a consistent color palette and common graphic theme. The use of materials compatible with the architectural design of each project and its corresponding site furnishings is encouraged. Directional signs should be of consistent dimensions, and located in a visually logical order. IV -280 The Plenninn (;enter Chapter IV • Specific Plan These signs should provide on-site directional information and should not be used for advertising. They should include the following: • Directory monuments • Public service signs • Traffic safety signs • Residential street signs a) Directory Monuments ■ Directory monuments should be permitted as ground signs or on the faces of buildings or structures to illustrate the project layout and locate the establishments or residential buildings of the development. ■ The sign area of such location markers should be designed for either pedestrian or automobile users. ■ The location and number of these markers should be determined at the individual project design level. ■ All dimensions, material types and signage area requirements shall conform to County Ordinance No. 348. b) Public Service Signs Service signs should only provide general public information to direct the way to public facilities such as information centers, rest rooms, telephones, emergency stations, etc. Service signs should be permitted as wall or ground signs and should be limited in number and location as outlined below. ■ Signs are permitted on the faces of buildings or structures provided that such signs should be placed at eye level above the immediately adjacent ground. ■ Signs setting forth the location of, or directions to, parking or buildings located on the premises, or regulating the flow of on -premise traffic, should be permitted as part of the separate free-standing ground structure or kiosk. Such signs may include pictorial and decorative designs. ■ The signs should include a minimum of words and numbers necessary to accurately communicate the required information. ■ The signs shall be compatible with the adjacent architectural theme. c) Traffic Safety Traffic safety signs shall be subject to the standards of the County and State agencies. nraft Snarifir. Plan • Mav 13 iQQR IV -991 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA d) Residential Street Signs All street signs shall be consistent with the overall Kohl Ranch theme. 5) Temporary Signs Signage that identifies uses or activities temporary in nature, such as that associated with real estate sales and leasing or the development and construction of buildings, shall be allowed on a temporary basis if consistent with the design character of the surrounding area. No illumination of temporary signs should be permitted. Temporary signage should be located on or in close proximity to the uses identified. The multitude of signs associated with development, design, construction and leasing should be combined into one sign for each project and the sign should be located on site. a) Project Marketing ■ These signs should provide community recognition for the Kohl Ranch during the construction and sales period. ■ Wood with a painted sign surface is the recommended construction material. Signs may be double -sided. Signs may be painted onto the temporary construction safety walls erected to hide construction from view. b) Non -Residential Construction and Leasing ■ These signs are intended to inform the viewer of new buildings and leasing opportunities, opening dates, and builder names and telephone numbers of individual parcels within the Kohl Ranch project. ■ Wood construction with a painted sign surface is recommended for this application. ■ One sign per individual parcel or project should be allowed and should be located on-site. ■ Sign face may include any sketch or architectural rendering of the proposed use. ■ Sign removal should occur after lease out. c) Residential Sales and Leasing ■ Temporary ground signs for real estate sales, leasing, construction or model homes are permitted. One project identification monument or ground sign should be permitted for each major entrance to a development. Sign copy is limited to project name and address in addition to the word "sales" or "leasing". IV -282 The Plnnninn Canter Chapter IV • Specific Plan 6) Prohibited Suns ■ Obsolete or Abandoned Signs. Any sign located on vacant or unoccupied property that was erected for a business which no longer exists, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer exists, shall be removed within 30 days after the use has been abandoned. ■ Signs constituting a potential traffic hazard or which simulates or imitates in size, color, lettering or design any traffic sign or signal. ■ Temporary signs on public property (street, median island, parkway, sidewalks, traffic control sign posts, utility poles, park land, trees, etc.) ■ Animated or moving signs: signs consisting of any moving, swinging, rotating, flashing, blinking or otherwise animated components. ■ Off -premise signs: any sign, other than a simple directional sign, installed for the purpose of advertising a project, development, event, person or subject not related to the premises upon which sign is located. ■ Vehicle signs: signs on or affixed to trucks, vans, automobiles, trailers or other vehicles which identify, or provide direction to a use or activity not related to its lawful making of deliveries or sales of merchandise or rendering of service from such vehicles. ■ Portable signs: a freestanding sign not permanently affixed, anchored, or secured to the ground or structure it occupies, including tailored signs, except as approved by the County of Riverside. ■ Roof signs: any sign erected, constructed and maintained upon or over the roof of any building, unless it is a projecting canopy sign or is an explicit part of the building architecture. ■ Other prohibited signs: advertising signs and billboards, inflatable signs or balloons, inflatable animals, magnetic signs, plastic flags unless otherwise specified in these guidelines or approved by the County of Riverside. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -283 The Kohl Ranch o Coachella Valley - CA 3. Site Development Guidelines a. Site Planning The intent of site planning is to integrate buildings and site improvements into a unified setting with minimal impact of the development on adjacent land uses. Site planning concentrates on the proper placement of buildings, roads and services. The goal of residential site planning is to create a neighborhood fabric that offers a unique, safe and visually appealing environment to those in and around the development. The site plan should: ■ Effectively accommodate the residential unit types proposed. E Maximize unit exposure to parks, greenbelts and other amenities. ■ Use of geometric "grid" layouts should be allowed. • Cul-de-sac and curvilinear street layouts should be encouraged. ■ Employ the latest techniques of energy-efficient/cost-effective subdivision design. ■ Accommodate street drainage or underground drainage in accordance with generally accepted principals. ■ Subdivision layouts should discourage through traffic while still permitting adequate emergency vehicle access. ■ Variations of the building footprint with cut-outs and pop -outs can assure variety in a plan. Further variety and interest can be developed with plans by varying setback dimensions and positions of buildings. Varying Setback Dimensions IV -284 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 1) Single Family Detached Residential Site Planning ■ To the extent possible, units should have views from the rear of the units toward special features, including golf course and water features. Views should be enhanced with landscaping which does not block the view of adjacent lots. Views from Residential Units VW W ■ Single family detached residential uses shall be buffered from existing adjacent land uses, and high traffic arterials. Landscape design should be used to provide privacy between units. ■ A variety of building pad configurations can create further interest. ■ Provide for variety along the streetscape. ■ Orient views of the units towards special features, distant mountains, or common area open space. Views should be enhanced with tree plantings framing the desired view, but shall not block the view of adjacent lots. Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -285 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley *CA 2 Multi -Family Residential Site Plannin ■ Multi -family housing facades shall be detailed to give a varied quality to the building exterior rather than one long, continuous building. Attached buildings shall not be more than six dwelling units per floor. f a• } }: ,stir -,tf ?0 THIS NOT THIS Multi -Family Housing Facades ■ In higher density areas, where lot sizes permit, individual units shall be oriented in a variety of ways to avoid the monotony of garage door corridors. Multi -Family Residential IV -286 The Planning Center Chapter IV - Specific Plan ■ Maximization of open space is an important element within a higher density project. Curving the streets and orienting road axis to open areas and views can attain the feeling of open space. Open parking areas can be treated as landscaped plazas and courts. ■ In multi -family and attached housing, it is important to provide each unit with its own entry and identity. This can be accomplished by offsetting and staggering each separate unit and by combining one and two-story building forms to separate massing. This also will provide variety to the streetscape. Streetscape Variety Draft Specific Plan - May 13, 1996 IV -287 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3) Non -Residential Site Planning Non-residential areas will serve the project site as well as the regional community. Businesses which locate here will rely on a high degree of visibility. Air Park/Mixed Use a) Strong Linkages Links within commercial developments shall be reinforced by building and landscape elements. In the case of landscape elements, these links may be made with both hardscape (such as paving), or softscape. ■ Although the area is to be auto -oriented with regard to attracting those shoppers from the local community, the site planning shall emphasize pedestrian, and bicycle links to minimize auto trips from within the Kohl Ranch. Interaction of residential, park and commercial areas is encouraged. IV -288 The Planning Center Chapter IV . Specific Plan a In some instances objectionable elements may require visual screens and sound barriers. Otherwise, these treatments should be minimized and used only when necessary. Avenue 66 Commercial b) Orientation of Structures ■ Buildings shall be arranged so that most store fronts are oriented toward and visible from the street and parking areas. The shape and configuration of the buildings will be determined by the site constraints. On corners or at major developments, satellite buildings shall be located closer to the street or at the corner, while the bulk of the building is placed far enough back from the street to allow circulation across the front of the parcels. Developments that are inward facing and that preclude through access are not encouraged, except when major attractions are destinations. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -289 The Kohl Ranch o Coachella Valley • CA Courtyards and outdoor seating areas are encouraged, and other ancillary structures, service areas, and trash enclosures shall be planned as part of the project, and placed or screened in a position of low prominence. Town Center Commercial ■ Landscaping shall be used to break up otherwise uninterrupted building mass, frame views, and connect with development on adjacent pads. ■ Building placement along a street should be varied to avoid creating a harsh, monotonous blockface or streetscape. Buildings should be sited so their entrances are generally oriented toward the street and parking areas. Office IV -290 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan 4) Climatic Conditions The effects of seasonal wind on development at the Kohl Ranch will, in some instances, be extensive. Wind may be intercepted, diverted or lessened. The following are suggested techniques of wind management: a) Shelter Belts on a Community Scale Shelter belts may be used in parallel rows to produce shelter on the leeward side. Belts with pinched profiles are less efficient in halting winds than belts with vertical edges. b) Wind Breaks for Residential Use Wind breaks placed on residential property can route winter wind around the home and allow cooling breezes during the summer to penetrate the rear yard. Wind Oboe Ion • 3ummw Wind Breaks T WMd Dbw* n . Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -291 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA c) Solid Barriers Fences and walls are effective for protection but are very hard edges and should be limited in use. Barriers penetrated by the wind create more effective and wider wind shadows. b. Architectural Guidelines The architectural guidelines for the Kohl Ranch are intended to produce a feeling of authenticity without creating rigid, over -specific product/style requirements which often lead to architectural blandness and homogeneity. Rather, the Kohl Ranch should encourage a program of innovative design that reflects the historical desert landscape. The development programs should apply the guidelines in either literal or abstract forms. These architectural guidelines are intended to establish design standards and form an encyclopedia of alternative design concepts. 1) Elevation Concepts These guidelines are primarily concerned with the physical appearance of the community environment as perceived by residents and visitors. Therefore, it is the intent of these guidelines to apply to the portion of a building that is visible to the public. Primary elevations are the surfaces of a building structure or yard that can be seen from public view (either vehicular or pedestrian). In a single-family project it usually means the front and/or exterior side yard views. In multi -family projects it may be all four elevations of a structure. Primary Elevations IV -292 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Each building shall relate in terms of bulk and mass but should not be identical. A two-story building is more harmonious to a neighboring one-story building if it contains a one-story element. Harmony of Elevations ■ Avoid stereotyped units which will produce monotonous elevations and street scene. ■ A variety of elevations utilizing differing setbacks such as swing -in garages and reverse plans will ensure a varied street scene. Variety of Elevations ■ Where applicable, the rear side of the building located adjacent to streets and other areas of high visibility should have similar treatment as with the primary elevation criteria. If a fence is used as a screening device, then it too should be designed to be part of the architecture. A► of sfeo" DES= Tam►=efr Special Treatment Area Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -293 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA ■ Corner Elevations - Place the short side elevation on the corner to reduce the feeling of height and mass at the corner. Auto entry on a corner lot is also an important consideration. The high side can be placed on the corner as long as the side elevation is treated as a primary elevation. Comer Elevations ■ Elevations and Side Streets - Fences or walls that connect two separate units should be of the same material and color and be compatible with the architecture of the buildings. Elevations and Side Streets ■ Facades - If material changes do not occur in the same plane and if they intercept an architectural element, they are more effective. Facades IV -294 The Planning Center Chapter IV • Specific Plan ■ Allow for visual relief for interest and to break up long planar surfaces. Offsets, pop -outs, overhangs and recesses all may be used to produce effective shadow interest areas. Larger buildings require more relief than do smaller buildings. POP•OUTOf YMDOW PROMOES MECES&4W EHAWW FIMJEF Shadow Interest Areas ■ It is desirable to accompany a plan offset with a change in the roof pitch orientation. This is important on the primary elevations. Roof Pitch Orientation Draft Specific Plan • May 13, 1996 IV -295 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA ■ The design theme should be continued through out the project, including accessory items such as lighting fixtures and address plaques. • Design Theme ■ Roof Design - Flat roof design for residential structures should be discouraged. If used, flat roofs should be a secondary design element only and should be contained within the scheme of an individual building design. Particular consideration as to color and material should be given to the design and treatment of roofs because of their visual impact. THIS NOT THIS Roof Design IV -296 The Planning Center Chapter IV d Specific Plan 2 Details There are many building elements that come into view. Usually they are secondary adjuncts to major element, such as a skylight on a roof. In some cases they become no more than a texture, such as a trellis. It is important in all cases, however, that these elements integrate with the whole. What may start out as a minor feature can become a distracting eyesore, if not thought through. N Skylights should be integrated into the roof form. Skylights ■ Chimneys are usually very strong roof elements. Codes require that they extend higher than adjacent roof lines. Careful choice of proportion and material should give them a substantial and stable appearance. ■ The use of prefab fireplaces and flues is economically sound. However, they need not have the stove -pipe appearance, depending of which spark arrestor is used or required by fire code. Enclosing the flue in a masonry or wood chimney with substantial proportions will solve the problem. Draft Specific Plan 9 May 13, 1996 IV -297 The Kohl Ranch o Coachella Valley • CA ■ . Trellis/Pergolas can be very pleasing and functional structures, (i.e., carport, entry canopy). They provide partial shade, screens for privacy or an arbor for climbing plants. They offer the warmth and texture of wood at a relatively low cost. It is important to consider a trellis as a permanent structure and design it accordingly. Avoid corrugated fiberglass metal, or other temporary type material. Use adequately heavy members for the support structure working down to no less than 2" nominal for the smallest dimension of the lighter members. The trellis will look more substantial and will not bow from old age prematurely. Trellis/Pergola 3) Materials and Finish In keeping with the goals of the Kohl Ranch to maintain and preserve the natural surroundings, designs in harmony with nature should be extended to material, finish and color selection. ■ Natural materials by their nature inherently work well with the surroundings. Natural colors or transparent finishes on these materials not only enhance them, but actually improve with age and are low maintenance. Man-made materials of natural colors and textures are also suitable. ■ Brick, natural tile, concrete, steel and glass, if used honestly and in a straight -forward manner, can be pleasant. Large expanses of a single material, especially if unbroken by detail or depth, can become overpowering to the rest of the building form and the surroundings.Conversely, over -detailing with use of too many different materials or textures can create confusion and distract from an otherwise good design. P:\DATA\PROJDATA\KOL-01 \SP-EIR\!1V-DES. IV -298 The Planning Center V. EIR V. COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION 1. Purpose and Authority of the EIR The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addresses potential environmental impacts of the Specific Plan for the Kohl Ranch project in the County of Riverside. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority. This Draft EIR has been prepared to satisfy CEQA, as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21000, et.seq., the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Administrative Code Section 15000, et.seq., and the County of Riverside's CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is the public document designed to provide local and state governmental agency decision -makers with an analysis of environmental effects of the proposed project, to indicate possible ways to reduce or avoid environmental damage through mitigation measures and alternatives. The EIR also must disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth -inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-1 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA a. Scope of the EIR As noted above, the EIR is an informational document used in local and state agency decision-making processes. It is not the purpose of the EIR to either recommend approval or denial of a project or to present political, social or economic reasons for project approval or denial. Pursuant to CEQA, the County of Riverside is serving as the Lead Agency and has prepared an Initial Study (see Appendix A). The County has determined through the Initial Study that the adoption of a Specific Plan for the Kohl Ranch project may have significant adverse environmental impacts and that an EIR is required. The study identifies those environmental issues that may be significantly impacted by this project and are addressed in this EIR. These issues include: • General Plan Land Use Determination ■ Land Use Element Consistency ■ Existing Land Use and Zoning ■ Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion ■ Soils and Agriculture ■ Biology ■ Geology and Seismicity ■ Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage ■ Air Quality ■ Water Quality ■ Noise • Energy Resources ■ Open Space and Conservation ■ Toxic Substances ■ Cultural Resources ■ Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare ■ Circulation and Traffic • Water and Sewer ■ Fire Services ■ Sheriff Services ■ Schools ■ Parks and Recreation ■ Utilities R Solid Waste • Health Services ■ Disaster Preparedness ■ Libraries ■ Airports ■ Housing Element ■ Regional Element • Administrative Element Mitigation measures for these environmental issues are addressed in this EIR. It should be noted that mitigation measures will conform with the laws and regulations in effect at the time of project development. V-2 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b. Intended Uses of the EIR On October 14, 1994, the County of Riverside, in its role as Lead Agency for this project, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies and other interested parties. The NOP and comments resulting from the distribution of the NOP are contained in Appendix A. A lead agency is the agency with primary responsibility for approval of the project. Other agencies having discretionary approval over a project are "Responsible Agencies" under CEQA. This document will provide environmental information for several other agencies affected by the project, or which are likely to have an interest in the project. Various State and Federal agencies exercise control over certain aspects of the project area. The various public, private and political agencies and jurisdictions with a particular interest in the proposed project include the following: Federal A-zencies Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) — Responsible for conserving and protecting wild birds, endangered species and their habitat. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) — Responsible for approving changes to the interstate freeway system. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — Responsible for administration of the Superfund program. State Agencies California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) — Responsible for the protection, conservation, propagation and enhancement of California's wildlife resources. This department enforces laws and regulations, and issues licenses relative to and cooperates with local agencies in developing projects. This agency will act as a Trustee. California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) — Responsible for evaluating appropriate uses of water and for issuing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and waste discharge requirements. California Reclamation Board (CRB) — Responsible for delineation of flooding and regulation of encroachments into designated floodways. California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) — Responsible for approval of roadway improvements along state highways, including State Routes 86 and 195. California Environmental Protection Agency — This agency is the primary state agency concerned with degradation of the environment and how it affects human health. It is responsible for the examination and prevention of pollution of sources of public water supplies; establishment of ambient standards of air quality; monitoring of environmental Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-3 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA pollution, regulation of the quality of water supplies and sewage disposal systems; regulation of hazardous waste; regulation of pesticides; regulation and control of radioactive materials; and providing certain laboratory support to other state agencies. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) — This Cal -EPA agency is the primary state agency that regulates matters related to hazardous waste. It is responsible for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and permitting, surveillance and enforcement of hazardous waste facilities. State Air Resources Board (CARB) — This Cal -EPA agency is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act, responding to the Federal Clean Air Act and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. California Department of Conservation agricultural resources. Local Agencies This agency reviews projects for their impacts on County of Riverside — Responsible for land use control, and the provision of urban services on and to the project site. The County will act as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) — Has responsibility for the implementation of the California Clean Air Act. This agency's authority includes Los Angeles and Orange Counties and the western portion of Riverside County. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) — Stimulates intergovernmental cooperation in planning and development activities, and assures better coordination of federally assisted projects. Reviews applications of local and regional agencies for federal grants related to more than 100 programs. Responsible for preparing components of the California Regional Transportation Plan. Programs range from open space planning, waste control and water basin studies to aviation, housing and research in economics and demography. Adjacent Cities — The Cities of Indio, Coachella and La Quinta are located adjacent to the unincorporated portion of Riverside County where the project is located and will be affected by the proposed project. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) — Responsible for providing domestic water, sanitation and regional stormwater protection for the site. This area is within Improvement District No. 1 of the Coachella Valley Water District for irrigation service. Water from the Coachella Canal is available and shall be used to irrigate golf courses and greenbelts. The District can also provide agricultural drainage to this area. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) — Responsible for programming transportation improvements in the project area, preparing demographic forecasts, and solid waste and air quality planning. V-4 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Public agencies and interested parties who did not respond to a request for comment during the preparation of the EIR, will have an opportunity to comment during the public review period for the Draft EIR. 2. Industrial Overlay Designation and Land Use Concepts The Kohl Ranch project is located within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, the Thermal Redevelopment Area, as well as the area under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority. To facilitate development that is compatible with these designations and to afford flexibility to respond to evolving market conditions, the proposed Kohl Ranch project includes five land use concepts in addition to the base land use concept. These five concepts can be implemented through an Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD). These concepts are evaluated in this EIR as part of the proposed project. Each land use concept includes areas designated for industrial use, providing the project with increased potential for industrial development that supports surrounding airport and agricultural uses. The concepts differ in the amount of acreage and the geographic areas devoted to these industrial designations. The concepts range from 357.7 acres of potential industrial development with Land Use Concept 1, based on the primary land uses identified in the Specific Plan, to approximately 1,413 acres with Land Use Concept 6. The Land Use Concepts are described in greater detail in the following sections. Figure V-1, Land Use Plan, provides a detailed depiction of Concept 1, which represents the primary land uses proposed for the site, as described in the Specific Plan. a. Industrial Overlay Designation The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan identifies nearly 100 planning areas on the site grouped within 13 larger areas referred to as neighborhoods (See Figure V-2). Neighborhoods define logical development areas based on land use and the relationship to planned roadways and infrastructure. Each planning area within these neighborhoods has a primary land use designation. The primary land use designations for all planning areas are depicted in Figure V-1 and are referred to as Land Use Concept 1. Following approval of the Specific Plan, the Kohl Ranch may be developed in accordance with Land Use Concept 1 without any further zoning approval. All planning areas have a secondary land use designation, the IOD. The IOD is a dormant land use that may be activated through a change of zone process, to replace the primary land use designation. The IOD is intended to accommodate industrial users requiring large land parcels. It cannot be activated for individual planning areas, but instead must be applied concurrently to all planning areas within a neighborhood. By limiting use of the IOD to large areas (i.e., neighborhoods) which are designed with adequate buffer treatments, the balance of the Kohl Ranch site can be developed with its primary land uses, while maintaining land use compatibility. If the IOD is not applied to a given neighborhood, then that neighborhood would develop with the primary land use designations represented by Land Use Concept 1. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-5 Land Use Plan J ,Rve ou � l K niai + ,u`,'tia 1 I 1 e+ ; & Ave 62 N eI �i L) a. a.°j w TYPICAL DWELLING LAND USE ACRES DENSITY UNITS Residential I.—(RL) 412..9 3.8 1,569 �,' -- --- �t �•r._._ I e+` _, ._,_._.t.--`-}�..---r, Residential Medium (RM) 382.8 BA 3,062 +nw 1 al h(RH) 169.3 15.0 2,540 ResidentiHfg m ,.. ou Public Facilities (PF) 27,3 Commercial (C) 62.3 Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) LIZ 0 Office45.6 I ,.. •c Light lnda uo-ial ((LI) 89,9 Heavy Industrial (111) 173.4 aa . e(�aclu w e�,j Kt, w ` ,e ou t Warehouse/Dlscribution (W/D) 94.4 Open Space (OS) 411.6 Righnof.Way 195.5 TOTAL 2,177.0 7,171 r-•.... v=J.- j y L�� Residential Low I X RM Residential Medium € RH gh Residential Hi -� I ��: i a,Kfw G PF Public Facilities Commercial AP/MU Air Park/Mixed Use 0 Office wW Lf Light Industrial Heavy Industrial -- - ------ Ave 66 c- 1N1DWarehouse/Distribution OS7 Open Space THE Kf%-J11HLRXANCH Coachella Valley, California seal« 1n=2006' 00,C Figure V,1 V-6 Neighborhoods Coachella Valley, California Seale: 1"= 20W A0412, CO Figure V2 V7 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The IOD will remain dormant unless implemented through a change of zone process. This process requires the authorization of multiple landowners within the neighborhood to be designated IOD, for a change in the zoning for that neighborhood. As described in the Specific Plan, the IOD and related development standards and use restrictions will be based on the County M -H Zone (Heavy Manufacturing), as modified for the primary industrial land uses in Land Use Concept 1. Table V-1 summarizes the purpose, application and implementation of the IOD. Table V-1 INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DESIGNATION PURPOSE To increase potential for industrial development that is compatible with adjacent land uses and achieves the goals of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Thermal Redevelopment Area, and the Thermal Airport. APPLICATION An Industrial Overlay Designation can be applied to each of the thirteen neighborhoods, but must apply to all planning areas within that neighborhood. Certain neighborhoods can only be designated for industrial use in combination with other neighborhoods (See Table V-2). IMPLEMENTATION The Industrial Overlay Designation shall be implemented through the zone change process. The allowable land uses under this designation are the same as the County M -H Zone, as modified for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan (See the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance.) b. Land Use Concepts As described above, the IOD can only be applied to all planning areas within a neighborhood. In addition, the IOD can only be given to multiple neighborhoods in specific combinations. These prescribed groupings of neighborhoods are referred to as Overlay Districts. The Specific Plan provides for three Overlay Districts: Overlay Districts • Neighborhoods B, C and D, as a group; • Neighborhoods G and H as a group; and • Neighborhoods I, J, K, L and M, as a group. The activation of the IOD for one of the overlay districts requires that all neighborhoods within that overlay district must be given the IOD designation. For example, activation of the IOD for Neighborhood B requires the use of the IOD in Neighborhoods C and D. The Specific Plan permits the activation of the overlay districts singly or in combinations. The overlay district composed of Neighborhoods I, J, K, L and M can only be activated if the adjacent overlay district consisting of Neighborhoods G and H also is activated. As a result, there are five possible formats in which the overlay districts can be created in combination with unaffected neighborhoods that retain their primary land use designations. Table V-2 and Figure V-3 describe these five formats as Land Use Concepts 2 through 6. Build out of the site consistent with the Specific Plan can only occur under Concept 1, the primary land use designations, or under one of Concepts 2 through 6, when one or more of the overlay districts is activated with the IOD. V-8 The Planning Center Concept 1 Concept 4 Concept 2 ( Industrial Land Use Designation Concept 5 its 1 [076111; . w��63111. 1'1,11 �� 1 C l 1 Coachella Valley, California Land Use Concepts Concept 3 Concept 6 gg C70 Figure VU3 V9 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley . CA The Land Use Concepts retain the overall community structure, roadway configuration, and open space system of the proposed project, which are designed to buffer off-site and on-site uses from potential adjacent industrial uses and to ensure land use compatibility. A detailed description, statistical summary and land use plan for each Land Use Concept is provided in Section V.A.4. below. c. Environmental Analysis of Land Use Options The Industrial Overlay Designation and each of the Land Use Concepts are included in this EIR to assess their potential environmental impacts, since each concept represents one way in which the project may be implemented. Concept 1, which is based on the primary land uses identified in the Specific Plan, provides the base analysis in the EIR. Many of the impacts for Concepts 2 through 6 are the same as the impacts for Concept 1. For example, impacts that are not related to a particular land use, but instead stem from construction disturbance and grading on the site, are the same as Concept 1, and are noted as such. V-10 The Planning Center Table V-2 APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY DESIGNATION Land Use Concepts Neighborhoods 1 2 (No Application of Overlay) 3 4 5 6 A AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU AP/MU B R R R HI HI HI C R R R HI HI H1 D OS/O OS/O OS/0 HI HI Hf E HI H1 H1 H1 HI HI F LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM G R H1 Hf R HI HI H R HI HI R HI HI I PF PF HI PF PF HI J R R HI R R HI K R R Hi R R HI L R R Ht R R HI M R R HI R R HI AP/MU = Airpark/Mixed Use LIM = Light Industrial & Warehouse HI = Heavy Industrial R = Residential OS/O = Open Space & Office PF = Public Facilities Note: Land uses are generalized and represent the predominant land uses for each Neighborhood. Land Use Concept 1 represents the primary land uses identified in the Specific Plan. The Land Use Concepts retain the overall community structure, roadway configuration, and open space system of the proposed project, which are designed to buffer off-site and on-site uses from potential adjacent industrial uses and to ensure land use compatibility. A detailed description, statistical summary and land use plan for each Land Use Concept is provided in Section V.A.4. below. c. Environmental Analysis of Land Use Options The Industrial Overlay Designation and each of the Land Use Concepts are included in this EIR to assess their potential environmental impacts, since each concept represents one way in which the project may be implemented. Concept 1, which is based on the primary land uses identified in the Specific Plan, provides the base analysis in the EIR. Many of the impacts for Concepts 2 through 6 are the same as the impacts for Concept 1. For example, impacts that are not related to a particular land use, but instead stem from construction disturbance and grading on the site, are the same as Concept 1, and are noted as such. V-10 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis For other impact categories, such as public services, a detailed environmental analysis is provided for each Land Use Concept. Concepts 3 and 6 may raise environmental issues that are significantly different from those addressed in the base analysis. In cases where new environmental issues are raised, reasonable assumptions have been made regarding the level of impact anticipated. Impacts of a scope well beyond the base analysis in the EIR are assumed to be the subject of subsequent environmental review, should Concept 3 or 6 be implemented. Based on the analysis of impacts in the EIR, where impacts can be quantified, it is assumed that no further environmental analysis and review will be required if the Industrial Overlay Designation is implemented. As indicated in Table V-3, for Land Use Concepts other than Concept 1, four impact categories will require additional environmental review at the project development stage, to determine whether impacts associated with that particular Land Use Concept fall within the "envelope of impacts" created by Concept 1. These impact categories include: air quality, noise, toxic substance and circulation and traffic. For these four impact categories, a preliminary analysis is provided in the EIR, to facilitate a comparison of Concepts 2 through 6 with Concept 1, the base analysis. Should it be determined that the impacts of a particular Land Use Concept exceed those of Concept 1 (the primary land uses), additional environmental analysis may be required. Based on the analysis of impacts in this EIR, it is assumed that no further analysis will be required for Concept 1. Draft EIR a May 13, 1996 V-11 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA Table V-3 LAND USE CONCEPTS FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Impact 1 2 3 4 5 6 Land Use no no no no no no Landform & Topography/Slopes & Erosion no no no no no no Soils & Agriculture no no no no no no Biology no no no no no no Geology & Seismicity no no no no no no Hydrology, Flooding & Drainage no no no no no no Air Quality no yes yes yes yes yes Water Quality no no no no no no Noise no yes yes yes yes yes Energy Resources no no no no no no Open Space & Conservation no no no no no no Toxic Substance no no yes no no yes Cultural Resources no no no no no no Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light & Glare no no no no no no Circulation & Traffic yes' yes' yes' yes' yes' yes' Water & Sewer no no no no no no Fire Services no no no no no no Sheriff Services no no no no no no Schools no no no no no no Parks & Recreation no no no no no no Utilities no no no no no no Solid Waste no no no no no no Health Services no no no no no no Disaster Preparedness no no no no no no Libraries no no no no no no Airports no no no no no no Housing Element no no no no no no Regional Element no no no no no no Administrative Element no no no no no no 1. The traffic analysis provided in this EIR is adequate to define the level of impact for the Land Use Concepts. However, regardless of CEQA requirements, future traffic analysis would be performed consistent with Riverside County traffic impact assessment guidelines as development projects occur. V-12 The Planning Center LAND USE DETERMINATION Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (RCCGP) establishes policies for guiding growth in the County based upon long-term goals, objectives and land use policies and standards, in conjunction with an extensive information mapping system. Consequently, the General Plan considers and utilizes both long-term objectives and current conditions to designate the proposed general location, extent and type of land uses and densities. The determination of appropriate land uses for sites within the County is based on the Land Use Determination System of the RCCGP Land Use Element. The Land Use Determination System is a four -step process: 1. Open Space and Conservation Map Review 2. Environmental Hazards and Resources Map Review 3. Land Use Planning Area Review 4. Land Use Category Review and Land Use Determination The following sections of the EIR apply the Land Use Determination System to the project site to determine consistency with the General Plan and the appropriate land use category for the proposed development. 1. Site Identification Within Open Space and Conservation Map The first step in the Land Use Determination System is the review of the Open Space and Conservation Map, which designates areas within the County for which specific land uses have been adopted. These land uses are intended to either preserve an area as open space or provide for the conservation of particular resources. If an open space or conservation land use is identified, then that is the land use designation for that site by the Land Use Element. The Open Space and Conservation Map designates the entire project site as "agriculture" (Figure V-4). Consequently, the remaining three steps in the Land Use Determination System process are not used. The analysis of the remaining three steps in the process are provided below for informational purposes, and are not required to determine the land use designation of the project site. General Plan policies related to areas designated for agriculture are discussed below in Section V.C.2. 2. Site Identification Within Composite Hazards/Resource Map The second step of the Land Use Determination System is the review of the Composite Hazards Map, Composite Resources Map and potential noise impacts. The maps indicate those portions of the County where development may be limited by the presence of environmental resources or hazards. The identification of a hazard or resource on the site may affect the land uses permitted on the site, or may indicate the need to provide mitigation for the proposed land use to lessen environmental impacts. The Composite Environmental Hazards Map indicates that the project site is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Area (Figure V-5). An assessment of the liquefaction potential on the Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-13 Open Space & Conservation Map Project Site Agriculture Water Resources/Flooding Desert Areas ... Ili .. . ... i�1111 oil, Mountainous Areas Cities "! Adopted Specific Plans Coachella Valley, California Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plat: 9 CO� O Figure V 4 V-14 Composite Environmental Hazards Map THE KOHL ;1RAN CH VQ2 M Coachella Valle California C Valley, 70 Fire V-5 V15 Project Site 6S dBA Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones Liquefaction Hazard Areas *Noise contours for Thermal Airport as shown in the County General Plan do not Mountainous Areas and Airaort Major Scenic Peaks • . �. Blowsand Hazard Areas THE KOHL ;1RAN CH VQ2 M Coachella Valle California C Valley, 70 Fire V-5 V15 100 Year Floodplain 6S dBA Airport Noise Contours* Public Class II -2 Landfill (active) Public/Private Landfill (closed) *Noise contours for Thermal Airport as shown in the County General Plan do not reflect existing conditions or future expansion plans for the airport. See Thermal Airaort Comvrehensive Land Use Plan. Aueust 1992. THE KOHL ;1RAN CH VQ2 M Coachella Valle California C Valley, 70 Fire V-5 V15 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA project, site is contained below in Section V.C.4., Geology and Seismicity, and in Appendix B. This analysis indicates that there is only minimal liquefaction potential for the site. In addition, the site is affected by noise from the Thermal Airport located immediately north of the project site. The noise analysis for the project indicates that residential uses within the 60 CNEL contour of the airport will require analysis to ensure that Riverside County noise standards are met. Noise sources in the project vicinity are discussed in detail in Section V.C.8., Noise, and in Appendix H. A closed landfill is located within approximately one half -mile of the project site. Review of available records indicates that water quality in the project vicinity has -not been affected by this facility. This issue is addressed in Section V.C.7., Water Quality. The Composite Environmental Resources Map identifies agricultural resources on the project site (Figure V-6). According to the map, the site is not within the range of any rare, endangered or threatened species. Biological surveys for the project did not identify any sensitive species on-site. However, the biological assessment recommends pre -construction surveys for the Yuma clapper rail, black rail and the burrowing owl. This issue is discussed further in Section V.C.3., Biology, and Appendix D. The site is designated as having low probability for prehistoric resources. Potential impacts to cultural resources are addressed in Section V.C.12. 3. Land Use Area Profile and Community Policy Area Identification for Project Site The third step in the land use determination process consists of the analysis of the Land Use Planning Area (LUPA), or geographic subunit, in which the project site is located. Profiles provide background information for each LUPA. Within each LUPA, there may be additional land use policies that have been developed for a Community Policy Area (CPA) which are not covered by the countywide elements of the RCCGP. The Community Land Use Policies reflect the unique concerns and needs within particular communities. In order to determine the Land Use Category and specific land use for the site, the following descriptions must be reviewed: (1) growth forecasts for population and housing; (2) land use potential; (3) land use constraints; (4) areawide land use description; (5) the applicable subarea description; and (6) any applicable community land use policies. Land uses must be consistent with these descriptions. Significant projects must be consistent with the SCAG subarea forecasts. Consistency with growth forecasts must be viewed in light of previous commitments for infrastructure/facilities availability and monitored actual growth in the planning area. a. Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area Profile The project site is located within the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area (LUPA). According to the RCCGP, growth in the Lower Coachella Valley LUPA will occur primarily within the cities of Indio and Coachella and their spheres of influence, as well as within several small unincorporated communities including Thermal, Bermuda Dunes, Mecca, Valerie, Mortmar and areas around the Salton Sea. The Lower Coachella Valley LUPA profile identifies the viability of agriculture, the isolated nature of the land and the cost of extending public services as the most significant constraints on increased urbanization. V-16 The Planning Center Composite Environmental Resources Map Project Site Agricultural Resources Prime, Unique, State•Imppo�rtant, Locally -Important Agricuitual Land Wildlife Rare, Endangered, Threatened Species Ranges j -j Prehistoric Resources Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Archeological Probability Areas. N - National Register H -High M - Moderate L - Low ,THE KOHL RANCH, Coachella Valley, California $P SPRINGS Source: Riverside County Planning Department, Jan. 1983 a Figure X1.6 V-17 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The land use policies for the Lower Coachella Valley LUPA state that land uses should not be encouraged to change significantly in the future, and should remain primarily agricultural in nature, housing those persons working in the Coachella Valley agricultural and service trades. However, the Lower Coachella Valley LUPA Profile also acknowledges that expansion of the Thermal Airport could increase the growth potential within this LUPA. The land use policies state that industrial development should generally be located along the Southern Pacific main line tracks and around Thermal Airport. The Lower Coachella Valley LUPA Profile predates and is inconsistent with more recent County planning efforts in the project area. Among these is the 1990 Master Plan for the expansion of Thermal Airport and the formation of the Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority, which was implemented through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to oversee development in the airport vicinity. The entire Kohl Ranch site falls under the jurisdiction of the JPA. In addition, the approximately 27,000 -acre Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone was created for the purpose of encouraging growth in the area, which is considered economically distressed. As described in the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Environmental Impact Report, enterprise zones are selected by the State Department of Commerce on a competitive basis, and remain in effect for a period of fifteen years. Enterprise Zones offer special incentives and programs both to assist an area's existing companies and to attract new businesses. The program is intended to provide the area with long term benefits such as expanded employment opportunities for local residents, increased per capita income, a larger tax base, and added stability and diversification in the local economy. State incentives include tax credits for sales and use taxes paid on machinery, tax credits for hiring qualified employees, and interest deductions for lenders on loans to firms within the area. Local jurisdictions are encouraged to "assist companies in obtaining and expediting licenses and permits, coordinating their job training efforts, and ... conducting periodic workshops to provide companies with current information on their enterprise zone benefits and incentives." The Kohl Ranch site falls within the boundaries of the Enterprise Zone. The intent of the proposed project is to be compatible with and to support the $34 million expansion of Thermal Airport. The diverse business and employment opportunities, living environments, recreational and visual amenities, and roadway and other infrastructure improvements embodied in the Specific Plan would enhance the attractiveness of the Thermal Airport vicinity, and would reinforce the desirability of the area for potential future development opportunities in accordance with the airport Master Plan. Industrial development proposed for the northern portion of the site would take advantage of access to the airport, consistent with the LUPA policies. The plan also is compatible with State policies for the area, as reflected in the designation of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. The plan helps fulfill the economic development goals of the Enterprise Zone and is intended to facilitate development of the site by industrial users potentially interested in the Coachella Valley as the location for a major jobs -generating enterprise. Location of proposed industrial and business land uses in the northern portion of the site, within Redevelopment Area No. 4, can be expected to enhance the potential for development of these planned uses. In addition, inclusion of the Industrial Overlay Designation (See Section V.A.4. below) increases the ability of the project to respond to changing market conditions that the Enterprise Zone and airport expansion can be expected to bring about. V-18 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b. Coachella Valley Community Policy Area The proposed project is located within the Coachella Valley Community Policy Area (CPA). Land use policies for this area address aesthetic concerns, commercial land uses and environmental policies. These policies are discussed in detail in Section V.B.2. below. c. Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Community Policies The project site is located within the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan Area (ECVP), an area of approximately 201,367 acres, which is located within the southeast portion of the Coachella Valley, south of the City of Indio. The Eastern Coachella Valley Plan (ECVP) addresses policies for this area, and designates the project site for agricultural use (Figure V-7). Agricultural lands are limited to the following land uses: agriculture and associated uses (including limited commercial, industrial and single-family residential uses); and open space. Minimum lot size is ten acres. The proposed project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from "agriculture" to "adopted specific plan". 4. Summary of Project Proposal/Site Comparison with Applicable Land Use Category Policies With the exception of a Community Policy Area having an Allocation Map, the fourth step of the Land Use Determination System is a review of the Land Use Element's standards and locational policies for land use categories and specific land uses. The project is located within the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan, which contains a Land Use Allocation Map. Therefore, the Land Use Designation on the site is in accordance with that map (i.e., "Agriculture") and Step 4 is not used. The analysis of this step of the process is provided below for informational purposes only. The land use categories are based upon different levels of public facilities and service capabilities. The five land use categories include: Category I: Heavy Urban Category Il: Urban Category III: Rural Category IV: Outlying Area Category V: Planned Community In addition, the ECVP divides Categories H and III into two subcategories, each based on permitted building intensities. a. Summary of Project Proposal The 2,177 -acre Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is located in the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside County (see Figure V-8). The site is just south of the Thermal Airport, and is roughly east of the old Highway 86, west of Highway 111 and north of Highway 195. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-19 Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Open Space and Conservation Agriculture Mountainous Areas Water Resources ETAdopted Specific Plans Land Use Categories Residential (Dwelling Units/Acre) IA 14 - 20 DU/AC 1B 8 -14 DU/AC 2A 5 - 8 DU/AC 2B 2 - 5 DU/AC 3A .4 - 2 DU/AC 3B .2 - .4 DU/AC 4 0 -.2 DU/AC PRR 0 - 5 DU/AC C Commercial III 71051-fll 11111 IGO M Industrial/Manufacturing Coachella Valley, California Source: Riverside County, Dec. 1991. Coo Figure V-7 V-20 Regional Location THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California 926a C70 Figure V 8 V91 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA The project is bounded by Avenue 60 on the north, Polk Street on the east, Avenue 66 on the South and Tyler Street on the west (see Figure V-9). The site is within the boundaries of the approximately 27,000 -acre Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone and a portion of the site is within the Thermal Redevelopment Area. As described above in the Introduction to this EIR, the Kohl Ranch project includes five land use concepts in addition to the base land use concept. These five concepts can be implemented through the application of an Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD). Each of the land use concepts is described below.- 1) elow: 1) Land Use Concept 1 Land Use Concept 1 represents the primary land use designations for the project, as described in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. Following approval of the Specific Plan, the project site may be developed in accordance with Concept 1 without any further zoning approval. Concept 1 consists of a balanced array of land uses including residential, business, commercial, industrial, open space/recreation and public facilities (Figure V-10). Both living and working opportunities will be available within the project. The residential portion includes 7,171 dwelling units distributed among three different density classifications on 965.0 acres, with a gross residential density of 4.98 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 412 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of two golf courses which are identified as secondary allowable land uses. Under the golf course scenario, the project would provide approximately 589 acres of open space. The business, commercial and industrial land use categories will comprise 157.6, 62.3 and 357.7 acres, respectively. Commercial areas will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward the Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 1 of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are briefly summarized in Table V-4. The Kohl Ranch project is planned to be developed in five phases. Residential land uses are expected to build -out over a seventeen-year period, while non-residential uses are projected to develop over twenty-five years. During build -out of the project, agriculture will be permitted to continue as an interim use. 2) Land Use Concept 2 Land Use Concept 2 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods G & H are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 2 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential and commercial acreage decreases. V-22 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 5,157 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 670 acres. Approximately 402 acres of open space provides for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of two golf courses, as secondary allowable land uses. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 157.6, 57.1 and 667.7 acres, respectively. Commercial areas will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 2 are summarized in Table V-5 and are depicted in Figure V-11. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-25 Table V-4 CONCEPT 1 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acreage Percent of Total Percent of Developable Area Dwelling Units RESIDENTIAL Residential Low RL 412.9 19.0 26.8 1,569 Residential Medium RM 382.8 17.6 24.8 3,062 Residential High (RH) 169.3 7.8 11.0 2,540 Total Residential 965.0 44.4 62.6 7,171 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial Ll 89.9 4.1 5.8 Heayy Industrial HI 173.4 8.0 11.2 Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 4.3 6.1 Total Industrial 357.7 16.4 23.1 BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use AP/MU 112.0 5.1 7.3 Office 0 45.6 2.1 3.0 Total Business 157.6 7.2 10.3 COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 62.3 2.9 4.0 OTHER 0 en Space OS 411.6 18.9 Public Facilities PF 27.3 1.2 Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 9.0 Total Other 634.4 29.1 TOTAL 1 2,177.0 1 100% 100% 7,171 1 Assumes total of 1,542.6 acres of developable land. This does not include land uses in 'other" category. This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 5,157 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 670 acres. Approximately 402 acres of open space provides for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of two golf courses, as secondary allowable land uses. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 157.6, 57.1 and 667.7 acres, respectively. Commercial areas will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 2 are summarized in Table V-5 and are depicted in Figure V-11. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-25 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-5 CONCEPT 2 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU/SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 276.9 1,052 DU Residential Medium (RM) 256.4 2,051 DU Residential High (RH) 136.9 2,054 DU Total Residential 670.2 5,157 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 1,370,615 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 483.4 9,475,607 SF Warehouse/Distribution (VII/D) 94.4 2,056,032 SF Total Industrial 667.7 12,902,254 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 45.6 595,901 SF Total Business 157.6 2,303,453 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial J 57.1 689,773 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 292,297 SF Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 624.6 TOTAL 2,177.0 5,157 DU 16,192,777 SF 3 Land Use Concept 3 Land Use Concept 3 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods G through M are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 3 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential, public facilities and commercial acreage decreases. This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 2,227 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 274.7 acres. Approximately 402 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of one golf course in the northern portion of the site, as a secondary allowable land use. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 157.6, 44.6 and 1,103.0 acres, respectively. The single, large commercial area adjacent to "A" Street will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-27 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The industrial uses located south of Avenue 62 differ from the industrial uses in Concept 1, in that they are designed to accommodate large-scale industrial uses, resulting in a significantly lower intensity of development. The land uses proposed for Concept 3 are summarized in Table V-6 and are depicted in Figure V-12. Table V-6 CONCEPT 3 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU/SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 101.6 _ 386 DU Residential Medium (RM) 108.0 864 DU Residential High (RH) 65.1 976 DU Total Residential 274.7 2,227 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9' 509,039 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 918.72 6,444,044 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 385,688 SF Total Industrial 1,103.03 7,338,771 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 45.6 595,901 SF Total Business 157.6 2,303,453 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 44.6 553,648 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 597.1 TOTAL 2,177.0 2,227 DU 10,195,871 SF 1. 77.2 acres included in large-scale industrial development. 2. 745.3 acres included in large-scale industrial development. 3. All acreage (94.4 acres) included in large-scale industrial development. NOTE: Total developed acreage included in large-scale industrial development is 916.9 acres. 4 Land Use Conce t 4 Land Use Concept 4 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods B, C and D are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 4 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential and commercial acreage decreases. This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 4,944 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 690.3 acres. Approximately 411 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of one golf course in the southern portion of the site, as a secondary allowable land use. V-28 The Planning Center The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 143.1, 17.7 and 691.5 acres, respectively. The single, large commercial area along Avenue 66 will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 4 are summarized in Table V-7 and are depicted in Figure V-13. 51 Land Use Concept 5 Land Use Concept 5 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods B, C, D, G and H are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 5 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential and commercial acreage decreases. V-30 The Planning Center - Table V-7 CONCEPT 4 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU / SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 311.3 1,183 DU Residential Medium (RM) 274.8 2,198 DU Residential High (RH) 104.2 1,563 DU Total Residential 690.3 4,944 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 1,370,615 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 507.2 9,942,134 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 2,056,032 SF Total Industrial 691.5 13,368,782 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 31.1 406,415 SF Total Business 143.1 2,113,967 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 17.7 L204,079 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 411.6 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 292,297 SF Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 634.4 TOTAL 2,177.0 4,944 DU 15,984,124 SF 51 Land Use Concept 5 Land Use Concept 5 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods B, C, D, G and H are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 5 increases compared with Concept 1, while the total residential and commercial acreage decreases. V-30 The Planning Center Concept 4 . Open Space Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale QC11c Figure V-13 V31 Residential • Residential Medium Residential Public Facilities Commercial Air Park/Mixed ■��rrr�� irrrrrrrr rrursru ■rrrrsrr ■IrlIrr�IIlrrlr - • II!l��IIIIIIIII�� Light• Heavy Industrial Warehouse/Distribution . Open Space Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale QC11c Figure V-13 V31 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA This land use concept provides both living and working opportunities within the project site. The residential portion includes 2,930 dwelling units distributed among three density classifications on 395.5 acres. Approximately 402 acres of open space provide for passive and active recreation, including trails and parks. The plan also allows for the development of one golf course in the southern portion of the site, as a secondary allowable land use. The business, commercial and industrial land uses categories will comprise 143.1, 12.5 and 1,001.5 acres, respectively. The single, large commercial area along Avenue 66 will serve the Kohl Ranch project as well as neighboring communities. Business and industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The land uses proposed for Concept 5 are summarized in Table V-8 and are depicted in Figure V-14. Table V-8 CONCEPT 5 STATISTICAL SUMMARY Land Use Acres DU/SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 175.3 666 DU Residential Medium (RM) 148.4 1,187 DU Residential High (RH) 71.8 1,077 DU Total Residential 395.5 2,930 DU INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 1,370,615 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 817.2 16,018,754 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 2,056,032 SF Total Industrial 1,001.5 19,445,402 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 31.1 406,415 SF Total Business 143.1 2,113,967 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 12.5 136,125 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 292,297 SF Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 634.4 TOTAL 2,177.0 2,930 DU 21,992,791 SF V-32 The Planning Center _j , Ave 60 Open Space KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Concept 5 Not to Scale QG? C070 Figure V-14 V-143 , • Residential - _, . Medium Residential .. _ Residential I-Egh Public Facilities i ♦i � iii i <�<� +<ftttiit liii<tit hahttttitt �itii at kh �tii♦ti% Commercial I VA Air Park/Mixed Use ■RRRRRRRR RRRRrrRRi rwrrrRRr■ RrrrrrRRrr rrrrrrrrR Office Em Light Industrial IllllllllHeavy Industrial MIN Warehouse/Distributi Open Space KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Concept 5 Not to Scale QG? C070 Figure V-14 V-143 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA 6) Land Use Concept 6 Land Use Concept 6 differs from Concept 1 in that Neighborhoods B, C, D, G, H, I, J, K, L and M are developed for heavy industrial use through application of the IOD. Consequently, the total industrial acreage for Concept 6 increases compared with Concept 1, while the residential, public facilities, commercial and office acreages decrease or are eliminated. This land use concept provides no residential land uses within the project site. The approximately 402 acres of open space primarily provide for drainage and buffering of adjacent land uses. The business and industrial land uses categories will comprise 143.1 and 1,436.8 acres, respectively. Industrial uses will be oriented toward Thermal Airport as well as larger regional markets, and are intended to provide employment opportunities to project area residents. The industrial uses located south of Avenue 62 differ from the industrial uses in Concept 1, in that they are designed to accommodate large-scale industrial uses, resulting in a lower intensity of development. The land uses proposed for Concept 6 are summarized in Table V-9 and are depicted in Figure V-15. Table V-9 CONCEPT 6 STATISTICAL SUMMARY _ Land Use Acres DU/SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) Residential Medium (RM) Residential High (RH) Total Residential INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 77.2' 509,039 SF Heavy Industrial (HI)' 1,265.22 12,987,192 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.43 385,688 SF Total Industrial 1,436.8 13,881,918 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,552 SF Office (0) 31.1 406,415 SF Total Business 143.1 2,113,967 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial OTHER Open Space (OS) 401.6 Public Facilities (PF) Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 Total Other 597.1 TOTAL 2,177.0 0 DU 15,995,885 SF 1. All acreage (77.2 acres) included in large-scale industrial development. 2. 745.3 acres included in large-scale industrial development. 3. All acreage (94.4 acres) included in large-scale industrial development. NOTE: Total developed acreage included in large-scale industrial development is 916.9 acres. V-34 The Planning Center Concept 6 Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale Figure x+'-15 V R5 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b. Comparison with Applicable Land Use Category Policies The project is located within the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan, which contains a Land Use Allocation Map. Consequently, Step 4 of the Land Use Determination Process is not required. The analysis provided below is for informational purposes only. An assessment of the availability and extent of public facilities and services to the site was made (water, sewer and circulation). By comparing this assessment to the requirements of each land use category, it was determined that the proposed project is a Category II project. The following discussion outlines the requirements of the five categories and subcategories, and demonstrates how the project meets the requirements for Category II. 1) Category 1 (Heavy Urban) Category I land uses are characterized by intensive commercial and industrial land uses and higher residential densities. Category I land uses are generally located within or are extensions of existing communities. They must be located within an improvement district of a water and sewer district authorized to provide water and sewer service. Category I land uses must be located within an area containing a major transportation corridor. Transportation corridors are classified as freeways, expressways and arterial highways. Residential land uses at eight to twenty dwelling units per acre are considered appropriate for this category. Commercial land uses including regional commercial and community commercial may be appropriate. Heavy and medium industrial uses in this category include manufacturing of food, textile, paper, metal and concrete products. Although the proposed project includes residential densities in the range specified for this category, the overall residential density of 4.98 du per gross residential acre is less than the prescribed density range for Category I. In addition, the project is not located within an existing community and is not an extension of an existing community. Therefore, the proposed project is not considered a Category I land use. 2) Category II (Urban) Category II land uses represent a broad mix of land uses, including many types and intensities of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. Category II land uses are generally located within existing communities or within cities' spheres of influence. Category II land uses must be located within an improvement district of a water and sewer district authorized to provide water and sewer service. Land uses in this category must be located in an area served by arterial highways, major highways and secondary highways. Residential land uses at a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre are considered appropriate for Category II. Commercial uses in this land use category include community and neighborhood commercial. Industrial uses in Category II are intended to promote and attract medium and heavy industrial uses such as the manufacture of food, textile, paper, metal and concrete products. V-36 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The proposed project includes land uses that are compatible with those prescribed for Category II. In addition, the overall project residential density of 4.98 dwelling units per gross residential acre falls within the range for Category H. More specifically, the project is consistent with Category IIB in the ECVP, a sub -category created to ensure land use compatibility while permitting flexibility. Although the project site is not located within an existing community or within a city's sphere of influence, the project site is located in an area that local and state policies target for development, as indicated by the establishment of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone and Thermal Redevelopment Area. Therefore, the proposed project is considered a Category II land use. 3) Category III (Rural) Category III is characterized by rural land uses including lower residential densities and fewer public facilities and improvements. Land uses typically include agricultural, residential densities of one dwelling unit per half acre to one dwelling unit per five acres, small-scale commercial and light industrial uses. Category III land uses are located away from existing urban centers. The current land uses on the project site are characteristic of Category III land uses. However, Category II land uses are proposed for the project. 4) Category IV (Outlying Areas) Category IV is the least intensive land use category. Land uses in this category are generally located near large tracts of publicly owned land and are often used for agriculture, mining, industry or low density residential areas. Outlying areas are located away from urban centers, are without improvements and are generally "self sufficient" in terms of water supply, sewage disposal, commercial needs and other public facilities and services. Residential densities of one dwelling unit per five acres and larger are considered appropriate for Category IV. Commercial land uses consist of convenience commercial and tourist commercial uses. Medium industrial uses are also included in this category. Land uses proposed for the Kohl Ranch project are more intensive than the land uses appropriate for this category. 5) Category V (Planned Community) Category V provides for the establishment of new towns and communities within the County. Planned communities are large scale projects of at least 640 acres, designed as balanced communities which may contain a variety of residential, commercial, industrial and open space uses. The land uses are largely self-supporting and must be able to provide the highest level of public services consistent with an urban type of land use. Except where nearby existing community centers are adequate to provide appropriate commercial and employment activities, a Category V project will need to provide commercial activity to meet community consumer needs and a significant employment base to balance the creation of new housing. The proposed land use also must demonstrate the adequacy of the circulation system, water and sewer service, utilities, fire protection, schools, waste disposal and any other needed Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-37 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA public facilities and services. A detailed plan must be prepared for the provision of housing for all income ranges based on the identified housing needs created by the development. Not less than 25 percent of the housing units shall be affordable to low and moderate income households. At least 20 percent of the gross acreage of the site shall be set aside for open space or park purposes. Because of land use limitations posed by the airport influence areas, and the target market of retirement/second home units for residential areas south of Avenue 62, the proposed project does not provide housing for all income ranges. In addition, the Kohl Ranch project is not intended as a self-contained community. Consequently, the proposed project is not a Category V land use. c. Land Use Compatibility 1) Concent 1 Under Concept 1, adequate public services would be provided, which would ensure consistency with the policies of the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan. The current zoning designations for the project site are A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, and A-1-10, Light Agriculture. Implementation of Concept 1 would require changing the zoning to be consistent with the uses proposed. The roadway configuration, streetscapes/landscaping, drainage and open space system for Concept 1, which are described in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, serve to minimize conflicts among adjacent land uses. In general, industrial, business and commercial uses are concentrated in the northern portion of the site, while primarily residential uses are located in the southern portion of the site. Land use impacts of Concept 1 would be less than significant, assuming that the edge treatment, buffering and streetscapes in the Kohl Ranch Design Guidelines are incorporated into the project. 2 Concept 2 Under Concept 2, as with Concept 1, adequate public services would be provided, which would ensure consistency with the policies of the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan. The current zoning designations for the project site are A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, and A-1-10, Light Agriculture. As with Concept 1, implementation of Concept 2 would require changing the zoning to be consistent with the uses proposed. In terms of compatibility with adjacent off-site land uses, Concept 2 assumes the same roadway configuration, streetscapes/landscaping, drainage and open space system as Concept 1. These elements, which are described in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, serve to minimize conflicts between industrial uses and adjacent land uses. V-38 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Concept 2 proposes Heavy Industrial land uses in Neighborhoods G and H, whereas residential uses are designated under Concept 1. This industrial area would be separated from public facility and residential uses to the south by the utility easement beltway and Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel. Project land uses to the north would include office and industrial uses, which would be separated from the industrial uses in Neighborhoods G and H by roadways and drainage channels. Adjacent uses along the project periphery would be buffered by the drainageways and recommended edge treatments, as well as the Tyler and Polk Street rights-of- way and landscaping. Land use impacts of Concept 2 would be less than significant, assuming that the edge treatment, buffering and streetscapes in the Kohl Ranch Design Guidelines are incorporated into the project. 3 Concept 3 Under Concept 3, as with Concept 1, adequate public services would be provided, which would ensure consistency with the policies of the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan. The current zoning designations for the project site are A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, and A-1-10, Light Agriculture. As with Concept 1, implementation of Concept 3 would require changing the zoning to be consistent with the uses proposed. In terms of compatibility with adjacent off-site land uses, Concept 3 assumes the same roadway configuration, streetscapes/landscaping, drainage and open space system as Concept 1. These elements, which are described in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, serve to minimize conflicts between industrial uses and adjacent land uses. Concept 3 proposes designation of the entire portion of the site, inclusive of neighborhoods G, H, I, J, K, L, and M to the south of Avenue 62 for large-scale industrial, whereas Concept 1 designates these areas for public facilities, residential and commercial uses. Project land uses to the north of Avenue 62 would include office, high density residential and industrial uses, which would be separated from the large-scale industrial use by roadways and streetscape treatment. Adjacent uses along the project periphery would be buffered by the drainageways and recommended edge treatments, as well as the Tyler and Polk Street and Avenue 66 rights-of-way and landscaping. Land use impacts of Concept 3 would be less than significant, assuming that the edge treatment, buffering and streetscapes in the Kohl Ranch Design Guidelines are incorporated into the project. 4) Concept 4 Under Concept 4, as with Concept 1, adequate public services would be provided, which would ensure consistency with the policies of the Eastern Coachella Valley Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-39 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley o CA Plan. The current zoning designations for the project site are A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, and A-1-10, Light Agriculture. As with Concept 1, implementation of Concept 4 would require changing the zoning to be consistent with the uses proposed. In terms of compatibility with adjacent off-site land uses, Concept 4 assumes the same roadway configuration, streetscapes/landscaping, drainage and open space system as Concept 1. These elements, which are described in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, serve to minimize conflicts between industrial uses and adjacent land uses. Concept 4 proposes Heavy Industrial land uses in Neighborhoods B, C, and D, whereas residential, commercial and office uses are designated under Concept 1. This industrial area would be separated from commercial, residential and light industrial uses to the south by Avenue 62 and landscape treatment. Project land uses to the north would include airpark/mixed-use and open space uses, which would be separated from the industrial uses by roadways and landscaping. Adjacent uses along the project periphery would be buffered by the drainageways and recommended edge treatments, as well as the Tyler and Polk Street rights-of-way and landscaping. Land use impacts of Concept 4 would be less than significant, assuming that the edge treatment, buffering and streetscapes in the Kohl Ranch Design Guidelines are incorporated into the project. 5) Concept 5 Under Concept 5, as with Concept 1, adequate public services would be provided, which would ensure consistency with the policies of the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan. The current zoning designations for the project site are A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, and A-1-10, Light Agriculture. As with Concept 1, implementation of Concept 5 would require changing the zoning to be consistent with the uses proposed. In terms of compatibility with adjacent off-site land uses, Concept 5 assumes the same roadway configuration, streetscapes/landscaping, drainage and open space system as Concept 1. These elements, which are described in the Specific Plan Design Guidelines, serve to minimize conflicts between industrial uses and adjacent land uses. Concept 5 proposes Heavy Industrial land uses in Neighborhoods B, C, D, G, and H, whereas residential, commercial and office uses are designated for these neighborhoods under Concept 1. The industrial area in Neighborhoods G and H would be separated from public facility and residential uses to the south by the utility easement beltway and Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel. The industrial areas in Neighborhoods B, C and D would be separated from light industrial and office uses to the east by C Street, a drainage channel and park. Project land uses to the V-40 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis north of A Street would include airpark/mixed-use uses and open space, which would be separated from the industrial uses by roadways and landscaping. Adjacent uses along the project periphery would be buffered by the drainageways and recommended edge treatments, as well as the Tyler and Polk Street rights-of-way and landscaping. Land use impacts of Concept 5 would be less than significant, assuming that the edge treatment, buffering and streetscapes in the Kohl Ranch Design Guidelines are incorporated into the project. - 6 Concept 6 Under Concept 6, as with the Concept 1, adequate public services would be provided, which would ensure consistency with the policies of the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan. The current zoning designations for the project site are A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, and A-1-10, Light Agriculture. As with Concept 1, Concept 6 would require changing the zoning to be consistent with the uses proposed. Adjacent uses along the project periphery would be buffered by the drainageways and recommended edge treatments, as well as the Tyler and Polk Street and Avenue 66 rights-of-way and landscaping. As all uses on-site are either industrial or airpark/mixed-use, compatibility and buffering between uses is not a concern, assuming that the edge treatment, buffering and streetscapes in the Kohl Ranch Design Guidelines are incorporated into the project. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-41 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA [This page intentionally left blank.] V-42 The Planning Center LAND USE ELEMENT Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Bo LAND USE ELEMENT 1. Land Use Planning Area Policy Analysis The project site is located within the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area (LUPA) of the RCCGP. In 1980, the population of this area was 16,835. The Land Use Planning Area Profile does not provide current population figures or projections. For the latest SCAG growth forecasts for the Coachella Valley subregion, please refer to Section V.F. The Lower Coachella Valley LUPA is approximately 409 square miles and is bounded by the All American Canal and Dillon Road to the east, Thousand Palms Canyon Road to the west, Joshua Tree National Monument to the north and Imperial County to the south. The predominant land use within the LUPA is agriculture, including both dry farming and agriculture. A large portion is vacant, non -irrigated desert. As discussed above in Section V.A.3., the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (RCCGP) anticipates growth in the Lower Coachella Valley LUPA to occur primarily within the cities of Indio and Coachella and their spheres of influence, and several small unincorporated communities. The viability of agriculture, the isolated location and the cost of extending public services are identified as the most significant constraints on increased urbanization. According to the Lower Coachella Valley LUPA land use policies, land uses should not be encouraged to change significantly in the future, and should remain primarily agricultural in nature, housing those persons working in the Coachella Valley agricultural and service trades. However, the Lower Coachella Valley LUPA Profile also acknowledges that expansion of the Thermal Airport could increase the growth potential within this area. The land use policies state that industrial development should generally be located along the Southern Pacific main line tracks and around Thermal Airport. As described in more detail in Section V.A.3. above, the Lower Coachella Valley LUPA Profile has not been revised to reflect more recent land use planning efforts and policies for the area. Specifically, the LUPA Profile is inconsistent with the 1990 Master Plan for the expansion of Thermal Airport and the creation of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. Both of these initiatives seek to stimulate growth and development in the project vicinity. 2. Community Policy Area Analysis The project site is located within the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Policy Area (CPA). These policies have been reviewed, and relevant policies are identified below. Aesthetic Concerns • Billboards and other off-site directional and advertising signs are prohibited. Development review along major arterials and highways will address: architecture, Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-43 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA landscaping and setback, screening of mechanical equipment, trash enclosures and placement of utilities underground. Commercial Land Uses • Commercial and industrial land uses are to be strictly segregated. Commercial centers, as opposed to strip commercial, are encouraged. Environmental Policies • Air quality is to be preserved through the prohibition of polluting industries and hazardous waste sites. The proposed project is consistent with the above policies. Regarding the segregation of commercial and industrial land uses, the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan identifies a land use category, Air Park/Mixed Use, which is intended to accommodate commercial, service, office and very light industrial uses. It is not anticipated that any adverse impacts will occur as a result of this designation. 3. Land Use Category Policy Analysis Consistency of the proposed project with the RCCGP Land Use Categories is discussed above in Section V.A.4. 4. Community Plan The Eastern Coachella Valley Plan (ECVP) requires that all Category II land uses provide a full range of public services, including circulation, water distribution, sewage collection and utilities, including natural gas and/or electricity and telephone. The proposed project provides for adequate public services and is consistent with the policies of the ECVP. 5. Existing Land Use and Zoning The project area designated by the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan encompasses 2,177 acres in the Coachella Valley portion of Riverside County. The area is currently situated within the approximately 27,000 -acre Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone and a portion of the site is within the Thermal Redevelopment Area. In addition, the site falls under the jurisdiction of the newly -established Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority. a. Existing Land Use The majority of the project site is currently in agricultural use (Figures V-16 and V-17). Approximately 1,500 acres have been developed for farming and are presently being farmed pursuant to leases with two local growers. The remainder of the project site includes a 40 - acre feed lot no longer in use, a 40 -acre equipment yard in the vicinity of the Kohl Ranch headquarters, and a significant portion of vacant land (approximately 640 acres) situated in V-44 The Planning Center g St_ll tillilll i j THERMAL Current Land Use 26 Waste Water Treatment Plant Cemetery Former Sludge Processing Facility Evacuation Channel Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale COO Figure V16 Vacant Agriculture Residential Commercial �1lllll��11 Thermal Airport g St_ll tillilll i j THERMAL Current Land Use 26 Waste Water Treatment Plant Cemetery Former Sludge Processing Facility Evacuation Channel Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale COO Figure V16 • rt 10 La Quints°` (t�fiG vdK Thermal / s. give _ Airpor Thermal� , `fie=.c.. _ � i '^- �;. �, .. �, � �S, � ; •� ve AP r THE mil- fir. ,`•# �� A ' '�- 1 • ^� to �' � , .•-c� - /-� .,fir �f~'`'�' � �`,... i 4 Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis the southern portion of the project site (Section 9). Some limited residential uses occur along the project periphery and Avenue 61. Three residential properties along Avenue 61, and an abandoned partially constructed dwelling just north of the Avenue 64 right-of-way roughly in the center of the site, are included in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan area. The Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel flows west to east through the project site. b. Surrounding Land Uses Areas adjacent to the site include vacant -land, farms and related uses, scattered residences, as well as a former sludge processing facility. The most dominant adjacent land use is Thermal Airport. The airport, located immediately north of the study area, currently serves the general aviation needs of Thermal, Coachella, Indio and La Quinta. Classified as a Transport Airport by the Federal Aviation Administration's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), Thermal Airport creates noise, height and safety constraints for the surrounding area. Expansion plans for the airport, including both airside and landside improvements, are described in the 1990 Thermal Airport Master Plan (see Section V.D.12.). The Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation consists of Native American lands that abut Section 9 of the project area on the west, south and east. These lands are held in both tribal and individual ownership. The majority of the Torres -Martinez lands surrounding the project site are undeveloped. To the south of the project site is the residential village of Martinez, as well as two cemeteries. The tribal office is located approximately one-half mile south of the southern project boundary. The Kohl Ranch project team has coordinated with representatives of the Torres -Martinez Indians regarding their land use plans for property located in the vicinity of the Kohl Ranch. The Torres -Martinez have initiated a land use planning process for approximately 27,000 acres of tribal lands located in the Coachella Valley and Salton Sea area. These plans include development of mining and fish farming activities some distance to the south of the Kohl Ranch property. For lands located in sections adjacent to the Ranch, there are no specific development plans at this time. The Kohl Ranch team intends to continue the coordination process with the Torres -Martinez Indians throughout the development process for the Ranch, to encourage land use compatibility with adjacent properties. In the absence of specific development plans for lands adjacent to the Ranch, it is anticipated that development by the Torres -Martinez would be consistent with the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. c. Existing Zoning The current zoning designation for most of the project site is A-2-10, Heavy Agriculture, Minimum Parcel Size 10 acres, as shown in Figure V-18, Current Zoning. Allowable uses within this district encompass a range of light and heavy agricultural uses, low density residential and public uses. These include farming operations, irrigation -based water facilities, grazing operations, large animal hospitals, commercial stables, riding academies, kennels, public fairgrounds, public parks and playgrounds, golf courses, single-family homes, and planned residential developments. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-47 CiirrPrlt Zoning ea: Agriculture (A-1-5, A-1-10, A4-20, A-2-10, A-2-20) Commercial (C -P, C -P -S) Industrial (I -P, M -H, M -SC) Residential (R -A-20, R-2-8000, R-3-4000) Controlled Development Areas (W-2, W 2-M) I l 1 �J "Ijiill111111Ii 111 \C 1 Coachella Valley, California 10 966) F -170 L -A Figure V-18 %I AO Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Other uses such as churches, libraries, private schools, public utility facilities, home occupations, temporary real estate offices, packaging plants, inter -modal goods transfer facilities, agricultural equipment sales and repair are permitted within the district subject to plot plan approval. Additionally, single-family units are permitted accessory to the permitted uses subject to plot plan approval. Commercial cattle, dairy and poultry operations, livestock sales, and select surface mining operations are allowable uses within the A-2-10 Zone subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The balance of the project site is zoned A-1-10, Light Agriculture, Minimum Parcel Size 10 acres. Permitted uses include single-family dwellings (excluding mobilehomes), field crops and wholesale nurseries, public parks, golf courses, farms, grazing, and water facilities. d. Surrounding Area Zoning Areas adjacent to the project site on the_ south and southeast are currently zoned A-1-10, while areas immediately to the north, northeast and east are currently designated A-2-10. The majority of the area directly west of the study area lies within the W-2 Zone, Controlled Development Area. Uses permitted within the W-2 Zone include residential and light agricultural uses subject to lot size, as well as public utilities. When the gross area of a lot is less than one acre, only uses allowable in the R-1 Zone are permitted. Similarly, when the gross lot area exceeds one acre, allowable uses correspond with those permitted in the A-1 Zone. Other uses are permitted subject to plot plan approval. These include public facilities (e.g. schools, churches, libraries, post offices), recreational facilities (e.g. golf, tennis, polo), packaging plants, radio and television facilities and additional single-family units. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-49 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA [This page intentionally left blank.] V-50 The Planning Center ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS & RESOURCES Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis C. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT 1. Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Existinp_Conditions a) Study Area Landform and Geology The project site is located in the southeastern Coachella Valley, which is bounded by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and southwest, the Salton Sea to the southeast, and the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north and east. The Whitewater River is the major drainage course through the Coachella Valley, and within the study area, it has been improved to form the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. This stream course is normally dry, flowing only in response to periods of heavy rainfall or substantial runoff from nearby mountain areas. Its headwaters are within Whitewater Canyon northwest of Palm Springs, and its direction of flow is generally toward the southeast, eventually draining into the Salton Sea. The project area is part of a large structural block, known as the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough includes the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, the Salton Sea, and the Colorado River Delta region in Mexico. The formation of this trough has occurred as a result of complex movements along the San Andreas Fault System, which slices through the foothills of the Little San Bernardino Mountains. Sediments of both marine and non -marine origin have been deposited in the Salton Trough since at least Pliocene time (approximately two to five million years before present), and in places the deposits reach a depth of nearly four miles. The mountainous areas surrounding the valley are composed of granitic rocks dating from the Cretaceous Period, plus older Precambrian- and Paleozoic -aged metamorphic rocks. Foothill areas, such as the Indio and Mecca Hills, area composed of coarse grained terrestrial conglomerates and sandstones of Pleistocene age. Most of the study area is underlain by interbedded alluvial (stream) and lacustrine (lake bed) deposits. The latter group of deposits is associated with an ancient freshwater lake known as Lake Cahuilla, which has existed intermittently in this area during the past 11,000 years. Lake Cahuilla deposits consist of discontinuous layers of silt, clay, fine grained sand and silty sand. These deposits are interlayed with stream deposits derived from the erosion of local foothills and from deposits of the Whitewater River. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-51 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Kohl Ranch Geology As shown on the Geologic Map (Figure V-19), two geologic units are found on the project site: Quaternary lake deposits -Alluvium (Ql-Qal) and Alluvium (Qal). From a geologic timeframe, Qal is the most recent geologic strata. Qal is recent alluvium and is located in the southwest corner of the project site. It consists of unconsolidated stream, river channel and alluvial fan deposits. The second geologic unit is Ql-Qal, which consists of quaternary lake deposits and recent alluvium. The Quaternary lake deposits (Ql) date back to the Pleistocene age. Ql-Qal covers most of the project site. c) Kohl Ranch Topography The Kohl Ranch site is characterized by flat terrain with elevations ranging between 125 and 164 feet below sea level. The existing topography tends to slope from the northwest to the southeast at a nominal rate of between 0.30 and 0.40 percent. d) Soil Associations According to the Coachella Valley Soils Survey, two soil associations are found on the project site. The first soil association is the Gilman -Coachella -Indio Association, which are nearly level to rolling, somewhat excessively well drained to moderately well drained fine sands, fine sandy loams, silt loams, loamy fine sands, and very fine sandy loams on alluvial fans. The soils in this association were formed in medium to coarse textured alluvium and are very deep. The hazard of soil blowing is moderate to severe, and the sandy soils tend to drift in winds of 12 to 15 miles per hour or more. Nitrogen and phosphorus are deficient for maximum plant growth. In about 40 percent of this association, the seasonal water table is at a depth of three to five feet. The second association is the Salton -Indio -Gilman Association, which are nearly level, somewhat poorly drained to well drained silty clay loams, very fine sandy loams, fine sandy loams, and silt loams in lacustrine basins. The soils in this association formed in fine textured lacustrine deposits of Old Lake Cahuilla with modifications by wind- and water -borne deposits from the mountains and fans to the north and northwest. These soils are very deep. Nitrogen and phosphorus are deficient for maximum plant growth. In approximately seven -eighths of the association, the water table is seasonally at a depth of two to five feet, as a result of irrigation and seepage. The Geotechnical Feasibility Report prepared for the project (See Appendix B) indicates that groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from nine to nineteen feet. V-52 The Planning Center I`I Geologic Map Quaternary lake deposits - Alluvium Coachella Valley, California Source: State of California Dept of Conservation Scale: l"=ZOW e0OWBOW Figure R19 V-53 The Kohl Ranch Coachella Valley • CA e) Wind Erosion In the Coachella Valley, wind erosion is one of the more significant geologic hazards not related to seismicity. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan has designated most of Indio and areas to northwest of the project site as a "Blowsand Hazard Zone." Within this area, an "Active Blowsand Zone" has also been defined. The approximate limits of the Blowsand Hazard Zone are shown in Figure V-19 above. As seen in Figure V-19, the Kohl Ranch project site is not located within the Blowsand Hazard Zone. 2) General Plan Policies The RCCGP establishes the following land use standards for slope stabilization and grading plans. ■ Adequate provisions to ensure slope stabilization are required. Slope hazard mitigations include, but are not limited to the following: retention of existing trees and other vegetation, immediate planting of cut and fill slopes, retaining walls and curbing, proper compaction of manufactured slopes with the degree of compaction based on soil type and vegetative cover, and irrigation systems calibrated to soil permeability. ■ Grading is to be generally limited to the amount necessary to provide stable areas for structural foundations, street rights-of-way, parking facilities and other intended uses. Applicants for development permits will provide an estimate of the development proposal's grading magnitude and slope contours of the site. ■ Depending on the magnitude of the grading operation, the applicant may be required to submit a grading plan for County approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. In addition, the RCCGP cites the following program for wind erosion and blowsand. The County of Riverside shall continue to develop blowsand and wind erosion control measures to reduce the impacts of wind erosion and blowsand upon development in the County. Such control measures shall mitigate the impacts of wind erosion and blowsand, while maintaining the blowsand habitat areas that are important to the existence of many species of wildlife in the County. Specific land use standards pertaining to wind erosion and blowsand control plans are listed below. ■ When the project area is subject to conditions that indicate that wind erosion or blowsand may result from or during development, then submission of a wind erosion control plan or request for a waiver is required with the development proposal prior to issuance of a grading permit. ■ Areas subject to blowsand are indicated on the General Plan Hazard Maps. Wind erosion or blowsand conditions may also be indicated by soil type or by documentation or observation of a strong prevailing wind or evidence of soil erosion by wind. V-54 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1 Im act: Adverse Impacts Associated with On -Site Grading a) Impact Analysis The project site is relatively flat with approximately 45 feet of topographical relief. The existing topography tends to slope from the northwest to the southeast at a nominal rate of between 0.30 and 0.40 percent. Earthwork characteristics and grading recommendations as presented in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report were utilized in this study (Appendix B). The grading concept illustrates site development feasibility and provides a "balanced" earthwork scenario not dependent upon import or export of material. Grading is designed to conform to the drainage conveyance requirements while following existing topographical patterns (see Specific Plan Figure IV -12). All development areas are designed with positive drainage towards acceptable drainage conveyances. No significant impacts associated with on site grading are anticipated. b) Mitigation Measures C1-1 Grading activities shall be in conformance with the overall Conceptual Grading Plan, the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70 and Riverside County Ordinance No. 457. Cl -2 Prior to development within any area of the Specific Plan, an overall Conceptual Grading Plan for the portion in process shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. C1-3 Unless otherwise approved by the County of Riverside, Building and Safety Department, all cut and fill slopes shall be constructed at inclinations of no steeper than two (2) horizontal feet to one (1) vertical foot. C1-4 A grading permit shall be obtained from the County of Riverside, as required by the County Grading Ordinance, prior to grading. C1-5 Erosion control practices shall be implemented during grading activities. C1-6 All projects proposing construction activities including: clearing, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater, shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-55 The Kohl Ranch , Coachella Valley • CA C1-7 It is important that the grading plans are submitted to CVWD for utility clearance prior to issuance of a grading permit by Riverside County Building and Safety Department. This is to ensure that existing CVWD and USBR facilities are protected or properly modified to accommodate this development. The existence of some of these facilities, together with their relative importance, may require that the developer's grading plans be revised from those presented in the specific plan. Refer to mitigation measure C6-1 regarding SCAQMD Rule 403 in Section V.C.6., Air Quality. Refer to mitigation measures C7-1 and C7-2 regarding storm runoff control measures in Section V.C.7, Water Quality. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 2) Impact: Adverse Effect of Wind Erosion a) Impact Analysis The two soil associations found on the project site have a wind erosion potential ranging from moderate to severe, depending upon the soil type and the strength of the wind. Wind erosion may have a long-term impact on development on the Kohl Ranch project site. Windborne materials, such as dust and sand, have the potential to damage unprotected machinery, cause abrasion on exposed surfaces, and adversely affect human health. Wind erosion can be adverse, but through mitigation it may be reduced to a less than significant level. b) Mitigation Measures Refer to mitigation measure C6-1 in Section V.C.6., Air Quality, regarding fugitive dust control measures. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 3) Impact: Potential for Increased Erosion a) Impact Analysis The development and construction phase of the proposed project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation, as well as two types of rainfall impacts and sheet erosion. V-56 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Section V.C.7, Water Quality, analyzes in more detail the potential impacts for increased erosion. Also included in this section are mitigation measures and the significance determination after mitigation has been applied. b) Mitigation Measures See mitigation measure C1-6 above regarding grading activities, and mitigation measures for Water Quality below (C7-1 through C7-4). c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) On-site grading would be required for Concepts 2 through 6; resulting in the same impacts as for Concept 1: • Adverse Impacts Associated With On -Site Grading; • Adverse Effect of Wind Erosion; and • Potential for Increased Erosion. The following mitigation measures will be required: C1-1, C1-2, C1-3, C1-4, C1-5 and C1-6. In addition, mitigation measures C6-1 (Air Quality), C7-1 and C7-2 (Water Quality) shall apply to Concepts 2 through 6. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 2. Soils and Agriculture a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Agriculture in Riverside County and the Coachella Valley As noted in the RCCGP, California is the largest agricultural producing state in the nation. In 1989 and 1990, Riverside County ranked fifth of California's leading agricultural counties by total value of production. In 1991, the County slipped to sixth and in 1992 to seventh. Agriculture represents a significant portion of the total economy for Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. Within Riverside County, agricultural production is the largest industry in terms of dollar value and provides employment for a significant portion of the population. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-57 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA a) Agricultural Production In 1993, the total gross return for agriculture in Riverside County totaled $1,018,641,200, an increase of $20,987,700 or 2.1 percent from 1992. The gross return received by farmers in the County has the financial impact of three times that amount, resulting in $3,000,000,000 revenue generated into the total economy. The gross value for agricultural crops in 1993 of $633,196,400 represents an increase of $12,725,800 from 1992 levels. Total crop and livestock/poultry valuation is indicated in Table V-10. As indicated in Table V-10, there has been an overall decline in the total agricultural valuation for the County over the five-year period between 1989 and 1993. However, overall increased valuations were observed for citrus products, which currently represent the largest share of revenues, and apiculture and aquaculture products, which represent a small portion of the total valuation. Based upon the latest crop report available from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, Table V-11 indicates the acreage statistics for agricultural crops in the County. Table V-11 AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE STATISTICS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY (_1989-1993) Table V-10 TOTAL AGRICULTURAL VALUATION FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY (1989-1993) 1989 1990 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Citrus $144,633,100 $217,784,500 $214,742,300 $199,469,300 $156,642,200 Trees and Vines 175,450,700 202,923,900 210,431,000 187,764,600 192,529,100 Vegetables, Melons, Misc. 185,787,300 151,291,400 112,934,000 108,954,300 152,428,300 Field and Seed Crops 77,614,300 83,348,400 64,575,900 62,871,200 67,816,600 Nursery 61,579,400 51,531,900 43,144,600 50,256,700 47,550,700 Apiculture 1,710,000 3,342,000 3,973,300 5,317,500 8,562,400 Aquaculture 3,364,000 3,139,000 5,889,600 5,837,000 7,703,100 Total Crop Valuation $650,138,800 $713,361,100 $655,690,700 $620,470,600 633,196,400 Livestock/Poultry Valuation 442,642,300 423,813,000 386,636,200 377,182,900 385,444,800 GRAND TOTAL $1,092,781,100 $1,137,174,100 $1,042,326,900 $997,653,500 $1,018,641,200 1. Jojoba was shifted into this category. Source: Riverside County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. 1993 Agricultural Production Report. As indicated in Table V-10, there has been an overall decline in the total agricultural valuation for the County over the five-year period between 1989 and 1993. However, overall increased valuations were observed for citrus products, which currently represent the largest share of revenues, and apiculture and aquaculture products, which represent a small portion of the total valuation. Based upon the latest crop report available from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, Table V-11 indicates the acreage statistics for agricultural crops in the County. Table V-11 AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE STATISTICS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY (_1989-1993) 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Citrus 37,180 36,697 36,244 35,840 36,676' Trees and Vines 36,483 35,782 34,969 33,785 36,714' Vegetables, Melons, Misc. 49,637 50,864 33,273 36,572 34,370 Field and Seed Crops 220,9341 219,7291 224,319 233,391 211,370 Total Acreage 1 344,2341 343,0721 328,8051 339,5881 318,827 1. Includes 3,837 abandoned acres. 2. Includes 2,749 abandoned acres. Source: Riverside County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. 1993 Agricultural Production Report. V-58 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-11 indicates an overall reduction in acreage for all four categories of agricultural products between 1989 and 1993. This is true for products, such as citrus, that nonetheless showed an increase in gross valuation during the period. b) Agricultural Land Conversions The California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, tracks conversions of agricultural land throughout the State. In Riverside County, between 1988 and 1990, approximately 32,127 acres of agricultural land (Important Farmland plus grazing land) were converted to nonagricultural use. During the same period, approximately 13,068 acres of nonagricultural land were added to the inventory of agricultural land for a net loss of 19,059 acres of agricultural land. This trend appears to have slowed between 1990 and 1992 when approximately 15,474 acres of agricultural land were converted from agricultural use, and 7,753 acres were converted to agricultural use, for a net loss of 7,721 acres of agricultural land. c) Employment in Agriculture Table V-12 indicates the employment in agriculture for the State of California, Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and the Eastern Coachella Valley. The Eastern Coachella Valley represents the area within an approximately 15 -mile radius of the Kohl Ranch site and includes the following areas, identified by zip code: Indio, Bermuda Dunes, Indian Wells, Coachella, La Quinta, Mecca/North Shore, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Thermal/Oasis/Desert Shores, and Salton City. While the percentage of jobs in agriculture represent a larger proportion of workers Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-59 Table V-12 EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE Jurisdiction Number of Employees Percent of Total Employment California 89,301 0.8% Riverside County 5,881 2.1% Coachella Valley 3,851 4.4% Eastern Coachella Valley 3,231 6.1% • Thermal 1,414 61.1% • Mecca/North Shore 5 4.1% • Coachella 221 10.4% • Indio 969 8.6% • La Quinta 140 4.6% • Palm Desert 443 1.9% • Rancho Mirage 41 0.4% • Indian Wells 0 0.0% Source: County Business Paftems, 1991; Gruen Gruen + Associates, 1994. The Eastern Coachella Valley represents the area within an approximately 15 -mile radius of the Kohl Ranch site and includes the following areas, identified by zip code: Indio, Bermuda Dunes, Indian Wells, Coachella, La Quinta, Mecca/North Shore, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Thermal/Oasis/Desert Shores, and Salton City. While the percentage of jobs in agriculture represent a larger proportion of workers Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-59 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA within the area closer to the Kohl Ranch than they do the broader area of the County, total agricultural jobs only account for a little more than six percent of employment in the area closest to the Ranch. The largest sector of employment in the County is services, which also accounts for the greatest amount of employment in the area closest to the project site. According to the 1991 County Business Patterns, there are approximately 228 agricultural firms in the Coachella Valley. The breakdown of these firms by the number of employees is included in Table V-13. As indicated in the table, the majority of firms in the Coachella Valley (59 percent) employed between one and four persons. Finns employing between 1 and 19 persons represent 88 percent of the total number of agricultural firms. Consequently, as of 1991, agricultural operations in the County still were largely performed by relatively smaller sized firms. Table V-13 COACHELLA VALLEY AGRICULTURAL FIRMS BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Number of Employees Number of Firms (%) 1 to 4 134(59%) 5 to 9 45(20%) 10 to 19 20(9%) 20 to 49 18(8%) 50 to 99 4(2%) 100 to 249 5 (2%) 250 to 499 1 (<1%) 500 to 999 1 (<1%) 1000 plus 0(0%) TOTAL 228(100%) Source: County Business Patterns, 1991. Gruen Gruen + Associations, 1994. 2) Agriculture and Soils on the Kohl Ranch Site a) Major Soils Groups There are three major soils groups in the Coachella Valley. Soils on the project site are members of the major group entitled: "Excessively Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained, Nearly Level to Moderately Steep Soils on Alluvial Fans and Valley Fill and in Lacustrine Basins in the Coachella Valley." This group of associations consists of sands to silty clays formed in coarse to fine textured alluvium. The soils are highly stratified with finer or coarser textured material and contain varying amounts of gravel, stones and cobbles. The five associations in this major soils group make up approximately 66 percent of the Coachella Valley area. V-60 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Soils Associations Soils on site are members of two soils associations. The Gilman -Coachella -Indio Association are nearly level to rolling, somewhat excessively well drained to moderately well drained fine sands, fine sandy loams, silt loams, loamy fine sands, and very fine sandy loams on alluvial fans. The soils in this association were formed in medium to coarse textured alluvium and are very deep. The hazard of soil blowing is moderate to severe, and the sandy soils tend to drift in winds of 12 to 15 miles per hour or more. Nitrogen and phosphorus are deficient for maximum plant growth. In about 40 percent of this association, the seasonal water table is at a depth of 3 to 5 feet. This association comprises approximately 17 percent of the Coachella Valley. The Salton -Indio -Gilman Association are nearly level, somewhat poorly drained to well drained silty clay loams, very fine sandy loams, fine sandy loams, and silt loams in lacustrine basins. The soils in this association formed in fine textured lacustrine deposits of Old Lake Cahuilla with modifications by wind- and water -borne deposits from the mountains and fans to the north and northwest. These soils are very deep. Nitrogen and phosphorus are deficient for maximum plant growth. In approximately seven -eighths of the association, the water table is seasonally at a depth of 2 to 5 feet, as a result of irrigation and seepage. According to the geotechnical report prepared for the project, depth to groundwater on the site ranges from 9 to 19 feet. This soil association makes up about 3 percent of the Coachella Valley. c) Capability Classes, Soil Series and Mapping Units The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has adopted the Land Capability Classification system for assessing relative value of soils for agricultural and other uses. Soil mapping units are grouped at three levels: capability class, subclass and unit. Capability class is the broadest designation and indicates overall limitations for use. Classes are indicated by Roman numerals, with Class I soils having few limitations and Class VIII soils being restricted to recreational or wildlife habitat uses. Capability subclasses are soil groups within one class, and are designated by adding a small letter (e, w, s or c) to the class designation (for example, IIs). The subclass indicates the particular nature of the soil limitation. More specific management requirements for a soil unit are denoted by an arabic numeral after the subclass letter. Units are soil groups within the subclasses which are suited to the same crops and pasture plants and therefore require similar management techniques and exhibit similar levels of productivity. Each of the soil series and mapping units on the project site are described in general terms. In addition, the capability class, subclass and unit are described (Table V-14). The capability class of the soils range from class II to class IV. Soil series in the Coachella Valley are further defined by Major Land Resource Areas. Within each Major Land Resource Area, there are variations in species, plant composition, amount of growth or annual yields, and density of ground cover. Some Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-61 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA variations may be the result of local climatic changes resulting from topographic features such as aspect or elevation, while others are related to soil properties. Table V-14 SOILS ON THE PROJECT SITE Capability Unit & Major Soil Mapping Unit Land Resource Area FMMP Designation CrA Illw-2(31) - Irrigated Prime Farmland, but has Coachella fine sand, wet, 0-2% slopes high soil blowing hazard GcA Gilman fine sandy loam, wet, 0-2% slopes Ilw-1(31) - Irrigated Prime Farmland GfAIlw-2(31) Gilman silt loam, wet, 0-2% slopes l - Irrigated Prime Farmland Ir Indio fine sandy loam, wet liw-1(31) Prime Farmland It Indio very fine sandy loam, wet liw-2(31) Prime Farmland Sb Salton silty clay loam IV -6(31) Statewide Importance Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, 1979; California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, Riverside County, March 1994.; California Department of Conservation, A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, FM92-02. The project site is located in Land Resource Area 31, the northern extension of the Imperial Valley into Riverside County. Within this area, most ephemeral streams and drainage canals drain to the Whitewater Storm Drain which flows to the Salton Sea. Slopes are nearly level to gently sloping. Elevations range from 230 feet below sea level to 50 feet above sea level. Since precipitation is less than 4 inches, irrigation is necessary for all cultivated crops. Some of the major factors that limit the use of the soils under natural conditions are low rainfall, accumulation of salts, low available water capacity, the hazard of soil blowing, and the need for tile drainage to maintain agricultural production. The soils in Major Land Resource Category Area 31 are placed in capability units based on the following assumptions: 1. Rainfall is inadequate, but low cost irrigation water is available in adequate amounts for the irrigated land to produce commercial crops. 2. Suitable outlets are available when it becomes necessary to install tile drains in fields for sustained crop production. These remove excess water and salts. 3. Soil blowing is a continuing hazard, particularly on sandy soils. 4. Flooding does not affect management or cropping systems because flood control structures protect agricultural areas. 5. A high level of management is used. 6. The principal crops are winter vegetables, citrus, grapes, dates, alfalfa, cotton and grain. V-62 The Planning Center Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis ■ The Coachella Series (Figure V-20) consists mainly of well drained soils, but includes soils that have altered drainage where seepage from irrigation has caused a water table at a depth of 3 to 5 feet. The CrA mapping unit, Coachella fine sand, wet, 0-2 percent slopes, is nearly level and has a water table at a depth of between 40 and 60 inches. Runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is slight. The hazard of soils blowing is moderate or high depending on the texture of the surface layer. Tile drains are needed for sustained crop production. As indicated in Table V-14, the Coachella series is in capability unit IIIw-2. Capability class III indicates that this series has severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, that require special conservation practices, or both. Subclass w indicates that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation. Capability unit 2 suggests that this series has poor drainage or a flood hazard. ■ The Gilman Series consists mainly of well drained soils, but includes soils that have altered drainage where seepage from irrigation has caused a seasonal water table at a depth of 3 to 5 feet. For the Gilman fine sandy loam, runoff is slow and the erosion hazard is slight. The hazard of soil blowing is moderate. Depth to high water table is 40 to 60 inches. The soil requires tile drains for sustained crop production. The Gilman silt loam has similar properties. ■ The Indio Series consists of well drained or moderately well drained soils that formed in alluvium. Both the Indio fine sandy loam and the very fine sandy loam exhibit slow runoff, slight erosion hazard and a high water table at a depth of 40 to 60 inches. The Indio Series is the predominant soil series found on the project site. ■ The Salton Series soils are somewhat poorly drained. In the Salton silty clay loam, runoff is slow, the erosion hazard is slight and the depth to the water table generally is more than 36 inches, ranging from 24 to 60 inches. This soil requires tile drainage for sustained crop production. d) Agricultural Potential of Soils on the Project Site The Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program was initiated in 1980 to supplement the Land Inventory and Monitoring activity of the SCS. Important Farmland map categories from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program have been reviewed for the project site (Figure V-21). These categories, which indicate the agricultural potential of the area's soils, are described below. ■ Prime Farmland is land which has the best combination of physical and chemical features for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods. Prime Farmland must meet all criteria related to: water, soil temperature range, acid -alkali balance, water table, soil sodium content, flooding, Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-63 CrA Coachel GcA Gilman GfA Gilman Ir Indio $y It Indio ve Sb Salton s Soils Map gill ow1� Coachella Valley, California fA Source: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Servict' Seale: P=2000` RV? F"M Figure V-20 V 64 P Prime Farmland Land with the best combination of physical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops. S Farmland of Statewide Importance Land with a good combination of physical and chemical features for the production of agricultural crops. Le Farmland of Local Importance Nonirrigated Prime and Statewide soil mapping units, dry land grain, dairies, and zoned agricultural land not included in the above categories. X Other Land Land which does not meet the criteria of any other category. Coachella Valley, California Agricultural Resources Source: California Dept. of Conservation Scale 1"=20W 0 Figure V•21 V-65 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA erodability, permeability, rock fragment content and rooting depth. The majority of land on the project site (approximately 1,468 acres) is classified as Prime Farmland. ■ Farmland of Statewide Importance is land other than Prime Farmland which has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. Farmland of Statewide Importance must meet a set of criteria for the same categories as Prime Farmland. Small portions of the site are classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance (approximately 171 acres). Approximately 50 percent of these areas are located within the portion of the site proposed to be acquired by the County for the Thermal Airport clear zone. ■ Unique Farmland is land which does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, that has been used for the production of specific high economic value crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. Examples of such crops may include oranges, olives, avocados, rice, grapes and cut flowers. None of the land on or adjacent to the project site is designated as Unique Farmland. ■ Farmland of Local Importance is either currently producing crops, or has the capability of production. This land may be important to the local economy due to its productivity. This category varies from county -to -county and is determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee. In Riverside County, Farmland of Local Importance is defined as follows: • Soils that would be classified as Prime and Statewide but lack available irrigation water. Lands planted to dry land crops, including barley, oats and wheat. • Lands producing major crops for Riverside County but that are not listed as Unique crops. These crops are identified as returning one million or more dollars on the Riverside County Agriculture Crop Report. Crops identified are permanent pasture (irrigated), summer squash, okra, eggplant, radishes and watermelons. • Dairylands, including corrals, pasture, milking facilities, hay and manure storage areas if accompanied with permanent pasture or hayland of 10 acres or more. • Lands identified by city or county ordinance as Agricultural Zones or Contracts, which include City of Riverside 'Proposition R" lands. • Lands planted to jojoba which are under cultivation and are of producing age. V-66 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Approximately 480 acres of land on the project site are designated as Farmland of Local Importance. At this time, no crops are planted in these areas. Only minimal tillage and irrigation is occurring. ■ Grazing Land is land on which existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Grazing land does not occur on the project site. ■ Urban and Built Up Lands are occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to one and one half acres. This category does not occur on the project site. N Other Lands is land which does not meet the criteria of any other category. This category does not occur on the project site. ■ Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use includes vacant areas and existing farm and grazing land which have a permanent commitment to development. This category does not occur on the project site. e) Past Soils Conditions and Installation of Leach Lines The problem of salty soil has been a major one for the farmers of the Coachella Valley over the years. In an area where the ground -water level is near the surface, the process of capillary action of the soil is powerful enough to draw the water to the surface where it evaporates, leaving the salts behind. As the water table lowered through the 1920s and 1930s, the problem seemed less intense, but with the importation of Colorado River water in the late 1940s, the salt problem returned, as the Colorado River water contains dissolved salt. In 1948, a leaching system was recommended for the Coachella Valley. The system recommended covering a growing field with irrigation water to a depth of four feet. The water is then allowed to sink through the soil, flushing the salts into perforated drainage pipes buried seven feet below the surface. Known as the "farm tile drainage system," the drainage pipes were generally laid out in a grid arrangement with a base collector of 8 -inch diameter pipe and laterals of either 4-, 5- or 6 -inch diameter pipe, depending upon the length of the lateral. The average depth of the drainage pipe is seven feet below ground surface. As of April 1, 1968, 1,738 miles of farm tile pipe had been installed on 33,000 acres of lower Coachella Valley farm land. The Kohl Ranch property was fitted with farm tile pipeline in 1966. After the Ranch was purchased by Max Kohl in 1979, the existing tile drains were cleaned and new tile drains were added to many of the fields on the Ranch. The cleaning and installation of the tile drains helped to reduce on-site soil salinity problems. On the project site is an underground system of tile drains, ranging in size from 8" to 24." These drains traverse the site from west to east at 1/2 mile intervals for the entire length of the site. In addition, an underground cement irrigation system with Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-67 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA stand pipes provides water from the Coachella Valley Extension of the All-American Canal. On-site reservoirs store canal water for irrigation, including unused irrigation water from "upstream" users. CVWD estimated rates of water consumption for farmland are 7 acre-feet/acre or 9 gpm/acre. In addition to on-site tile drains, heavy soil tillage has been performed over the years to keep the soil soft, thus allowing optimum root development and water penetration. But due to the variable clay layers underlying the soil on the project site, water penetration can be slow and can limit the amounts of salt that can be removed through the existing tile lines. This impacts which crops can successfully grow on the Ranch under these conditions. Crops that perform well under slow water penetration conditions include: cotton, alfalfa, sudangrass, wheat, carrots, lettuce, spinach, onions, tomatoes, watermelons and broccoli. However, all crops can be expected to have reduced yields due to higher levels of salt and lower tolerances. f) Current Farming Operations on the Kohl Ranch Site Of the 2,177 acres of land comprising the Kohl Ranch site, approximately 1,500 acres are developed for farming and are presently being farmed pursuant to leases with two local growers. The remainder of the site includes a 40 -acre feed lot no longer in use, a 40 -acre equipment yard in the vicinity of the Kohl Ranch headquarters, and undeveloped land in Section 9. This undeveloped land is underlain by clay lenses and would require substantial effort to prepare the site for farming. As fields are put into production, they are ripped to a depth of approximately 60 inches. Plowing, which occurs repeatedly, is reported to disturb at least the top 36 inches of soil, and discing disturbs the top 18 inches. All fields are mechanically leveled using laser guided equipment in order to reduce runoff and for constructing temporary leach ponds used in conjunction with the leach lines to desalinate the soil. In recent years, the Ranch has either reduced or terminated the largest acreages of cotton, alfalfa and sudangrass. The reduction or cessation is attributed to four factors that result in high crop production costs: 1) increased soil tillage; 2) higher seeding rates; 3) increased fertilizer and water applications; and 4) higher pest control costs. All four of these factors arise as a result of increased soil salinity.' Because of these costs and poor crop production, the Ranch has recently renegotiated downward the leases with the two tenant farmers. Crops currently in production on the site include sudangrass, alfalfa and wheat. Vegetables include: broccoli, lettuce, onions, watermelons and carrots. Pesticides are used for most vegetables and cotton in accordance with County permits. Some portions of the site are treated by a ground rig, while a helicopter is used for other areas. ' Tim Bradshaw, personal communications, February 3, 1995. V-68 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Currently, the Ranch employs one person. The local growers leasing from the Ranch employ approximately eight to ten employees during the growing season who also work on other properties. This number can increase to between 85 to 100 persons working in crews during the harvest season. The Ranch has entered into agreements with other nearby farm operations and Sun World for harvesting the produce, cooling, storage and trucking. Recently, the Ranch has experienced a decline in the prices paid for produce. 3) Williamson Act Lands The California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, was passed in 1965 as a response to the problems facing farmers who were being forced out of farming by rising taxes on their land. Riverside County currently participates in this program. The Act allows local governments to assess agricultural land owners based on the income producing value of their -farmland rather than on its current market value. The intent of the Act was to provide farmers with property tax relief and to encourage the preservation of agricultural land. A landowner can withdraw property from a Williamson Act contract by filing for nonrenewal with the local government administering the contract. The contract will expire either nine or ten years from the anniversary date of the contract, depending upon when the Notice of Nonrenewal is filed. Cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is reserved for extraordinary circumstances, and carries a penalty equal to 12.5 percent of the property's fair market value. Pursuant to Government Code Section 51284, no contract may be cancelled until after the County has given notice of, and held, a public hearing on the matter. The local jurisdiction is required to find either that the cancellation is in the public interest or is consistent with the intent of the Williamson Act. There are no Williamson Act lands within the project boundary. However, lands under Williamson Act contracts are located immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the project site and throughout the project vicinity (Figure V-22). 4 General Plan Policies The RCCGP establishes the following relevant policies regarding agricultural resources: ■ Agriculturally productive lands shall be encouraged to remain in agricultural uses. ■ Incompatible urban development adjacent to productive agricultural lands shall be discouraged. To protect agricultural resources, the County's agricultural protection program involves the utilization of land buffers between existing productive agricultural lands and other, incompatible land uses. Buffers are to be established on a community basis and to be reflective of the unique conditions that exist in the area. Land use standards established in the RCCGP support the agricultural protection policies and programs. Specifically, agriculturally productive lands shall be encouraged to remain as long as agricultural uses can be economically viable. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-69 Agricultural Preserves rY / LAx#25 f�363 n, w 14 _ �-yam_ �+ �L, y .,•, � � 3. `. � � � �'t.,. THERw R 2 x; . [r •132 \{ °I' 1$'S ff: *0.. JU, 42` i Ave 60 WOO � 3�6 � - _ •�•�� 31 62 K r f Ave _ — _ THE I ...... ..,, ?' s N KOHL i T ��A;61 RANCH s :. I TI 01. i I }IP,_a•-,iii ••c • � t, Ave 166 r �/. s• _ 10 y V .3. � � is � „ - ` T r"v vi! n r !, 4, •` 1>t �x � �•4ti�� G w! r i...,'R { • ems. ._ _— g y41� �'� �� l "I X85 i I I. ✓!J . ■im '_ _ - .aa�� c23 I• } • 3y i r+— I 'f r}" ,aa ■ aR:..... e.`31.�'' '��' i 1p � .rlww�.T.-�..,—.I� 00 Preserve Case Number THE KOHLEXANCH. Coachella Valley, California Source: Riverside County Planning Dept; Figure V-22 V-70 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The ECVP includes as a goal the conservation and productive use of important agricultural resources. Land uses that would conflict or potentially conflict with agricultural activities are discouraged from locating in the vicinity of agricultural land use designations. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) The project site is identified on the Open Space and Conservation Map in the RCCGP as an agricultural area. Consequently, permitted uses include agriculture and associated uses (including limited commercial, industrial, and single-family residential uses) and open space. Minimum lot size is 10 acres. In addition to the permitted land uses in the RCCGP, the ECVP includes farm workers' housing. Proposed nonagricultural land uses located in agricultural areas are reviewed by the County in light of the historic and existing agricultural uses of the land, public services for the area, soil conditions, water usage and water distribution system, and economic factors. 1 Impact: Loss of Prime Agricultural Land a) Impact Analysis Implementation of Concept 1 would result in the loss of approximately 1,468 acres of Prime Farmland, 171 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and 480 acres of Farmland of Local Importance. Between 1990 and 1992, 7,721 acres of agricultural land was lost in the County. The proposed uses would preclude any return of the land to agriculture use in the foreseeable future. The conversion of non-agricultural uses is considered a significant, unavoidable and irreversible impact of the proposed project. This determination is based on the project's contribution to the cumulative loss and diminishing supply of farmland resources associated with increased urbanization in Riverside County. Even though the Ranch includes land classified as prime agricultural land, the Ranch has recently either reduced or terminated the large acreage crops due to high production costs associated with increased soil salinity. As a result of increased soil salinity, the Ranch must 1) increase soil tillage; 2) plant more seeds for higher seeding rates; 3) increase fertilizer and water applications; and 4) increase pest control spraying.2 b) Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. 2 Tim Bradshaw, personal communication, February 3, 1995. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-71 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and unavoidable. 2 Impact: Potential for Land Use Conflict between Agriculture and Proposed Urban Uses a) Impact Analysis Local agricultural operations are often associated with impacts related to aerial and ground application of pesticides, noise and airborne dust emissions that occur during tilling or harvesting. Constraints upon agricultural activities to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels may result in impacts upon agricultural operations. Urban encroachment onto agricultural lands often results in restrictions on agricultural operations, including pesticide spraying3. These restrictions could impact agricultural operations. If alternative pesticides are required, they may not be as effective at controlling pests and could be more costly than pesticides currently being applied. The pesticides in use in the project vicinity are listed below in Table V-33 in Section V.C.11, Toxic Substance. For most of these chemicals, if applied at a reasonable distance from residential populations (e.g. across a street) under appropriate wind conditions, problems would not be anticipated. In some instances, odor may be a concern. The only pesticide for which specific restrictions would apply is malathion dust 4 The potential loss or reduction of the productivity of the adjacent agricultural land would be considered a significant impact. Through mitigation, this impact is reduced to less than significant levels. Agricultural uses have the potential to impact adjacent urban uses, but urban uses also have the potential to impact adjacent agricultural uses. Potential farm production impacts resulting from urbanization could include': ■ Theft and vandalism; ■ Trespass and personal injury liability; ■ Crop injury from air pollution; ■ Farm road congestion; ■ Spread of crop pests; ■ Competition for water; ■ Escalating land values; 3 Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. January 24, 1991. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Personal communication between Mr. Len Gellis, Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office and Stephanie Cohn, The Planning Center, January 19, 1995. 5 Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. January 24, 1991. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. V-72 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis ■ Need for higher value crops; ■ Pesticide use restrictions and on-farm buffer zones; and ■ Restrictions on dust, burning, noise and odors. Right -to -Farm Legislation Because the intent of preserving agricultural land is to perpetuate viable farming operations, growers must be secure in their rights to farm within the established land use plan. Suburban residents in farm areas often come into conflict with normal farming operations. Although they prefer to live near the rural setting; non-farm residents have been known to file nuisance suits related to normal farm practices that result in dust, animal odors, flies and other pests, and noise. Other conflicts related to traffic, working hours, and aerial operations may also cause disturbances. To protect farmers from these time-consuming and costly situations, the California Legislature has passed a right -to -farm law. Twenty-one California counties have passed local right -to -farm ordinances; Riverside County is one of these. Ordinance No. 625, commonly referred to as the Riverside County Right -To -Farm Ordinance, was adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on March 28, 1986. The intent of Ordinance No. 625 is to conserve, protect and encourage the development, improvement and continued viability of its agricultural land and industries for the long-term production of food and other agricultural products, and for the economic well being of Riverside County residents. In addition, the ordinance intends to balance the rights of farmers to produce food and other agricultural products with the rights of non -farmers who own, occupy, or use land within or adjacent to agricultural areas. Also, it is the intent of the Ordinance to reduce the loss to Riverside County of its agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed to constitute a nuisance. A Right -to -Farm Ordinance can relieve some pressures on farmers from their neighbors, but the ordinance does not address the issues of trespass or vandalism. More importantly, right -to -farm ordinances do not remove the influence of inflated land values on farmers' expectations and desires to continue fanning. The right -to -farm ordinance will not cover that property within the specific plan that continues with agricultural use as an interim use. This is because the ordinance only covers property with agricultural zoning, not Specific Plan zoning. Rnff-r ArPac Buffer areas could be dealt with in terms of transition area crops and farming practices on the agricultural side of the urban -rural interface. On the development side, parks, recreation areas, utility facilities and easements, and roads are appropriate buffer uses. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-73 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA It is likely that the negative impacts of the urban -rural interface would be mitigated through adaptive land use planning on both sides of the interface, and employing appropriate buffer zones. The landscape guidelines in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, Section IV.C.2, form a program that mitigates the effects of the built environment upon the undisturbed open space. The landscape guidelines also provide concepts for buffering buildings from adjacent land uses, both on- and off-site. In addition, the Specific Plan incorporates buffers and buffer zones, see Section W.C. Lf, Buffers, of the Specific Plan, to buffer on site uses from adjacent uses, including agricultural uses. The landscaping and buffer guidelines contained in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan reduce the impact of the proposed project on adjacent agricultural uses. b) Mitigation Measures C2-1 All future development projects in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan project area shall be designed in accordance with all applicable criteria in the Planning Standards and Design Guidelines in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. C2-2 The project shall be subject to Riverside County's right -to -farm ordinance, Ordinance No. 625, which protects farmer's rights with respect to urban encroachment. Per Section 6 of Ordinance No. 625, buyers of homes shall be noticed for any land division that lies partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of any land zoned primarily for agricultural purposes. C2-3 In addition to notice required by Ordinance No. 625, notice shall be provided to future homeowners within the specific plan area of the potential impacts associated with surrounding agricultural use. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 3 Impact: Decline in the Economic Viability of Agricultural Lands in the Pro`ect Vicinity a) Impact Analysis A total of approximately $1,861,8056 per year in crop production is generated within the Specific Plan project area. This represents the gross amount of revenue lost to the conversion of this agricultural land to urban uses. A multiplier of 3.0 is often used to indicate the "ripple effect" of this loss on associated support industries, such as chemical companies, farm equipment, etc. This would bring a total loss of $5,585,415 per year to the general economy (local, regional and national activities inclusive), which is less than two-tenths of one percent of the total agricultural valuation in 1993 for Riverside County. This analysis includes only the loss of 6 Assumes one crop per year for sudangrass (440 ac), alfalfa (160 ac), wheat (120 ac), broccoli (64 ac), lettuce (64 ac), onions (64 ac), watermelon (64 ac), and carrots (64 ac). V-74 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis revenue to the farm economy, and does not examine the additional employment and retail growth associated with urban development. The positive overall fiscal benefits of the project are discussed in Section V.G.2. below. The loss of this agricultural land will not threaten the present farm economy, which is a viable entity in the Coachella Valley and Riverside County. However, the cumulative revenue loss to the farm economy from urban development throughout the Coachella Valley is considered a significant impact. b) Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and unavoidable. 4) Impact: Increased Conversion of Agricultural Land Due to the Cumulative Iml2acts of Development a) Impact Analysis Implementation of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, as well as any future developments within the Thermal Airport vicinity, the Thermal Redevelopment Area and the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone will facilitate the continuing loss of agriculture in the Coachella Valley and Riverside County. While the specific acreage of agricultural conversion has not been addressed for the Thermal Redevelopment Area and the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, both projects anticipate the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses. The designation of urban uses in the vicinity of the Thermal Airport, as well as within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, serves to focus future development within these areas, which in turn serves to limit the areas in the Coachella Valley where the conversion of agricultural land could occur. Direct impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural lands as a result of cumulative development in the area would surface as follows: crop production would decline; conflicts between urban/rural uses would increase; agricultural areas fringing urban development would continue to urbanize; and, negative economic effects on the farm economy would result from the loss of agricultural land. While several plans propose development in the area, the existence of land under Williamson Act Contracts will serve to limit conversion of agricultural lands in the area to urban uses. Twenty-four (24) preserves are under Williamson Act Contracts within a three-mile radius of the Kohl Ranch project site. As of December 1994, only nine of the preserves are affected by filed Notices of Nonrenewal (NONR). The remaining 15 preserves will remain subject to Williamson Act Contracts, and thus will remain in agricultural preserves for the immediate future. The majority of the Williamson Act Contract preserves that have no filed NONRs are located south, east and northeast of the Kohl Ranch project site. Agricultural lands that remain Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-75 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA subject to Williamson Act Contracts reduce the impact that conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses has in encouraging adjacent property to be similarly converted. As previously mentioned, Riverside County has adopted a right -to -farm ordinance, Ordinance No. 625. This ordinance protects the rights of farmers to continue farming agricultural lands. In summary, the conversion of agricultural lands, both at the project specific level and the cumulative level, are unavoidable and significant impacts. b) Mitigation Measures Refer to mitigation measure C2-2 regarding Riverside County's right -to -farm ordinance, Ordinance No. 625, which protects farmer's rights with respect to urban encroachment. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant and unavoidable. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) As with Concept 1, the entire 2,177 -acre site would be developed with urban uses under Concepts 2 through 6. While the mix of uses would differ, impacts for Concepts 2 through 6 would be the same as for Concept 1, for the following: • Loss of Prime Agricultural Land; • Potential for Land Use Conflict between Agriculture and Proposed Urban Uses; • Decline in the Economic Viability of Agricultural Lands in the Project Vicinity; and • Increased Conversion of Agricultural Land due to Cumulative Impacts of Development. The following mitigation measures shall be required for Concepts 2 through 6: C2-1, C2-2, C2-3 and C2-4. Like Concept 1, Concepts 2 through 6, shall result in significant and unavoidable impacts, after mitigation, for all impacts except for the potential for land use conflict between agriculture and proposed urban uses, which will be less than significant after mitigation. 3. Biology a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Characteristics of the Site The project site is a 2,177 -acre area in southeastern Coachella Valley, Riverside County. The site is immediately south of Thermal Airport, bounded by Avenues 40 and 66 to the north and south, respectively, Polk Street to the east, and Tyler Street and Highway 86 V-76 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis to the west. The project site is located on the Valerie USGS 7.5 quadrangle (T7S, RBE, Sections 4, 9, 32, and 33). The Kohl Ranch site has been extensively disturbed and is currently in agricultural use. The major crops are sudangrass, vegetables (lettuce, scallions, and carrots were noted on 4 March 1994), and alfalfa. Some of the agricultural lands on the project site were fallow at the time of the field surveys. There are several clusters of residences and a feed lot on the project site. The site is flat (slope less than 1 percent), ranging about 40 feet in elevation from approximately 125 feet below mean sea level in the northwestern corner to 165 feet in the southeastern corner, a distance of approximately 3.2 miles. The section boundaries of the site are traversed by dirt or paved roads. A major thoroughfare, the old Highway 86 (Harrison Street), runs in a north -southeasterly direction west and south of the site. 2) Characteristics of the Surrounding Area The project site is located in a largely agricultural area of the southeastern Coachella Valley, within the Coachella watershed. The land that immediately surrounds the project site is dominated by agricultural and farming -residential land uses. The Santa Rosa Mountains form the western border of the valley, from 3 to 5 miles west of the project site. The Mecca Hills and Orocopia Mountains form the eastern border of the Valley, approximately 7 miles east of the project site. The Salton Sea, with its aquatic habitats, is southeast of the project site and desert plant communities are found in selected areas around the project site. The agricultural communities of the project site and surrounding area in general do not provide habitat for the region's Threatened, Endangered, and otherwise "sensitive" plant and animal species. The project site is outside of the currently recognized range for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (CVFTL), and is not within the boundaries of the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan area. 31 Methods Six field surveys of the site were conducted between 15 April and 19 July 1994. The weather on these days was sunny, from the high 70s to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The wind conditions were variable, with moderately strong gusts (20-30 mph) on one occasion and still conditions on the others. Observations of wildlife were made during several windshield surveys of the agricultural lands and by meandering transects of agricultural and non-agricultural habitats. A botanical survey of the Kohl Ranch site and vicinity was conducted on 1-2 May and 29 May 1994. A focused survey for the Yuma Clapper Rail and Black Rail was conducted 19 July 1995. The objectives of the zoological and botanical surveys were to: 1) identify sensitive plants and animals on-site, including those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, or any plants contained in the California Native Plant Society; 2) identify and map natural areas in and around the site; 3) compile botanical and zoological inventories of native and introduced species found within the project boundaries and in the project vicinity; and 4) make other biological observations pertinent to the environmental review for the proposed project. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-77 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 4) Vegetation The vegetation on the project site is largely agricultural crops and fallow agricultural fields. The major crops are sudangrass, vegetables and alfalfa. The fallow agricultural areas are dominated by introduced herbs including Lambs quarters (Chenopodium album), annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), cheeseweed (Malva parvifolia), sweetclover (Melilotus alba), sourclover (Melilotus indica), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus), and Bassia hyssopifolia. Weedy grasses include wild oat (Avena fatua), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), canary grass (Phalaris minor), rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), and johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense). There are patches of natural habitat outside of the project site, but contiguous with the site's northern and southern boundaries. These are found in Sections 8, 10, 15, 16, 28, and 29 on the Valerie USGS 7.5 quadrangle. These natural communities are comprised of alkali sink or alkali scrub -woodland, but are not adequately described by the standard reference on California plant communities (Holland, 1986). Dominant shrubs and trees of this community include iodine bush (Allenrolfea occidentalis), quailbrush (Atriplex lentiformis), Emory baccharis (Baccharis emoryi), alkali goldenbush (Isocoma acradenia var. eremophila), arrow weed (Pluchea sericea), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana), screwbean (Prosopis pubescens), and ink weed (Suaeda moquinii). Common native herbs include alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), western sea -purslane (Sesuvium verrucosum), and sand-spurrey (Spergularia marina). In addition, deciduous saltceder (Tamarix ramosissima) was very common and at times formed dense, impenetrable thickets. In several areas, the presence of California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), honey mesquite, Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and the naturalization of the introduced date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) was observed. It is not known whether the water for these plants comes from leaking irrigation lines/standpipes or from shallow groundwater. 5) Wildlife The wildlife on the project site is typical of the agricultural habitats that dominate the site. The vertebrates expected or observed on the project site and in the area immediately adjacent to the project site are listed in Appendix D. a) Reptiles In a survey of the 27,080 -acre Coachella Valley Enterprize zone, which includes the Kohl Ranch project site, Cornett (1990) recorded 4 amphibians and 20 reptiles. Most of these species are found in the native desert habitats in the project region. The agricultural and associated ruderal (disturbed) habitats do not provide habitat for most of the amphibians and reptiles that are native to the area. Two reptile species are common on the project site, the western whiptail and side -blotched lizard. Other species such as the western toad, common kingsnake, and western diamondback are expected to occur on-site, but were not observed during the field surveys. V-78 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Birds Thirty-eight bird species were observed on the project site or in habitats adjacent to the project site. The common species on-site include the mourning dove, black phoebe, western kingbird, northern mockingbird, western meadowlark, and American kestrel. Other species such as the burrowing owl, greater roadrunner, and Gambel quail were observed in the non-agricultural habitats immediately north and south of the project site, but were not observed on the project site. c) Mammals Four mammals were found to be common to abundant on the project site during the field surveys: the pocket gopher, Audubon cottontail, coyote, and striped skunk. The natural desert habitats outside of the project site contain a diverse and abundant mammal fauna, but the majority of these do not occur in the agricultural habitats that dominate the project site. Mammal locality records from the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History and the University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology were examined to compile a list of the species that have been collected in the project vicinity. These records and other literature were used in preparing the list of mammals expected on-site (see Appendix D). d) Wildlife Movement Corridors Movement corridors are linkages between habitat patches. The characteristics of movement corridors are as diverse as the species that use them, but evidence indicates that canyons, riparian corridors, drainages, and ridgelines are important for movement and dispersal of carnivores such as mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. Species such as these have been used as models in developing criteria for the design of movement corridors with the expectation that they serve as "umbrella" species — movement corridors designed for them will be used by numerous plants and animals. As development proceeds in a region, its native or natural communities decrease and the remaining habitat becomes increasingly fragmented. Transportation corridors, pipelines, and aqueducts can act as barriers to wildlife movement, fragmenting an area into subregional habitat patches. The consequence of this to plant and animal populations is an increase in local extinctions and substantial degradation of plant and animal communities in a region. The project site does not contain habitats or natural features that would contribute to use of the site as a wildlife movement corridor. The location of the site amidst an established agricultural community, the degraded condition of the habitat, and the regular human disturbance associated with its agricultural use indicate that it does not function as an important wildlife movement corridor. 6) Species and Communities of Concern Sensitive species and communities include: (1) species given special recognition by federal, state, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations due to declining, limited, or threatened populations, resulting in most cases from habitat reduction; and (2) habitat areas that are unique, of relatively limited distribution, or of special value to Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-79 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA wildlife. Ile identification and distribution of sensitive biological resources was aided by the use of the Department of Fish and Game Natural Resources Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG, 1994), a computer data base which lists localities of sensitive species and habitats that currently exist or existed at some time in the past. The plant species and communities of concern that occur in the project region, or occurred there in the past, are summarized in Table V-15. The animal species of concern are summarized in Table V-16. V-80 The Planning Center Table V-15 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES AND COMMUNITIES IN THE PROJECT REGION Status Species Comments Federal State/Local PLANTS Astragalus lentiginosus var. Coachella PE CNPS 1B This species occurs only on windblown sands of the Coachella Valley. It occurs on a Coachella Valley milkvetch sand dune community northwest of the project site. It does not occur on the Kohl Ranch site, nor is suitable habitat found there. Astragalus tricadnatus PE CNPS 1B Occurs in sandy washes. Known only from four locations: Whitewater, Morongo, and Triple -ribbed milkvetch Martinez Canyons and one location in the Orocopia Mountains. The Martinez Canyon location is the nearest of these, at 4 miles southwest of the project site. It does not occur on the Kohl Ranch site, nor is suitable habitat found there. Chamaesyce platysperma C2 CNPS 3 Known from the sand dunes of the project region, but the agricultural fields on the project flat -seeded spurge site do not provide habitat for this species. Ditaxis califomica C2 CNPS 113 1 Found in alluvial fans locally around Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta. Also California ditaxis known from Shavers Valley and Chuckawalla Valley. It does not occur on the Kohl Ranch site, nor is suitable habitat found there. Gilia maculata C1 None Known from project region, but the agricultural fields on the project site do not provide San Bernardino Mountain Gilia habitat for this species. Salvia greatae C2 CNPS 113 Known from the Mecca Hills, Orocopia Mountains, and Salt Creek Wash east and Orocopia sage southeast of the project site. Suitable habitat is not found on the Kohl Ranch site. Xylorhiza cognata C2 CNPS 113 Known to occur in the Mecca Hills east of, and in proximity to, the project site. The Mecca aster agricultural and alkali scrub -woodland habitats in the project site and its vicinity do not provide suitable habitat for this species. Not observed on-site and not expected to occur there. PLANT COMMUNITIES Desert fan palm oasis woodland Found in the Santa Rosa Mountains 3.5 miles west and southwest of the project site. Does not occur on-site. Source: 1994 California Natural Diversity Database. Federal Designations: FE Listed by the Federal government as an endangered species. PE Proposed to be listed as endangered by the Federal government. C1 Candidate for federal listing, substantial information for listing at this time. C2 Candidate for federal listing, insufficient information for listing at this time. State Designations: SE Listed as endangered by the State of California. ST Listed by the State of California as a threatened species. CSC California Department of Fish and Game "Species of Special Concern" P Protected Caidomaia Nafive Plant Society(CNPS): CNPS 1113 Plants considered rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. CNPS 3 Plants about which we need more information - A review list. V-80 The Planning Center Chapter V Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-16 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE PROJECT REGION Status Species Comments Federal' State/Local' MAMMALS Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus C2 None Occurs in windblown sandy habitats, including alkali sink and Palm Springs ground squirrel creosote bush scrub habitats in the Coachella Valley. Potentially occurs in woodland habitats adjacent to northern and southern boundaries of the project site. Suitable habitat is not found on-site. Ovis canadensis nelson None None Occurs in the project region (Little San Bernardino Nelson bighorn sheep Mountains), but not in the project vicinity. Ovis canadensis cremnobates 7PE T Occurs in the project region (Santa Rosa Mountains), but not Peninsular bighorn sheep in the project vicinity. BIRDS Rallus longirostris yumanensis Yuma E T Occurs in freshwater and brackish wetlands in the Salton Sea clapper rail area. Known to nest in the Whitewater River delta at the northern end of the Salton Sea, approximately 6 miles southeast of the project site. Individuals have also been observed at various locations along the Whitewater River, which runs from 1.5 to 2.2 miles east of the project site. The agricultural crops on-site are not habitat. A focused field survey that relied on taped calls was conducted during the breeding season and determined that the three cattail marsh fragments (2.4, 3.2, and 1 acres in area) are not potential habitat for this species. This survey determined that this species is not present at the site. Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus T FC2 Like the Yuma clapper rail, this rail inhabits saltwater, California black rail brackish, and freshwater marshes, usually in pickleweed but also known to occur in bulrush and cattail marshes. Historically occurred in the Salton Sea area, but now is extremely rare in the Salton Sea region. The survey conducted for the Yuma clapper rail also addressed the presence/absence of the black rail and confirmed that this species is not present at the site. Falco mexicanus None P Nests are known from the Santa Rosa Mountains west and Prairie falcon southwest of the project site. Adults and their young can be expected to forage in the study area but nesting habitat does not exist on-site. Accipiter cooped None CSC Adults and their young can be expected to forage in the study Coopers hawk area but nesting habitat does not exist on-site. Athene cunicularia C2 CSC Occurs in disturbed grassland habitats, usually in and around burrowing owl abandoned ground squirrel burrows. Individuals were observed immediately north of the project site, within the boundary of the Thermal Airport and in agricultural fields east of the site, but none were observed on-site. Expected to forage on the project site, and potentially nest there. Pyrocephalus rubinus None CSC Reported from Thermal, north of the project site. Potentially Vermilion flycatcher (nesting) occurs in mesquite woodlands adjacent to northern and southern boundaries of the project site. Not observed on the project site, and suitable habitat for this species does not occur on-site. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-81 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-16 SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES IN THE PROJECT REGION Status Species Comments Federal' State/Local' Polioptila melanura None CSC The black tailed gnatcatcher is not proposed for listing but is black -tailed gnatcatcher considered a sensitive species by the Department of Fish and Game. This species is common in the Atriplex scrub and mesquite woodland habitat at the southern end of the Thermal Airport, adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site. Individuals may occur on-site occasionally, but suitable habitat is not found on-site. Toxostoma dorsale None CSC Associated with desert riparian vegetation, which is not found Crissal thrasher on-site. Toxostoma lecontei None CSC Occurs in desert wash and scrub habitats. Observed in Le Contes thrasher Atriplex scrub habitat adjacent to the project site, but suitable habitat is not found on-site. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Batrachoseps sp 5 None None This undescribed species was reported from the Santa Rosa Guadalupe Creek slender Mountains west/southwest of the project site. Does not occur salamander on-site. Uma inornata inomata T E Occurs in habitats with windblown sand in the project region. Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard Historically known from the project region, but currently does not occur in project vicinity. The agricultural habitat throughout the project site is unsuitable for this species. Phrynosoma mcalld PE CSC Occurs in sandy habitats in project vicinity. The agricultural flat -tailed horned lizard habitat found throughout the project site is unsuitable for this species. Gopherus agassis T T The desert tortoise is known from the Orocopia Mtns. east of Desert tortoise the project site, but does not occur on-site. FISH Cyprinodon macularis E E In California, now limited to shoreline pools of the Salton Sea, desert pupfish two natural streams, and selected artificial ponds and irrigation drains immediately adjacent to the Salton Sea (CDFG, 1991). The irrigation ditches on the project site are not suitable habitat for the desert pupfish. INSECTS Macrobaenetes valgum C2 None Occurs in sandy habitats in project region. Suitable habitat Coachella giant sand treader cricket for this species is not found on the project site. Stenopelmatus cahuilaensis Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket C2 None Occurs in sand dune habitats, which are not found on the q project site. See Table 9 for legend. V-82 The Planning Center Chapter V Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis These tables include species listed as Endangered (SE or FE) or Threatened (ST or FT), which are species protected under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts. A number of species are not protected under state or federal Endangered Species Acts, but are being considered for listing. At the federal level, these are Candidate 1 (FC1) species that are not currently listed, but for which sufficient data exist to support listing the species as Threatened or Endangered, and Candidate 2 (FC2) species, a group for which data on their population status is still being collected. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) provides a list of plant species that it considers sensitive. The first (CNPS 1) denotes those that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and other states or countries. The second (CNPS2) are species that may warrant protection in California but are not sensitive elsewhere. The third group (CNPS3) are species for which more data are needed, and a fourth group (CNPS4) is a "watch list" of species with limited distribution that may become less abundant in the future. No plants or animals that are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, or listed in the California Native Plant Society (1985) are found on the project site. The sensitive plant community listed by the NDDB (CDFG, 1994) as occurring in the project vicinity is desert fan palm oasis, which does not occur on-site. 7) Riparian/Wetland Vegetation The project site does not contain any blue -line streams and the irrigation ditches lack riparian vegetation. There are three areas of cattail vegetation (2.4, 3.2, and 1 acres in area) in agricultural reservoirs where surplus irrigation water and overflows are stored. According to the Kohl Ranch manager, the vegetation is periodically removed from these reservoirs to maintain their water -holding capacity. During an informal consultation with Robert Smith, a wetlands specialist with the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), undertaken on July 15, 1994 during preparation of the Kohl Ranch DEIR, the COE representative indicated that these agricultural reservoirs might not be considered jurisdictional wetlands owing to their on-going agricultural functions. Mr. Smith suggested that the applicant coordinate with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) regarding any wetlands determination for the site. Since that time, based on an investigation of the records of the Consolidated Farm Services Agency (CSFA) of the Department of Agriculture (DOA), it has been determined that a non -wetlands determination has been made by the SCS for the property (See Appendix D). Consequently, these agricultural reservoirs do not fall under the jurisdiction of the COE. 8) Species Accounts There are a number of listed or otherwise sensitive animal species that occur in the project region. The majority of these do not occur in the project vicinity, and are therefore not considered here. For example, the Nelson big -horned sheep occurs in the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard historically occurred in the project vicinity, but now is restricted to locations north and west of the project site. The project site is outside of the currently recognized range for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard, and is not within the boundaries of the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-83 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Plan area. Three listed species and one California Species of Special Concern are known from the project vicinity: a) hallus longirostrisyumanensis. Yuma clapper rail The Yuma clapper rail occurs in freshwater and brackish emergent wetlands in the Salton Sea area, where it feeds on crustaceans, snails, worms, and frogs. This species is known to nest in the Whitewater River delta at the northern end of the Salton Sea, approximately 6 miles southeast of the project site. Individuals have also been observed at various locations along the Whitewater River, which runs from 1.5 to 2.2 miles east of the project site. The Yuma clapper rail is listed as Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and as Threatened by the California Department of Fish and Game. The agricultural habitats that dominate the project site do not provide foraging or nesting habitat for the Yuma clapper rail. In addition, the three fragments of cattail marsh (2.4, 3.2, and 1 acres in area) in the agricultural reservoirs are not considered potential habitat for this species due to the density of the vegetation, lack of appropriate foraging areas and the isolation from other potential habitat areas. A focused field survey for this species was conducted on- site, and confirmed that this species is not present at the site (See Appendix D). b) Laterallus i maicensis cotumiculus, California black rail The California black rail occurs in freshwater and brackish emergent wetlands in the Salton Sea area, in shallower waters than the Yuma clapper rail is found. The California black rail is extremely rare in the Salton Sea region, and is listed as Threatened by the California Department of Fish and Game. The three fragments of cattail marsh in the agricultural reservoirs are not considered potential habitat for this species. The survey conducted for the Yuma clapper rail also addressed the black rail, and confirmed that this species is not present at the Kohl Ranch site. c) Phrynosorna mcallff flat -tailed horned lizard The flat -tailed horned lizard (FTHL) occurs in wind-blown sandy habitats in the Coachella Valley, where it forages on ants. The F17HL has been proposed for listing as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is a California Species of Special Concern, which are species that have declining or limited populations but are not listed as threatened or endangered by the state. The project site is within the historical range of the FTHL, but the agricultural lands on the project site and its vicinity are not appropriate habitat for this species. A field survey was conducted on 29 April 1994 to determine the presence of suitable habitat for the FTHL on the project site. The survey was conducted by Brian McGurty, a recognized expert on the FTHL, and Phil Brylski, Ph.D. The survey date was selected to coincide with the known peak period of seasonal activity for this species (Turner et al, 1980; Muth and Fisher, 1992) and weather conditions on this date were ideal for horned lizard activity. No FTHL's were found on the project site or adjacent to the project site. The habitat on the project site consists of cultivated fields, consolidated soils, and V-84 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis crops and associated ruderal vegetation, which are not suitable habitat for the FTHL. There is no habitat for the FIHL on the project site and adjacent areas. d) Cvnrinodon macularis, desert pupfish The desert pupfish historically ranged from northern Mexico, southeastern California, to Arizona. In California, it historically occurred in backwaters along the Colorado River and in springs, streams, and seeps within the Salton Sink, but is now limited to shoreline pools of the Salton Sea, two natural streams, and selected artificial ponds and irrigation drains immediately adjacent to the Salton Sea (CDFG, 1991). The desert pupfish is on the list of endangered species from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is therefore protected under both the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts. The irrigation ditches on the project site were visually surveyed on 20 April by Phil Brylski, Ph.D. and Brian McGurty, and were found to be not suitable for the desert pupfish. The conclusion that the irrigation ditches on the project site are not habitat for the desert pupfish was confirmed by verbal consultation with the Department of Fish and Game (K. Sheeny, personal communication). Based on annual surveys of the aquatic habitats around the Salton Sea conducted by the Department of Fish and Game, desert pupfish occur in many of the irrigation drains along the northern end of the Salton Sea, but the quality of these habitats declines with distance from the Salton Sea. Desert pupfish are not found in irrigation ditches at distances such as those from the project site to the Salton Sea. e) Athene cunicularia. burrowing owl Burrowing owls are found in desert, grassland, and savannah habitats, sometimes in proximity to developed areas. Abandoned rodent burrows, mostly those of ground squirrels, are used for nesting and avoiding high temperature. Populations of burrowing owls sometimes reach high densities, resembling colonies, in disturbed grasslands with abundant prey (insects, small mammals, and reptiles). Populations have been declining as a result of habitat loss due to development and conversion to agricultural land, and to poisoning of ground squirrels. The burrowing owl is currently a California Species of Special Concern, but is expected to be added to the list of candidates species (FC1) by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the near future. Burrowing owls were not observed on the project site, but were observed immediately north of the project site within the boundaries of the Thermal Airport and in agricultural fields immediately east of the project site. Individuals can be expected to forage on the project site, and to potentially nest there, although no nests were located during the field surveys. 9) Regulations This section describes those federal, state or local regulations, permits, agreements or policies, that pertain to biological resources found on the project site. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-85 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA a) 1603 Agreements/404 Permits The alteration of any of the drainages, but especially drainages containing any riparian vegetation, may require a stream alteration agreement (1603) from the California Department of Fish and Game. Currently, all agreements must comply with the CDFG's wetland policy of no net loss of wetlands. Mitigation measures would have to be developed in compliance with the CDFG's mitigation guidelines (1987). These mitigations would potentially have to include both the revegetation of temporarily disturbed areas and/or the development of additional riparian or wetland vegetation on the project site. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This section regulates the disposal of dredge and/or fill material into waters of the United States. Additionally, the placement of any structures into these areas is regulated by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. These regulations not only cover activities in bays, waterbodies, and rivers, but also in wetland areas. Currently, if the project disturbs less than 10 acres, it may already be authorized under one of the existing nationwide permits. Otherwise, the applicant must apply for a 404 permit if the project could affect Waters of the U.S or adjacent wetlands. Waters of the U.S. are defined to include all rivers and streams, including intermittent streams, to the normal high water mark, as defined in Section 328 of the Clean Water Act (Goode and Pierce 1990). The application must comply with section 404(b)(1), which requires that the applicant show there is no practicable alternative to the proposed action. b) The Endangered Species Acts The stated purpose of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) is to "provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species...". Section 9 of the FESA prohibits unauthorized "take" of a threatened or endangered species. Sections 7 and 10(a) established a permitting process that may allow an "incidental take" to occur in the course of a project. Issuance of the "take" permit is at the discretion of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game and cannot be issued if the project would jeopardize the existence of species or subspecies. Impacts to listed species must be addressed in environmental documentation. A biological assessment on the species and the potential impacts of the proposed project is submitted to the FWS. If a listed species of its habitat could be affected, then the FWS prepares a Biological Opinion that evaluates whether the project would jeopardize the species and require mitigations that reduce the impacts to the species. Impacts to a listed species can be permitted under Section 10 (Incidental Take Provision) of the Act, where the area has been subject to a previously approved Habitat Conservation Plan for that species. V-86 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) also prohibits the taking of any endangered, threatened or rare plant and/or animal species in the state. 10) General Plan Policies The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (RCCGP) includes a number of programs and policies to conserve wildlife, habitat and vegetation resources. Specific programs relate to the protection of sensitive animal species such as the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard and the Yuma clapper rail, and sensitive plant communities. The County is participating in a policy advisory group (PAG) which is considering the preparation of a multi -species habitat conservation planning process that is expected to address many of the sensitive plant and animal species in the project region. This PAG is chaired by the Coachella Valley Association of Government's Planning Director. Pursuant to the programs and policies in the RCCGP, the following land use standards for wildlife and vegetation pertain to the proposed project: Wildlife Preservation ■ Any proposed development in an identified biologically sensitive area shall be evaluated individually and cumulatively for the potential impact of development upon the area. Disruption of sensitive wildlife habitat shall be kept to a minimum. Vegetation Preservation ■ Any proposed future development in an identified sensitive vegetation area or in an area with the potential of containing sensitive vegetation, shall be evaluated individually and cumulatively for the potential impact upon vegetation. Detailed biological reports, including inventories, impact assessment, and mitigation measures shall be prepared and submitted with development proposals. N Adequate provision shall be made for the retention of vegetation, and disruption of sensitive vegetation shall be kept to a minimum. ■ Where possible, landscaping shall be accomplished through the use of native vegetation. Inspection of maps contained in the RCCGP indicates that the project site is not located within the ranges or habitats of any endangered, rare and threatened wildlife species, and does not contain mapped vegetation resources, as they were known to exist when the mapping was compiled in 1982. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) Impacts to biological resources can be direct and indirect. Direct impacts occur when the species and communities that occur on the project site are displaced or destroyed as a direct result of implementation of the proposed project. Direct impacts are considered permanent Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-87 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA when the habitat for the species or the community itself is replaced by the proposed development, and are temporary if habitat is conserved or replaced on-site and some or all of the impacted species return to the site after construction. Indirect impacts are those that result from long-term use of the site under the proposed project, such as increased human disturbance (with respect to animals) and the introduction of invasive exotic plants (with respect to plants), and are analyzed by evaluating the consistency of the proposed land use with the continued use of the site by the existing plants and animals. Under CEQA, the expected impacts to biological resources from a proposed project must be evaluated with respect to their significance, before and after the proposed mitigations. Significant impacts on biological resources would occur if the project would substantially affect a rare, threatened, endangered or candidate plant or animal species, or the habitat of any such species; substantially diminish or degrade habitats (including wetlands) of native fish, wildlife, or plants; interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; deteriorate existing fish or wildlife habitat; or adversely affect significant riparian lands, wetlands, marshes, or other wildlife habitats. The proposed project is within the presently proposed Coachella Valley multi -species habitat conservation plan area. The proposed project would result in the removal of the agricultural and ruderal plant communities on the project site. The proposed project would directly impact the plants and animals on the project site and would indirectly impact the animals in the immediately surrounding area. The irrigation ditches on the site are maintained for agricultural use, and do not support any sensitive species, nor are they considered blue -line streams, impacts to which would require a 1603 agreement from the Department of Fish and Game. Three areas of cattail vegetation (2.4, 3.2, and 1 acres in area) have become established in the agricultural reservoirs that serve as temporary storage for irrigation water. During an informal consultation with Robert Smith, a wetlands specialist with the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), undertaken on July 15, 1994 during preparation of the Kohl Ranch DEIR, the COE representative indicated that these reservoirs might not be considered jurisdictional wetlands owing to their on-going agricultural functions. Mr. Smith suggested that the applicant coordinate witht he U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) regarding any wetlands determination for the site. Since that time, based on an investigation of the records of the Consolidated Farm Services Agency (CSFA) of the Department of Agriculture (DOA), it has been determined that a non -wetlands determination has been made by the SCS for the property (See Appendix D). Consequently, these agricultural reservoirs do not fall under the jurisdiction of the COE. 1) impact: Loss of Wildlife Habitat and Associated Plant and Animal Species a) Impact Analysis Loss of wildlife habitat and associated plant and animal species would occur within the project area. This is a less -than -significant impact. Grading of the project site would remove the agricultural and ruderal plant communities there, as well as the existing structures. The loss of the agricultural and ruderal habitat is not considered to be a significant impact of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project and the loss of existing habitat would directly or indirectly impact all of the V-88 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis animal species on-site. Mobile animals such as birds and larger mammals such as the coyote would be displaced to appropriate habitat south of the project site. Some of the animals that would move to appropriate habitat south of the project site would be subject to mortality by predation and unsuccessful competition for food and territory. Sedentary species such as burrowing small mammals (pocket gophers) and lizards would be eliminated by site preparation. Most of the snakes, lizards, and mammals would not be expected to recolonize the developed site, and a minority of birds would be expected to do so. Many of the bird species found in and around the project site, such as the mourning dove, black phoebe, house finch, and house sparrow, are tolerant of human disturbance and would be expected to forage and nest on the developed project site. The reduction or loss of prey species such as lizards and rodents would reduce the amount of foraging habitat for raptoral birds observed in the project region such as the American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, and burrowing owl. b) Mitigation Measures None required. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 2 Impact- Direct Impact to Sensitive Species a) Impact Analysis Direct impact to a special status species would be considered a potentially significant impact. No sensitive plant species were observed on the project site, and none would be impacted by the proposed project. One sensitive species, the burrowing owl (a California Species of Special Concern), was observed north and east of the project site, but not on the project site. The proposed project would eliminate potential foraging habitat on-site for this species but, at this time, no direct impacts to the species are expected. No nest sites (abandoned ground squirrel dens) for this species were observed on the project site, but due to the species' proximity to the project site, it is recommended that a survey for nesting pairs be conducted during the breeding season prior to construction in order to avoid impacts to this species. If potential nest sites are located prior to the bird's nesting season, they can be plugged or fenced to prevent birds from nesting within the construction zone. These pre -construction surveys should be conducted for those parts of the project site that are expected to be cleared or graded for development in the year following the survey. If pre -construction surveys are performed during the bird's nesting season, and nesting birds are discovered, appropriate mitigation measures will need to be identified in consultation with the California Department of Fish & Game. Because burrowing owl nests are not found within the actively tilled agricultural fields, open fields in active agriculture need not Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-89 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA be surveyed. The disturbed areas around the periphery of the area to be cleared or graded and existing roadside areas within the construction zone should be surveyed. b) Mitigation Measures C3-1 A pre -construction survey for nesting burrowing owls shall be conducted. These surveys will be focused in untilled lands and roadside areas within the construction zone. It is preferable for these surveys to be conducted in the early spring that precedes the time when clearing or grading is anticipated. If potential nest -sites are discovered during a pre -construction survey conducted in the early spring, they shall be plugged or fenced to discourage nesting within the project impact zone when construction crews are on-site. If pre -construction surveys are performed during the bird's nesting season, and nesting birds are discovered, appropriate mitigation measures shall be identified in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 3) Impact: Long Term Impacts to Regionally Significant Biological Resources The proposed project would contribute to the rate of population growth in the eastern Coachella Valley, which can be expected to adversely impact the region's biological resources. The project site and the immediately surrounding area is in agricultural use, and contains few significant biological resources. The more distant off-site biological resources are associated with the sandy habitats in the western Coachella Valley (e.g., the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard and the Palm Spring ground squirrel), the desert scrub, pine, and palm oasis habitats of the Santa Rosa Mountains (e.g., prairie falcons, willow flycatchers, and peninsular bighorn sheep), the desert scrub habitats of the Little San Bernardino Mountains and other desert mountains east and northeast of the valley (e.g., Nelson bighorn sheep and least Bell's vireo), and the aquatic habitats of the Salton Sea (e.g., desert pupfish, Yuma clapper rail, and migratory waterfowl). The majority of these species and the communities they occupy are located on public lands, which affords them some level of protection against the impacts of future growth. In addition, the proposed project is located within an enterprize zone which will absorb future urban growth. Because the project site and enterprize zone lack regionally significant biological resources, the long-term impacts of the project are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Level of Significance: Less than significant. V-90 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) For Concepts 2 through 6, the conversion of agricultural lands and impacts to the few biological resources on-site would be similar to Concept 1 for the following: • Loss of wildlife habitat and associated plant and animal species; • Direct impact to sensitive species; and • Long term impacts to regionally significant biological resources. With mitigation measure C3-1, these impacts are less than significant. 4. Geology and Seismicity a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The project is located near several potentially active fault zones (Figure V-23). Review of the RCCGP indicates that the project area is within a ground shaking zone and liquefaction hazard area. According to the RCCGP, the project site is not located within: 1) an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone; 2) a County Fault Hazard Zone; or 3) 150 feet of an active or potentially active fault. Ground shaking is considered a primary seismic hazard. A secondary seismic hazard is the potential for liquefaction resulting from the interaction of ground shaking with the existing soil conditions. As required by the RCCGP for areas in risk of liquefaction and anticipated seismic activity, a geologic report (Appendix B) was conducted which presents the geologic and soils conditions for the project area. 1) Liquefaction Liquefaction, due to relatively shallow groundwater, results in the potential for failure of the ground's ability to support structures. Liquefaction potential at the site was evaluated and documented in the Geotechnical Feasibility Report. The majority of the deeper sand layers present at the site are too dense to liquefy. Upon initial investigation, the majority of the soils encountered were clays and silts which are generally considered non - liquefiable. The Report concluded that the relatively dense condition of the deeper sand layers along with the presence of thick confining silt and clay layers indicate only minimal liquefaction potential. However, if soils with liquefaction potential are encountered in the future, proper site preparation and structure design can minimize liquefaction -related problems. 2) Ground Shaking The Geotechnical Feasibility Report identified the risk of strong ground shaking to be the primary geological hazard to the project area. The San Andreas fault, which would be the most likely to cause significant earthquake activity, is located 4.7 miles northeast from the site. According to the RCCGP, the project is located in Ground Shaking Zone III -C and IV -C. Based on these Zones the land use suitability relative to the land uses proposed ranges from generally suitable for Critical and Essential land uses to generally suitable for Normal -Low Risk land uses. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-91 Regional Fault Map THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Source: State of California Division of Mines & Geolog• Fault Map of California, 1992 i 9;01)kC Figure V 23 V .92 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 3 General Plan Policies The RCCGP indicates that at the present time all new structures to be located in the County are designed to resist earthquake forces in accordance with the UBC. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1 Im act; Liquefaction Potential a) Impact Analysis Review of the RCCGP indicates that the project is located in an area of liquefaction potential. The Geotechnical Report (Appendix B) conducted for the project site concluded, based on soil characteristics, that the potential for liquefaction is minimal. If soils with liquefaction potential are encountered in the future, proper site preparation and structure design can minimize liquefaction -related problems. b) Mitigation Measures C4-1 Additional site specific investigations addressing liquefaction potential shall be conducted once the locations and nature of structures are known. If potentially liquefiable soils are encountered during site specific investigations, proper site preparation and building design shall be required to minimize liquefaction related problems. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 2) Impact: Groundshaking a) Impact Analysis The site lies within the Groundshaking Zones III -C and IV -C per the Seismic - Geologic Map included in the RCCGP. According to the RCCGP, the proposed project includes Essential and Normal -Low to High Risk land uses. The degree of suitability for Normal -Low Risk and Normal- High Risk land uses relative to Groundshaking Zones III -C and IV -C are generally suitable and provisionally suitable, respectively. According to the RCCGP, general suitability refers to areas with expected ground shaking levels equal to or less than design levels as defined in the UBC. "Provisionally suitable" would be expected to exceed the design levels as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) by a factor ranging from 1 to 2. Consequently, UBC buildings may suffer moderate damage in these zones. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-93 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Essential land uses (electrical power inter -tie systems, utility substations, local gas and electric distribution lines, ambulance service, and schools) are generally unsuitable in Groundshaking Zones III -C and IV -C. This reflects a strong consideration for community safety and disaster recovery. Detailed site investigations and engineering studies may be necessary for certain structures, such as schools. b) Mitigation Measures C4-2 Structures constructed on-site shall be designed in consideration of the seismic design requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the seismic setting of the site. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) Under Concepts 2 through 6, residents as well as employees of the commercial and industrial uses may be exposed to seismic hazards. The seismic hazards for these concepts are similar to those for Concept 1 for the following impacts: • Liquefaction Potential; and • Groundshaking. The following mitigation measures shall be required: C4-1 and C4-2. With mitigation impacts are less than significant. 5. Hydrology, Flooding & Drainage a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Regional Hydrologic Conditions The project site is located in the Coachella Valley portion of the Colorado River Basin in the geographical feature known as the Salton Trough. The trough is a long depression that comprises the landward extension of the Gulf of California which, in prehistoric times, contained the ancient Lake Cahuilla. The Coachella Valley is separated from the Imperial Valley to the south by the Salton Sea, which is located in the lowest portion of the depression. The Salton Sea was formed between 1905 and 1907 by overflow from the Colorado River. It currently serves as a drainage reservoir for irrigation return water and stormwater from the Coachella Valley, Imperial Valley, Borrego Valley, and also receives drainage water from the Mexicali Valley in Mexico. The All-American Canal, which brings Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley was completed in 1940; the Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal was completed in 1949 and continues to deliver water for irrigation and other beneficial uses in the Coachella Valley. V-94 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The Whitewater River, a major drainage course in the Coachella Valley, is channelized and becomes the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel east of Washington Boulevard. The river system flows from the northwest to the southeast year-round, due to the discharge of treated effluent from wastewater treatment plants and discharge from agricultural drainage systems. The Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel passes approximately one mile east of the project site, and ultimately flows into the Salton Sea. Drainage from the project site and its surrounding areas is collected within the channel. A majority of land in the Coachella Valley is agricultural, with large quantities of water applied to crop growing areas. This intensive irrigation has created perched water tables in areas characterized by fine textured soils. Drainage of these agricultural areas is accomplished by a network of tile drains. The primary function of the Salton Sea and the agricultural drains in the Coachella Valley is the collection, transport, storage and control of drainage waters from irrigated cropland to maintain adequate soil salinity for agriculture in the region. As farmland is transitioned to non-agricultural uses, the tile drains are either abandoned or retained to reduce the effects of a perched water table and to prevent accumulated salts on the soil surface. The Coachella Valley is subject to periodic storm flows, with the majority of these flows originating in the surrounding mountains. The Kohl Ranch is protected from these flows by several storm drainage facilities. Flows from watersheds north of the Coachella Canal (a branch of the All-American Canal) are intercepted by the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which runs adjacent to Washington Street and ultimately drains north to the Whitewater River. The Eastside Levee was constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation to protect the Coachella Canal (which flows northerly from Lake Cahuilla to the Whitewater River) and its surrounding areas. This levee runs along the east side of Lake Cahuilla and the east side of the Coachella Canal. In addition to the East Side Levee, two levees with a total length of 4.5 miles were constructed on the west side of the valley to protect Lake Cahuilla and farmlands between Avenues 58 and 66. One of these runs along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains south of the lake, terminating near Avenue 64 and Jackson Street. The other levee runs along Avenue 66. Lake Cahuilla is a storage reservoir used to regulate irrigation water demands and for recreation. Average annual precipitation in the Coachella Valley ranges from less than four inches in the valley to 40 inches in the San Bernardino Mountains. Runoff resulting from rains and snowmelt is the major source of groundwater replenishment. Three aquifers underlie the project area: the semi -perched; the upper confined; and the lower confined. The aquifers are distinct and are separated by impermeable fine-grained sediments. Groundwater is stored primarily in the unconsolidated Pleistocene sediments of the lower confined aquifer. In the valley, the thickness of water -bearing sediments generally exceeds 1,000 feet. A clay aquitard resulting from past sedimentation in the old lake bed extends from the Salton Sea to west of Indio. This clay layer overlies the domestic use aquifers and underlies layers of permeable sediments and perched groundwaters which are replenished by percolating excess agricultural irrigation water. The upper and lower confined aquifers are primarily recharged by subsurface flow from northwest of the project area. Precipitation falling directly on the valley floor is not sufficient to be considered a long term source of recharge to the basin. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-95 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The availability of good quality groundwater has been very important in the development of the Coachella Valley. According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region, the demands have been increasing on the limited water resources of the Coachella Valley. The Plan recommends optimizing the use of available water resources by reusing community wastewaters wherever economically and socially feasible. Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations of treated wastewaters are only about half the concentrations of Colorado River water used for recharge in the upper valley. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) acknowledges that the groundwater table in much of the Coachella Valley from La Quinta to the Salton Sea is dropping significantly.' The District is currently exploring actions to reverse this trend. Since its formation in 1918, the mission of the District has been to protect and conserve the valley's water supplies. With the conversion from wells to Colorado River water for agricultural irrigation in the early 1950s, a similar problem of overdraft was reversed. Problems resulting from overdrafting include potential water quality degradation caused by intrusion of perched water and seepage into inundated uncapped wells from the Salton Sea. In addition, ground subsidence could permanently reduce the storage capacity of the aquifer, and could cause structural damage and utility disruption, such as altering the flow of sewage to reclamation plants. The District has identified several ways to avoid these adverse effects of depleting the aquifer, including: ■ Continue to develop and employ new conservation methods. ■ Lessen demand on the groundwater basin by increasing use of Colorado River water, so that groundwater will be available as a supplement during periods of shortage on the Colorado. ■ Use Colorado River water for direct recharge of the groundwater basin in the western end of the valley. These and other potential solutions will be the subject of a groundwater management plan being prepared by CVWD. The District plans to provide incentives, including financial assistance for the installation of filtering systems, to allow use of drip irrigation and thereby encourage canal water use. In addition, the CVWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) addresses currently adopted and alternative conservation measures for the Coachella Valley. The original UWMP was prepared pursuant to the Urban Water Management Planning Act, Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656, which became effective January 1, 1984. The plan was most recently updated in 1990. ' "Farm Water Watch," Coachella Valley Water District, Spring 1994. V-96 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 2) Hydrologic Conditions on the Kohl Ranch Site The Kohl Ranch project site is extremely flat, sloping from the northwest to the southeast at less than half of one percent. Storm flows throughout the project site and surrounding areas are collected in the Coachella Valley stormwater channel (Whitewater River). The drainage lines in Avenues 60, 61, 62 and 65, are drainage pipelines and were not designed to convey surface runoff. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into these drainage lines. The evacuation channel in Avenue 64 and the open channel in Avenue 66 were constructed to convey stormwater flows. The capacities and grades of these channels need to be evaluated before it can be assumed that they can receive additional stormwater flows. The developer shall bear the cost of improvements to these channels if they are needed to convey additional stormwater flows. Based on the designs for storm drainage, storm flows from the site would not impact the Avenue 66 channel. The tributary watersheds for the project site are located to the west in the Santa Rosa Mountains (Appendix F). The Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel whose flows traverse the project site from west to east, is an open channel and underground storm drain system. The Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel was constructed to alleviate storm runoff from the mountains to the west of the project site and to provide dewatering of the Eastside Levee. The project site receives offsite sheet flows originating within the Coachella Valley itself, which enter the site along the northwesterly and westerly project boundaries. Flows from the south are intercepted by the Avenue 66 drain, an open channel constructed in the 1930s. Since construction, the Drain has been graded and is currently more like a levee than an open channel. A series of dikes and channels protect the site from Toro Canyon and other canyons lying westerly of the project. The site is not in the direct path of storm water flows from Martinez Canyon, however, due to the unpredictable nature of flooding on alluvial fans the actual stormwater flows could flow toward the site. The dike along the south boundary, other upstream diversions and the drainage improvements proposed by Caltrans for old Highway 86 west of the site will provide protection to the project from the Martinez Canyon flows. The geotechnical study prepared for the project estimates the depth to the water table on the project site at between 9 and 19 feet (See Appendix B). There are no USGS defined "blueline" streams on the project site. In addition, the property has not been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The area is designated as Flood Zone D, an area of undetermined but possible flood hazards.' Per discussions with CVWD Flood Control Engineers, the project site is not subject to concentrated flood hazard due to protection from the Eastside Levee, and would not be conditioned by the District to perform FEMA mapping. Therefore, the project site is only subject to sheet flows generated from the tributary area between the Eastside Levee and the project site. 8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, 1980. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-97 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3 General Plan Policies The RCCGP objective related to flooding is to implement siting and development standards to reduce risk and damage from flood hazards. The RCCGP maps 100 -year floodplain, dam inundation areas and area drainage plans. According to the Plan, the project site is not located within any of these areas. The RCCGP also acknowledges that recurrent sheet flow or local ponding is a problem in many low-lying areas of the County, and flash flooding can be problematic in areas such as alluvial fans and washes. Proposed developments are reviewed for location in flood hazard areas, including floodways, floodplains, areas subject to sheet flow or local ponding, and dam inundation areas. All flood -related hazards must be adequately mitigated. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Potential Reduction of Groundwater Recharge. a) Impact Analysis The development of the proposed project would increase the impermeable surfaces on the site. As described above, water -bearing sediments of the lower confined aquifer are recharged from areas northwest of the project site. In addition, precipitation falling on the valley floor is insufficient as a major source of recharge, and the semi -perched aquifer is considered too degraded for domestic use. Consequently, the increase in impervious surfaces associated with the project would not significantly affect groundwater supplies. Moreover, proposed detention basins on the site would reduce storm volumes, allowing the filtering and percolation of storm runoff into the ground. b) Mitigation Measures C5-1 Detention basins shall be required on-site to control storm runoff, in accordance with Specific Plan recommendations. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Water Resources a) Impact Analysis The potential impact of increased demand on water resources is discussed below in Section V -D.2., Water and Sewer. V-98 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Mitigation Measures Refer to mitigation measures for increased demand on water resources in Section V.D.2., Water and Sewer, below (D2-1 through D2-14). c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 3 Impact- Increased Stormwater Runoff from the Project Site a) Impact Analysis A hydrologic study was performed for the project in accordance with the current Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual (April 1978) (see Appendix F). Currently, the site is subject to significant sheet flow from areas off site. Regional flows approaching and passing through the project site occur in a west to east pattern. Development would require the collection of flood flows along the western boundary and conveyance of those flows through the project to insure the protection of the developed properties from a 100 -year flood. In addition, the storm flows would have to be redispersed along the eastern boundary to approximate the existing flow conditions, in order to avoid adversely impacting the downstream properties. Although the ground generally may be dry at the beginning of a storm, the amounts and intensities of rainfall can easily saturate the ground, thereby eliminating percolation and increasing runoff. Development increases runoff by creating large areas of impermeable surfaces. The proposed development would substantially alter the site by replacing primarily agricultural uses with roadways, walkways, parking and buildings. Because the majority of the project site is undeveloped land, these impervious surfaces would reduce the infiltration of rainfall and increase stormwater runoff volumes. Table V-17 compares 100 -year storm volumes under existing and proposed conditions. Table V-17 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS FOR 100 -YEAR STORM (CFS) Node Area (Acres) Rainfall Duration 3 hour 6 hour 24 hour EXISTING CONDITIONS A 25,468 7,558 8,100 3,303 B 25,573 7,602 8,076 3,403 PROPOSED CONDITIONS B J 25,573 7,943 8,453 7 3,547 Source: J.F. Davidson and Associates, 1994 (Appendix F). Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-99 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The proposed flood control system is designed to collect the storm flows as they enter the site in collection basins, transport the flows through the site in graded channels and discharge the flows over weirs, on the east side of the project. To accommodate increased runoff volumes and to handle sheet flow originating off-site to the north and west, the proposed development shall incorporate significant retention capability through the use of an extensive open space/drainage network. In order to provide the required level of flood protection for the on-site properties, the storm flows would be intercepted on the east side of Tyler Street along the project's western boundary, and on the south side of 60th Avenue along the project's northern boundary in collection basins. The collection basins would consist of graded channels flowing primarily in a southerly direction. The channels would be protected from scour generated by the entering flows. Each collection basin would be designed for the amount of flood flows it is predicted to carry and, therefore, the width of the collection basins would vary. Generally, these collection basins would be trapezoidal in shape with 3:1 side slopes and a top width between 100 feet and 200 feet. In order to approximate existing historical runoff conditions, the difference between the on-site developed and undeveloped runoff flows would be controlled by use of on-site retention basins. Size and depth of these basins would be determined when a final development plan is prepared. To avoid adverse impacts to the downstream properties, the channels are planned to pass the flood flows to dispersal basins along the eastern boundary of the project. These basins would vary in top width from 200 to 300 feet and would have a mild gradient toward the south. As peak flows progress in the southerly direction they would be allowed to spill over a side weir designed to outlet storm flows toward the east in a manner consistent with existing conditions. Retained water would be pumped in a sheet flow dispersal at rates less than presently occur. Downstream properties would no longer have to contend with the uncertainty of the existing uncontrolled storm flows, and would have the benefit of controlled flows from the project areas. b) Mitigation Measures C5-2 The project drainage system shall control storm flows such that runoff volumes leaving the site shall approximate existing conditions. C5-3 Drainage facilities associated with the project shall be designed in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District Hydrology Manual and Standards, and CVWD Standards. On-site runoff shall be intercepted and conveyed through the development by means of a conventional catch basin and storm drain system, in accordance with CVWD standards. C5-4 A collector storm drain system to facilitate flows generated on-site shall be designed to utilize street flow carrying capacity and flows into catch basins and inlets when the quantity exceeds the top of curb. V-100 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis C5-5 Protection from the 100 -year flood shall be provided to all building pads in the Kohl Ranch, as the recommended Flood Control Plan is implemented. C5-6 Maintenance and upgrading of storm drain facilities shall be implemented as outlined in applicable regional facilities plans. C5-7 Pursuant to requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all construction activities. Construction activity includes: cleaning, grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of five acres or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this specific plan, the developer or builder shall obtain the appropriate NPDES construction permit prior to commencing grading activities. All development within the specific plan boundaries shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the County to implement the NPDES program. C5-8 The hydrology and drainage design shall take into account the existing stormwater, irrigation and drainage facilities which cross the Kohl Ranch. The developer's engineer shall work with CVWD to develop an acceptable grading and drainage plan. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) The project site is subject to off-site sheet flows originating in the Coachella Valley, which enter the site along the northwesterly and westerly project boundaries, as well as off-site flows from the south. Because of the extensive development under Concepts 2 through 6, runoff and flooding problems would have to be resolved before development could occur. As with Concept 1, Concepts 2 through 6 would facilitate local and regional flood control improvements and would be required to detain storm runoff such that post -development runoff from the site approximates existing conditions. None of the Land Use Concepts are expected to significantly increase the amount of runoff generated on-site. However, since storm drainage improvements and on-site retention would be required for any development on the site, implementation of Concepts 2 through 6 would result in similar impacts as Concept 1: • Potential Reduction of Groundwater Recharge; • Increased Demand for Water Resources; and • Increased Stormwater Runoff from the Project Site. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-101 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The following mitigation measures will be required: C5-1, C5-2, C5-3, C5-4, C5-5, and C5-6. In addition, mitigation measures D2-1 through D2-14 (water and sewer) shall apply to Concepts 2 through 6. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-102 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 6. Air Quality a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1 Regional Air Quality The project site is within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SEDAB is comprised of the eastern portion of San Bernardino, Riverside, Kern, Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, and all of Imperial County. This basin continues to exceed state and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) on more than 150 days annually, despite efforts to control emissions from stationary pollutant sources and motor vehicles. The SEDAB is sparsely populated, with the largest urban area represented by Palm Springs. Industrial sources in the basin are generally limited and localized. Ozone and ozone precursors transported into the basin from the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) across the mountain ranges and through the desert passes may be responsible for the occurrence of high ozone concentrations in the SEDAB. There are three principle routes through the Southern California mountains bordering the SEDAB through which pollutants may be transported. These mountain passes include Soledad Canyon (near Palmdale), Cajon Pass (near Victorville), and San Gorgonio Pass (near Palm Springs). The wind flow transporting photochemical smog into the SEDAB occurs on a frequent basis through these mountain passes? All the metropolitan areas of the SCAB contribute to the ozone levels experienced in downwind areas like the SEDAB. Thus, the air quality in the study area is a function of the primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional ambient air quality, and the meteorological and topographic factors which influence the intrusion of pollutants into the area from sources outside the immediate vicinity. 2 Climate/Meteorology The study area is located in the Coachella Valley, an and desert region, and therefore has a climate characterized by low annual rainfall, low humidity, hot summers and mild winters. The climatological station nearest to the site is the Thermal FAA Airport.'o During 1992, this station monitored a monthly average temperature ranging from 49.5°F during December to 89.5°F in July, with an annual average temperature of 72°F. Temperatures in the Coachella Valley exceed 100°F on average, for four months each year, with daily highs near 110°F during July and August; 115°F was the record high measured at Thermal Airport in 1992. January is typically the coldest month in this area of the air basin, with early morning lows in the 40s. Summer rainfall is minimal and 9 "The Impact of Transport from the South Coast Air Basin on Ozone Levels in the Southeast Air Basin", California Air Resources Board, 1983. to California Climatological Data Annual Summary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1992. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-103 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA generally limited to scattered thundershowers and slightly heavier showers. Average yearly rainfall monitored at the Thermal Airport is 2.8 inches. The mountain ranges to the west (San Jacinto and San Gorgonio) and to the north (San Bernardino) form a physical barrier between the SEDAB and the SCAB. Thus, inversion conditions are less favorable in the project area than in the coastal areas of Southern California. Inversion conditions are associated with reduced air quality because the surface air is prevented from rising upward and dispersing the air pollutant concentrations that accumulate throughout the day. Surface -based inversions in the SEDAB are prevalent at night throughout the year and usually persist into the day during the winter months. Four key elements are required to specify the meteorological conditions affecting the transport and dispersion of air pollutants. These include the wind direction, wind speed, atmospheric stability, and mixing height. Although regional meteorological conditions (such as temperature inversions, Santa Ana wind conditions, etc.) will dominate localized conditions, wind direction, wind speed, and localized turbulence generated by site specific topographical conditions can play a key role in determining site specific ambient air quality. Desert regions are generally windy, since minimal friction is generated between the moving air and the low, sparse vegetation. This allows the wind to maintain its speed crossing the desert plains. In addition, the rapid daytime heating of the air closest to the desert surface leads to convective activity. This exchange of surface air for upper air accelerates surface winds during the warm part of the day." The prevailing wind direction in the Coachella Valley is predominantly from the north and the northwest.12 Figure V-24 shows the predominant summer wind flow pattern for Southern California and the project area. The on -shore dominant daytime wind pattern occurs between noon and 7:00 p.m., following the peak travel period (6:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.) in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. Consequently, during periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, the photochemical smog formed in these more urbanized areas is transported downwind into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 3) Air Pollution Constituents Both the State of California and the Federal Government have established health based standards for six air pollutants. As shown in Table V-18, these pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10) and lead. In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populous within a reasonable margin of safety. 11 "Climate of the Southeast Desert Air Basin," provided by the California Air Resource Board, January 1990. 12 ,PMto Emission Control Measure Demonstration Projects in the Coachella Valley," AeroVironment Inc., February 1992. V-104 The Planning Center SOUTH COAST Summer Wind Flow Patterns Coachella Valley, California 0000 PROJECTSITE SOUTHEAST DESERT a Figure V-24 V-1 05 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-18 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS CALIFORNIA FEDERAL Air Pollutant Concentration Primary (>) Secondary (>) Ozone 0.09 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. > 0.12 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. 0.12 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm, 8 -hr. avg. >a 9 ppm, 8 -hr. avg.' 9 ppm, 8 -hr. avg 20 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. > 35 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. > 35 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. > Nitrogen Dioxide 0.25 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. >` 0.053 ppm, annual avg. 0.053 ppm, annual avg. a Sulfur Dioxide 0.05 ppm, 24 -hr. avg.>=with 0.03 ppm, annual avg. 0.50 ppm, 3 -hr. avg. ozone>=0.10 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. or 0.14 ppm, 24 -hr. avg. TSP >= 100 ug/m3, 24 -hr. avg. 0.25 ppm, 1 -hr. avg.> Suspended 30 ug/m3, annual geometric mean > 50 ug/m3, annual9 50 ug/m3, annual 9 Particulate 50 ug/m3, 24 -hr. avg. >' arithmetic mean arithmetic mean Matter (PM10) 150 ug/m3, 24 -hr. avg. 150 ug/m3, 24 -hr. avg. Sulfates 25 ug/m3, 24 -hr. avg. >= Lead 1.5 ug/m3, 30 -day avg. >= 1.5 ug/m3, calendar quarter 1.5 ug/m3, calendar quarter Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 ppm., 1 -hr. avg. >= Vinyl Chloride 0.010 ppm, 24 -hr. avg. >= Visibility In sufficient amount to reduce the visual range to less than Reducing 10 miles at relative humidity less than 70%, 8 -hr. avg. Particles (9am-5pm)° a Effective December 15, 1982. The standards were previously 10 ppm, 12 -hour average and 40 ppm, 1 -hour average. Effective September 13, 1985, standard changed from > 10 mg/m (>= 9.3 ppm) to > 9ppm (>= 9.5 ppm). ` Effective March 9, 1987, standard changed from >= .25 ppm to > .25 ppm. " Effective July 1, 1985, standard changed from > 100 ug/m3 (> .0532 ppm) to > .053ppm (> .0534 ppm). a Effective October 5, 1984. The standard was previously .5 ppm, 1 -hour average. Effective August 19, 1983. The standards were previously 60 ug/m3 TSP, annual geometric mean, and 100 ug/m' TSP, 24-hour average. e Effective July 1, 1987. The standards were previously: Primary- Annual geometric mean TSP > 75 ug/m3, and a 24-hour average TSP > 260 ug/m3. Secondary - Annual geometric mean TSP > 60 ug/m3, and a 24-hour average TSP > 150 ugle. " Effective October 18, 1989. The standard was previously "in sufficient amount to reduce the prevailing visibiiity to less than 10 miles at relative humidity less than 70%, 1 observation", and was based on human observation rather than instrumental measurement. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1991. In addition to primary and secondary air pollution standards, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (See Appendix G). These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants which actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. ■ Ozone (smog) — is formed by photochemical reactions between NOx and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas that is typical of the Southern California type smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly and young children. Ozone levels peak during the summer and early fall months. ■ Carbon Monoxide (CO) — is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. CO passes through the lungs into the blood stream where it interferes with the transfer of oxygen to body tissues. V-106 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis ■ Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) — contributes to other pollution problems, including high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. Nitrogen dioxide decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. Nitrogen dioxide, a reddish -brown gas (NO2), and nitric oxide (NO) a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. ■ Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) — is a colorless, irritating gas formed primarily from the incomplete combustion of sulfur containing fuels. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous sulfur dioxide levels in the air basin. Natural gas is low in sulfur and low -sulfur fuels are now available on the market. Sulfur dioxide irritates the respiratory tract and can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter. Sulfates reduce visibility and therefore, the level of sunlight. ■ Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) — are formed from combustion of fuels and the evaporation of organic solvents. ROC is a prime component of the photochemical smog reaction. Consequently, ROC accumulates in the atmosphere more quickly during the winter when sunlight is limited and photochemical reactions are slower. Although ROC is difficult to measure because of the number of compounds, emissions are closely monitored to reduce resultant ozone where possible. ■ Particulate Matter (PM10) — refers to small, suspended particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less that is not readily filtered by the lungs. Nitrates and sulfates, as well as dust particulates, are major components of PMIo. These small particles can be directly emitted into the atmosphere as a by-product of fuel combustion, through abrasion, such as wear on tires or brake linings, or through fugitive dust (wind erosion of soil). They can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Particulates may carry carcinogens and other toxic compounds that adhere to the particle surfaces and can enter the human body through the lungs. 4) Local Air Quality The project site is located within Source/Receptor Area (SRA) 30, one of thirty areas under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The communities within an SRA are expected to have similar climatology and consequently, similar ambient air pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD maintains ambient air quality monitoring stations in SRAs throughout the basin including Banning, Palm Springs, Blythe and Indio in the Coachella Valley. The Indio and Palm Springs air monitoring stations are within SRA 30. The Indio station provides data representative of the project site and monitors ozone and PM10. Sulfate, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and lead are not monitored at these stations, but will be monitored if local levels of these pollutants become a concern to the SCAQMD or the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-107 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Air quality trends that have been developed at the Indio air quality monitoring station between 1991 and 1993 are discussed below. From the ambient air quality data (Table V-19), it can be seen that ozone and suspended particulates (PM1o) have exceeded the state and/or federal standards. 13 Table V-19 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY INDIO AIR MONITORING STATION SUSPENDED PARTICULATES OZONE Maximum 24 -Hour Conc. (ug/m3) Number of Samples Exceeded Maximum 1 -Hour Conc. (PPM) Number of Days Exceeded State Standard > 50 ug/m3/24-Hour >.09 ppm/1-Hour 1993 125 25 .16 25 1992 117 18 .14 45 1991 340 37 .18 48 MAXIMUM j 340 37 .18 48 f % EXCEEDED 44 11 Federal Standard > 150 uglm3l24-Hour >.12 ppm/1-Hour 1993 125 0 .16 3 1992 117 0 .14 8 1991 340 3 .18 13 MAXIMUM 340 3 .18 13 % EXCEEDED 2 2 Particulates exceeded the state and federal standards most often in comparison to other pollutants monitored at the Indio station. The state 24-hour suspended particulate (PM10) standard was exceeded in forty-four percent of the samples between 1991 and 1993. The federal PM10 standard was exceeded in two percent of the samples in the same time period. The maximum 24-hour concentration measured during this period was 340 ug/m3 in 1991. Ozone exceeded the state 1 -hour standard eleven percent of the time during the last three years and the federal 1 -hour standard two percent of the time. First stage, second stage ozone episodes (1 -hour average>35 pphm) and third stage (1 -hour average>50 pphm) episodes were not declared at the Indio station during the last three years for which data is available." 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Tables 1991, 1992, 1993. 14 Air Quality Data Annual Summaries: 1990, 1991, 1992: California Air Resources Board. V-108 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 6) Regional Air Quality Planning Efforts a) State Implementation Plan for PM10 in Coachella Valley In January 1993, EPA reclassified the Coachella Valley from a "moderate" to a "serious" PMi0 non -attainment area. As a serious non -attainment area the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the area must include "best available control measures" (BACM). In compliance with these requirements the SCAQMD updated the 1991 SIP for the Coachella Valley to include BACM. The revised SIP for PM10 in the Coachella Valley (July, 1994) addresses the EPA's non -attainment particulate designation and the BACM required to meet and maintain state and federal PM10 standards. Those measures selected must be implemented within four years of the reclassification date (February 8, 1997). Large scale blowsand events, which can produce high levels of PM10 through natural processes, are not targeted for control. The SIP focuses on man-made dust producing activities and the reduction of blowsand intrusion into populated areas. The project site is located outside the Coachella Valley Blowsand Hazard Zone as defined by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG).15 Approximately 98 percent of the PM10 emitted in the Coachella Valley is the result of fuel combustion, waste burning, industrial processes, and man-made and natural dust causing activities (e.g. agricultural tiling, construction and demolition operations, driving on paved and unpaved roads). Only two percent of the Valley's PM10 emissions are the result of exhaust emissions generated by mobile emission sources. The main component of the Coachella Valley PM10 SIP addresses fugitive dust. Recommended PM10 SIP control measures are designed to reduce fugitive dust from five major source categories: open space erosion (62 percent); agricultural operations (3 percent); paved roads (9 percent); unpaved roads (4 percent); and construction or demolition activities (22 percent). The measures included in the SIP for PM10 in the Coachella Valley as they relate to the project are identified in the short-term impact section of this analysis. b) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Act established the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other districts throughout the State. The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in non -attainment areas of the state. This requirement led to the local air quality planning processes in areas like the SEDAB. The project is located in the Coachella -San Jacinto Planning Area which is designated a "severe" non -attainment area for ozone. Pollutant transport from the SCAB to the Coachella -San Jacinto is Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Jerry Mechanick, Regional Planner, personal communication, December 1, 1994. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-109 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Planning Area is the primary cause of ozone nonattainment status of the area. As a result, the aggressive control measures contained in the SCAB AQMP are the most effective in improving air quality in the Coachella -San Jacinto Planning Area. Therefore, the attainment plans for these areas have been developed concurrently by the SCAQMD. In compliance with the mandates stated in the Clean Air Act, the SCAQMD 1994 AQMP was adopted in October 1994 by the District and in November 1994 by the ARB. The AQMP for the Coachella -San Jacinto Planning Area is included as a Appendix I -B of the SCAQMD 1994 AQMP. As is the intention of the required air plans, the 1994 AQMP contains measures intended to provide a comprehensive strategy to attain compliance with the state and federal ambient air quality standards at the earliest date possible. The 1994 AQMP identifies needed control methods to reduce anticipated emissions and contingency measures that will be considered in the event that the control method strategy fails to meet the expected emission reductions. Even with the most stringent measures identified in the AQMPs, the Coachella -San Jacinto Planning Area does not meet the post -1996 rate -of -progress requirements of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the District intends to request a "waiver" to the requirements. EPA's response to the request will not be provided until formal review of the AQMP has been conducted. It is believed that the Planning Area currently meets the waiver clause conditions since sources in the area are subject to District Regulation XI, Source Specific Standards, and XIII, New Source Review. Regulation XI addresses the requirements of specific stationary and area source emission generators. The requirements are designed to reflect the unique characteristics of each source emitter. Examples of targeted sources would be manufacturing, consumer goods and coating material. Regulation XIII sets forth requirements that proposed or modified stationary sources must meet before construction can take place. The requirements are in addition to those specified by other rules and include use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT), offset of emission increase, and a demonstration that air quality will not be diminished as a result of the construction or modification. c) Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Air Quality Element The County of Riverside developed an Air Quality Element in March 1992 to meet the AQMP conformity requirements for regionally significant general development projects. The Element is organized into the following sections: air quality, jobs/housing, transportation demand management, transportation system management, transportation facility development and particulate matter. Each section includes goals, programs and land use standards for improving air quality. Policies in the Job Housing Balance Section encourage jobs close to home to lessen commute distances. Policies in the Transportation Demand Management Section seek to decrease the number of cars and trucks using the roadways to reduce congestion. Policies in the Transportation System Management Section are intended to enhance the performance of existing facilities and fleets. The policies in the V-110 The Planning Center Chapter V 4 Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Transportation Facility Development Section address the building of more highways, rail systems, bus and carpool lanes, bicycle lanes, and other transportation facilities. Policies in the Particulate Matter Section seek to reduce particulates generated from construction, agriculture, vehicles, unpaved roads and parking lots, and wind erosion. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) Air pollutant emissions associated with the project will occur over the short-term for site preparation and construction activities to support the proposed land uses. In addition, emissions will result from the long-term operation of the completed project. Short-term and long-term air quality impacts associated with Concept 1 are detailed in the following sections. 11 Impact: Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts may occur during the site preparation and construction activities required to prepare the proposed land uses on-site. Two major sources of emissions during this phase include construction equipment mobile emissions and fugitive dust emissions during grading operations. In addition, emissions would occur at the power plant serving the electrical requirements of the site and exhaust emissions would be produced by motor vehicles transporting the construction crew, building materials and heavy-duty vehicles to and from the site. a) Impact Analysis a Fugitive Dust - Dust generated during construction activities would significantly increase particulate levels in the project vicinity. If particulate levels are increased during high wind conditions, adverse impacts would result from particulate transport to downwind areas. Project construction is expected to occur in increments. The SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies that grading in excess of 177 acres over a three month period has the potential to result in a significant impact. At this stage in the planning process it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of grading which would occur within a three-month period. Therefore, it is assumed, as a worse -case scenario, that grading could exceed the District's screening threshold of 177 acres over a three-month period. Emission levels can be reduced with chemical dust palliatives and other control methods. To reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated during project construction, the SIP for PMto in the Coachella Valley recommends: • paving and/or chemical treatment of construction roads, maneuvering and parking areas; • chemical treatment of disturbed areas; • covering and cleaning trucks transporting soil; • planting of tree windbreaks and vegetative ground cover; • prohibiting construction activities on windy days; • watering the site to form a wind resistant crust on the surface; Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-111 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA • limitation on number of vehicles, their weight and speeds on-site; • fences and walls; • limitation on acres under construction activity per working day; • utilizing wheel washers for exiting vehicles; • providing for routine street -sweeping and clean-up at the end of each working day; and • stabilization or other treatment of disturbed surface areas off-site related to improvements and on-site activities. A recent SCAQMD report on PM10 emission control in the Coachella Valley (AeroVironment Inc., February 1992) concluded that the use of chemical stabilizers reduces dust emissions by at least a factor of four, while use of vegetative cover can cause a factor of three decrease in dust deposition. Even with dust reduction measures, fugitive emissions of PM10 could impact receptors downwind of the project site. With project -specific mitigation, these emissions would be minimized. w Construction Equipment Exhaust Emissions - Construction activities would cause combustion emissions from utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles and equipment hauling materials to and from the site. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on- site would result in localized exhaust emissions. However, vehicle emissions would not result in concentrations that could threaten the clean air standards. Emissions should be minimal and disperse without significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors. ■ Off-site Construction -Related Mobile Emissions - Emissions could result from congestion or detours associated with activity on-site. Any street sweepers required to clean dust from site access routes would generate emissions, as well as potential interference with local traffic. Lane closures or detours of ambient traffic may cause traffic delays or additional vehicle miles travelled. This would be more substantial during peak hour conditions when interference between vehicles accessing the site and non -project vehicles could reduce average vehicle speeds and potentially increase idling emissions. ■ Construction -Related Vehicle Trips - Construction -related vehicle trips contribute to the total amount of emissions generated during construction activities. Construction -related vehicle trips include commute trips to and from the site, non -work trips associated with lunch, or other errands. The number of employees working on-site would vary with each construction phase of the project. These emissions can be reduced by incorporating the measures identified in the mitigation section. V-112 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Mitigation Measures Fugitive Dust C6-1 The project shall be required by law to comply with regional and local rules and ordinances which will assist in reducing the short-term air pollutant emissions. For example, the SCAQMD's Fugitive Dust Rule 403 and Riverside County's Dust Control Ordinance require implementation of extensive fugitive dust control measures such as watering on site, revegetation, use of soil stabilizers and submittal of a wind erosion plan in some instances. In addition, the following mitigation measures are provided to further reduce air pollutants generated during the project construction phase. Where available, the mitigation effectiveness is indicated (e.g. 50 percent) as provided in the SCAQMD, CEQA Air Handbook, April 1993. Construction Equipment Exhaust C6-2 Construction operations shall comply with all applicable control measures identified in the "State Implementation Plan in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision," March 1994. C6-3 Construction equipment shall be selected considering emission factors and energy efficiency. All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained. (60 percent) On -Road Sources C6-4 Construction activities shall be timed so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and shall minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. C6-5 Ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew shall be supported and encouraged. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant. 2) Impact: Long -Term Regional Air Quality Impacts Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with the change in permanent usage of the project site. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-113 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA a) Impact Analysis Stationary sources include emissions on-site from activities at the proposed land uses and natural gas combustion for heating requirements and cooking, as well as emissions at the power plant associated with the electrical requirements of the project. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips including: commuting employees; residents and visitors accessing the project site; deliveries; and maintenance activities. The emissions associated with the project are anticipated to be 11,555 pounds of carbon monoxide, 646 pounds of reactive organic gases, 1,353 pounds of NOx and 343 pounds of particulate matter on a daily basis as shown in Table V-20. Air pollutant emissions of this magnitude exceed the criteria for significance suggested by the SCAQMD. Regional project impacts are considered significant. The emission inventory assumptions are provided in Appendix G. Policies included in the Specific Plan will assist in reducing the emissions associated with the project. Plan design concepts support the use of alternative modes as well as the use of alternative fueled vehicles. Pedestrian and bicycle routes will be provided, linking residential uses with commercial and employment areas. Bicycle and pedestrian routes coupled with a mix of supportive land uses further support the use of alternative modes and drastically shorten the commute distance. Proposed bus pull-outs along major routes will facilitate the use of mass transit. The use of electric vehicles is also supported in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance by allowing for electric recharge outlets in commercial areas. Specific Plan policies and mitigation measures contained in this analysis will assist in reducing the emissions associated with the project. b) Mitigation Measures The Specific Plan for the project site includes various policy planning techniques that assist in reducing long-term air pollutant emissions generated by the project. The Land Use Plan identifies a balanced array of land uses including residential, business, commercial, industrial, open space and public facilities. Both working and living opportunities will be made available within the thirteen project neighborhoods. V-114 The Planning Center Table V-20 CONCEPT 1 EMISSION INVENTORY (LbsJDay) Pollutant Mobile Source Stationary Source TOTAL Threshold CO 11,040 515 11,555 550 ROC 524 122 646 55 NOx 862 491 1,353 55 PM10 1 325 1 18 1 343 1 150 1. See Appendix G for emission inventory methodology and assumptions. Policies included in the Specific Plan will assist in reducing the emissions associated with the project. Plan design concepts support the use of alternative modes as well as the use of alternative fueled vehicles. Pedestrian and bicycle routes will be provided, linking residential uses with commercial and employment areas. Bicycle and pedestrian routes coupled with a mix of supportive land uses further support the use of alternative modes and drastically shorten the commute distance. Proposed bus pull-outs along major routes will facilitate the use of mass transit. The use of electric vehicles is also supported in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance by allowing for electric recharge outlets in commercial areas. Specific Plan policies and mitigation measures contained in this analysis will assist in reducing the emissions associated with the project. b) Mitigation Measures The Specific Plan for the project site includes various policy planning techniques that assist in reducing long-term air pollutant emissions generated by the project. The Land Use Plan identifies a balanced array of land uses including residential, business, commercial, industrial, open space and public facilities. Both working and living opportunities will be made available within the thirteen project neighborhoods. V-114 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Emphasis is placed on developing employment concentrations near medium to high density residential areas which create areas of local activity. Regional air pollutant emissions associated with the project are considered significant. To reduce the level of regional impact the following mitigation measures are provided. Following each measure is its estimated effectiveness as provided in the SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993 (e.g. 50 percent). C6-6 The project shall utilize a mix of services on-site to provide amenities for employees and residents that would reduce off-site vehicle trips. Consideration shall be given to postal services, banking, a food facility (restaurant/grocery store) and a ridesharing service to local commercial areas. (25-50 percent) C6-7 Local transit agencies shall be contacted to determine bus routing adjacent to the site that can be accommodated in design and for on-site provision of bus shelters and turnout lanes. C6-8 Energy-efficient street lighting and on-site lighting in parking and walking areas (e.g., low pressure sodium, metal halide, clean lucalox and high pressure sodium) shall be used on-site to reduce emissions at the power plant serving the site. (0.5 percent) C6-9 Low -polluting and high -efficiency appliances shall be installed wherever possible. Solar energy shall be evaluated for heating any swimming pools or water heaters on-site. (2.5-6.5 percent) C6-10 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) utilized on-site shall support a reduction in mobile emissions as employees/residents convert from single occupant vehicle (SOV) use to other modes of transportation. TDM could include: • creating employee carpools; • preferential carpool parking; • designing appropriate bicycling and walking paths; • reduced costs for transit passes; • flexible work hours for transit riding, carpooling, walking and bicycling employees; and • implementing a parking fee on-site to discourage single occupant vehicles (SOVs). c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-115 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3) Impact: Microscale Projections a) Impact Analysis Microscale Projections - An assessment of the project -related impact on localized air quality requires that future ambient levels be projected. Carbon monoxide concentrations can be estimated adjacent to nearby intersections carrying substantial volumes of project -related traffic using the California Department of Transportation Line Source Dispersion Model (CALINE4). Carbon monoxide levels in the project vicinity during peak hour traffic were assessed with the CALINE4 computer model. Figure V-25 identifies the intersections most affected by project -related traffic which were analyzed with the model. A complete discussion of the CALINE4 model and modeling assumptions are provided in Appendix G. Existing ambient carbon monoxide concentrations on the second highest day are 4.0 ppm over a 1 -hour averaging period and 1.8 ppm over the 8 -hour averaging period as measured at the Palm Springs monitoring station as shown in Table V-21.16 Table V-21 INTERSECTION CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (Year 2010) 1 -Hour Average (ppm) 8 -Hour Average (ppm)' 100 feet 200 feet 100 feet 200 feet Receptor Distances' AMBIENT CONDITIONS Jackson Street @ 52nd Avenue 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 Harrison Street @ 60th Avenue 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 Grapefruit Boulevard @ Airport Boulevard 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 62nd Avenue @ - Polk Street 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 - SR -86 SB Ramps 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 Pierce Street @ 66th Avenue 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 AMBIENT + PROJECT CONDITIONS Jackson Street @ 52nd Avenue 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.2 Harrison Street @ 60th Avenue 1.8 1.1 0.9 0.6 Grapefruit Boulevard @ Airport Boulevard 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.3 62nd Avenue @ - Polk Street 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.5 - SR -86 SB Ramps 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 Pierce Street @ 66th Avenue 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 Background Concentration 4.0 4.0 1.8 1.8 State Standard 20.0 20.0 9.0 9.0 Federal Standard 35.0 35.0 9.0 9.0 1 Based on an 8 -hour persistence factor of 0.5, the ratio of the second highest 8 -hour mean to the second highest 1 -hour mean at the Palm Springs station in 1993. 2 Receptor distances are measured from intersection centerline. 3 Second-highest 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations at the Palm Springs station in 1993. 16 Air Quality Data, 1993 Annual Summary, California Air Resources Board, 1993. V-116 The Planning Center Air Pollutant Analysis Locations �►� Analysis Location Coachella Valley, California C70 Figure V-25 V 117 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Two scenarios were analyzed for this project. The first scenario reflects ambient traffic volumes in the year 2010. The second scenario reflects year 2010 plus project traffic volumes. As shown in Table V-21, the carbon monoxide concentrations adjacent to the intersections most affected by the project would be below the current 20 ppm state standard and the 35 ppm federal standard (one-hour average) with or without the development proposed on-site. The state and federal eight-hour carbon monoxide standards (9.0 ppm) also would not be exceeded at these locations, with or without the proposed project. The maximum carbon monoxide concentration expected with the project would be 1.8 ppm over the one-hour averaging period and 0.9 ppm over the 8 -hour averaging period at 50 feet from the intersection of Harrison Street and 60th Avenue. With the addition of intersection carbon monoxide generation to background levels, the concentrations could reach 5.8 ppm over the 1 -hour averaging period and 2.7 ppm over the 8 -hour averaging period at 50 feet from the intersection. The carbon monoxide levels projected in the project area reflect cumulative conditions with the project in the year 2010. The microscale analysis indicates that project -related increases in carbon monoxide levels are insignificant even under cumulative conditions, since the 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards would not be exceeded at sensitive receptor locations with project traffic. As a result, project implementation would not cause an exceedance or contribute to an existing exceedance of the carbon monoxide standards. b) Mitigation Measures None required. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4) Impact: Air Quality Management Plan Conformity a) Impact Analysis According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects. They are as follows: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. The proposed project site lies within the Coachella Valley subregion. The 1994 Growth Management Element of the Regional Comprehensive Plan provides 2015 V-118 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis forecast data indicating that the subregion is housing -rich. Year 1990 estimates show 126,000 housing units and 87,000 employment opportunities. Year 2015 forecasts are 293,000 housing units and 177,000 employment opportunities. To bring the sub- region into balance, additional employment opportunities are required. 17 The Kohl Ranch project will generate an estimated 13,413 additional job opportunities at buildout. Further, new jobs are likely to outpace new housing opportunities (7,171 units), and thereby improve the subregion's overall jobs/housing balance. The AQMP for the Coachella -San Jacinto Planning Area (Appendix I -B of the SCAB AQMP) estimates population and housing to increase significantly by the year 2010. Population levels in the year 2010 are projected to more than double as compared to 1990. The proposed project will increase population in the project by 21,341 and will provide 7,171 additional housing units. To comply with the second criteria, the project would need to incorporate transportation control measures to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles of travel associated with the project. Land use measures can also be incorporated at this point in project development to ensure that amenities are provided on-site. To reduce emissions associated with vehicle trips, several tactics supported by the SCAQMD have been included in the proposed project. Specifically, mitigation measures have been included to comply with the "State Implementation Plan for PM10 in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." The emissions associated with the project will result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design concepts have been identified to reduce the emissions to the lowest levels possible. On a local level, the CO modeling analysis demonstrates that state and federal standards will not be exceeded, with or without the project (see Table V-20). Due to the regional impact of the project, the third criterion has not been met by the project. b) Mitigation Measures C6-11 To assist in jobs/housing balance for the subregion, the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan includes a mix of land uses including, residential, business, commercial, industrial, open space and public facilities. Both working and living opportunities have been made available within the thirteen project neighborhoods. An emphasis has been placed on developing employment concentrations near medium to high density residential areas creating areas of local activity. No additional mitigation is available to further reduce the project's regional emissions. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant. 17 Regional Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Element, SCAG, 1994. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-119 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) 1) Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation and construction activities required to prepare the proposed land uses on-site. Concept 2 would result in similar air quality impacts related to fugitive dust, construction equipment exhaust emissions, off-site construction -related mobile emissions and construction -related vehicle trips compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: C6-1, C6-2, C6-3, C6-4 and C6-5. After mitigation, impacts are significant. 2) Long -Term Regional AirualIa ty Impacts Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with a change in land use on the project site. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. The emission inventory for Concept 2 is identified in Table V-22. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. After mitigation, impacts are significant. 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 2 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 2 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. V-120 The Planning Center Table V-22 CONCEPT 2 EMISSION INVENTORY (LbsJDay) Pollutant Mobile Source Stationary Source TOTAL Threshold CO 15,416 533 15,949 550 ROC 701 121 822 55 NOx 1,125 687 1,812 55 PM10 1 412 1 23 1 435 1 150 1. See Appendix G for emission inventory methodology and assumptions. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. After mitigation, impacts are significant. 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 2 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 2 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. V-120 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 4) Air Quality Management Plan Conformity According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. As with Concept 1, Concept 2 provides additional employment opportunities within a housing -rich subregion. In addition, as with Concept 1, Concept 2 incorporates as mitigation measures, strategies contained in the "State Implementation Plan for PMio in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." However, emissions associated with Concept 2 would result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design concepts have been identified to reduce emissions to the lowest levels possible. Due to the regional impact of Concept 2, the third criterion has not been met. The following mitigation measure is required: C6-11. After mitigation, impacts are significant. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) 1) Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation and construction activities required to prepare the proposed land uses on-site. Concept 3 would result in similar air quality impacts related to fugitive dust, construction equipment exhaust emissions, off-site construction -related mobile emissions and construction -related vehicle trips compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: C6-1, C6-2, C6-3, C64 and C6-5. After mitigation, impacts will be significant. 2) Long -Term Regional _Air Quality Impacts_ Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with the change in land use on the project site. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Concept 3 is designed to accommodate a potentially large-scale industrial development in the southern portion of the site, which may raise air quality issues that are unforeseen at this time. Because of this feature, the project -related emission inventory for Concept 3 is difficult to estimate. However, based on data currently available, the emission inventory for Concept 3 is provided in Table V-23. It is assumed that future air quality analyses will be performed for Concept 3 when the nature of future development is more definitively known. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-121 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. In addition, the following mitigation measure is required: C6-12 The stationary source emissions for Concept 3 shall be analyzed at the time that a specific industrial use for the site is known, to determine whether impacts fall within the envelope of impacts created for Concept 1. Based upon this analysis, the project shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations. After mitigation, impacts are significant. 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 3 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic for Concept 3 would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 3 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. 4) Air Quality Management Plan Conformity According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. As with Concept 1, Concept 3 provides additional employment opportunities within a housing -rich subregion. In addition, as with Concept 1, Concept 3 incorporates as mitigation measures, strategies contained in the "State Implementation Plan for PMio in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." However, emissions associated with V-122 The Planning Center Table V-23 CONCEPT 3 EMISSION INVENTORY (LbsJDay) Pollutant Mobile Source Stationary Source TOTAL Threshold CO 8,999 294 9,293 550 ROC 427 65 492 55 NOx 686 440 1,126 55 PM10 256 15 271 150 1. See Appendix G for emission inventory methodology and assumptions. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. In addition, the following mitigation measure is required: C6-12 The stationary source emissions for Concept 3 shall be analyzed at the time that a specific industrial use for the site is known, to determine whether impacts fall within the envelope of impacts created for Concept 1. Based upon this analysis, the project shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations. After mitigation, impacts are significant. 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 3 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic for Concept 3 would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 3 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. 4) Air Quality Management Plan Conformity According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. As with Concept 1, Concept 3 provides additional employment opportunities within a housing -rich subregion. In addition, as with Concept 1, Concept 3 incorporates as mitigation measures, strategies contained in the "State Implementation Plan for PMio in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." However, emissions associated with V-122 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Concept 3 would result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design concepts have been identified to reduce emissions to the lowest levels possible. Due to the regional impact of Concept 3, the third criterion has not been met. The following mitigation measure is required: C6-11. After mitigation, impacts are significant. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) 1? Short -Term Air Quality ImRacts Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation and construction activities required to prepare the proposed land uses on-site. Concept 4 would result in similar air quality impacts related to fugitive dust, construction equipment exhaust emissions, off-site construction -related mobile emissions and construction -related vehicle trips compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: C6-1, C6-2, C6-3, C6-4 and C6-5. After mitigation, impacts are significant. Z Lan -Term Regional Air QualityIm acts Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with the change in land use on the project site. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. The emission inventory for Concept 4 is identified in Table V-24. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. After mitigation, impacts are significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-123 Table V-24 CONCEPT 4 EMISSION INVENTORY (LbsJDay) Pollutant Mobile Source Stationary Source TOTAL Threshold CO 11,534 515 12,049 550 ROC 526 117 643 55 NOx 846 664 1,510 55 PM10 311 23 3.34 1 150 1. See Appendix G for emission inventory methodology and assumptions. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. After mitigation, impacts are significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-123 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 4 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic associated with Concept 4 would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 4 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. 4) Air Quality Management Plan Conformity According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. As with Concept 1, Concept 4 provides additional employment opportunities within a housing -rich subregion. In addition, as with Concept 1, Concept 4 incorporates as mitigation measures, strategies contained in the "State Implementation Plan for PMio in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." However, emissions associated with Concept 4 would result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design concepts have been identified to reduce emissions to the lowest levels possible. Due to the regional impact of Concept 4, the third criterion has not been met. The following mitigation measure is required: C6-11. After mitigation, impacts are significant. f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) 1) Short -Term Air Quality lmnacts Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation and construction activities required to prepare the proposed land uses on-site. Concept 5 would result in similar air quality impacts related to fugitive dust, construction equipment exhaust emissions, off-site construction -related mobile emissions and construction -related vehicle trips compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: C6-1, C6-2, C6-3, C6-4 and C6 -5 - After mitigation, impacts are significant. V-124 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 2 Long -Term Regional Air Quality IMpacts Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with the change in land use on the project site. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. The emission inventory for Concept 5 is identified in Table V-25. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6 -10 - After mitigation, impacts are significant. 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 5 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic for Concept 5 would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 5 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. 4 Air Quality Management Plan Conformit According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. As with Concept 1, Concept 5 provides additional employment opportunities within a housing -rich subregion. In addition, as with Concept 1, Concept 5 incorporates as mitigation measures, strategies contained in the "State Implementation Plan for PMlo in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." However, emissions associated with Concept 5 would result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-125 Table V-25 CONCEPT 5 EMISSION INVENTORY (LbsJl)ay) Pollutant Mobile Source Stationary Source TOTAL Threshold CO 13,280 528 13,808 550 ROC 593 115 708 55 NOx 942 837 1,779 55 PM 10 341 27 368 150 1. See Appendix G for emission inventory methodology and assumptions. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6 -10 - After mitigation, impacts are significant. 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 5 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic for Concept 5 would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 5 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. 4 Air Quality Management Plan Conformit According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. As with Concept 1, Concept 5 provides additional employment opportunities within a housing -rich subregion. In addition, as with Concept 1, Concept 5 incorporates as mitigation measures, strategies contained in the "State Implementation Plan for PMlo in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." However, emissions associated with Concept 5 would result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-125 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley * CA concepts have been identified to reduce emissions to the lowest levels possible. Due to the regional impact of Concept 5, the third criterion has not been met. The following mitigation measure is required: C6-11. After mitigation, impacts are significant. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) 11 Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Air quality impacts may occur during site preparation and construction activities required to prepare the proposed land uses on-site. Concept 6 would result in similar air quality impacts related to fugitive dust, construction equipment exhaust emissions, off-site construction -related mobile emissions and construction -related vehicle trips compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: C6-1, C6-2, C6-3, C64 and C6-5. After mitigation, impacts will be significant. 2) Long -Term Regional Air Quality Impacts Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with the change in land use on the project site. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Concept 6 is designed to accommodate a potentially large-scale industrial development in the southern portion of the site, which may raise air quality issues that are unforeseen at this time. Because of this feature, the project -related emission inventory for Concept 6 is difficult to estimate. However, based on data currently available, the emission inventory for Concept 6 is provided in Table V-26. It is assumed that future air quality analyses will be performed for Concept 6 when the nature of future development is more definitively known. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. V-126 The Planning Center Table V-26 CONCEPT 6 EMISSION INVENTORY (LbsJDay) Pollutant Mobile Source Stationary Source TOTAL Threshold CO 5,518 290 5,808 550 ROC 262 59 321 55 NOx 417 592 1,009 55 PM10 156 18 174 150 1. See Appendix G for emission inventory methodology and assumptions. The following mitigation measures are required: C6-6, C6-7, C6-8, C6-9 and C6-10. V-126 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis In addition, the following mitigation measure is required: C6-13 The stationary source emissions for Concept 6 shall be analyzed at the time that a specific industrial use for the site is known, to determine whether impacts fall within the envelope of impacts created for Concept 1. Based upon this analysis, the project shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations. After mitigation impacts are significant. 3) Microscale Projections With respect to mobile sources, project impacts for Concept 6 are yet to be determined. Mobile source impacts will be determined based upon future traffic analyses for individual development projects. The analysis of microscale impacts for Concept 1 indicates that carbon monoxide levels are far below the state or federal 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards. Even a substantial increase in traffic for Concept 6 would be well within the margin of carbon monoxide levels available before ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Therefore, Concept 6 is not anticipated to result in significant long-term microscale impacts. 4) Air Quality Management Plan Conformity_ According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. As with Concept 1, Concept 6 provides additional employment opportunities within a housing -rich subregion, although no housing is provided. In addition, as with Concept 1, Concept 6 incorporates as mitigation measures, strategies contained in the "State Implementation Plan for PMio in the Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision." However, emissions associated with Concept 6 would result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design concepts have been identified to reduce emissions to the lowest levels possible. Due to the regional impact of Concept 6, the third criterion has not been met. The following mitigation measure is required: C6-14 To assist in jobs/housing balance for the subregion, Concept 6 of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan includes a variety of employment opportunities. No additional mitigation is available to further reduce the project's regional emissions. After mitigation, impacts are significant. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-127 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 7. Water Quality a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Reeizional Water Quality Conditions The Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region (Water Quality Control Plan) identifies the following existing or potential water quality issues of potential concern for the project vicinity, which are briefly described below: ■ Agricultural drain water quality ■ Salton Sea ■ Groundwater basins ■ Disposal of wastes on Indian lands ■ Dredging/maintenance of agricultural lands Studies conducted in the late 1970s indicated that agricultural drainage water (especially in the Imperial Valley) contains pesticides in quantities exceeding EPA criteria for protection of fish and wildlife. Water quality problems in drains were attributed to: ■ Discharge of irrigation surface runoff containing pesticide residues, fertilizers, and silt to receiving waters; ■ Drift of pesticides into adjacent waterways from aerial application; and ■ Mechanical dredging of drains The primary water quality problem currently facing the Salton Sea is increasing salinity and the effects of this trend on important species of fish. The Salton Sea is in a closed basin and is replenished mainly by agricultural drainage. Consequently, the salinity will continue to rise unless salinity control measures are implemented. A second important water quality issue for the Salton Sea is elevated levels of selenium, resulting in issuance of an advisory in 1986 by the California Department of Health Services to limit the consumption of certain species of fish. Recent data indicate that groundwater basins in the region may be increasing in mineral content and approaching overdraft conditions. The Indio Subarea of the Whitewater Hydrologic Unit is identified in the Water Quality Control Plan as a basin for which investigations should be conducted to develop groundwater objectives and/or best management practices to protect water quality. The Water Quality Control Plan identifies waste discharges on Indian lands as an activity which could threaten the quality of important water resources, based upon a history of unregulated dumping on Torres -Martinez Indian lands in the Coachella Valley. EPA has identified dredging and related drain maintenance activities such as chaining, disking and scraping as causing adverse water quality impacts in agricultural drains. V-128 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Dredging and related maintenance activities are utilized to keep drainageways clear from clogging with vegetation and sediment. There are approximately 100 miles of open drains in the Coachella Valley. 2) Water +Quality Conditions in the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone As part of the EIR for the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone (CVEZ), a study was conducted of the existing and future water quality conditions in the area.18 Available water quality data dating back to 1909 were reviewed. The following sections of this EIR summarize the results of that investigation. Groundwater In general, development in the Valley has resulted in an increase in the concentration of chemical constituents in the groundwater. The groundwater of the semi -perched aquifer (See Section V.C.S. above) is generally poor and is not useable for municipal supply. Influences on the water quality of the semi -perched aquifer include: importation of Colorado River water, agricultural practices, domestic and municipal waste disposal practices, and reuse of treated waste water. The upper aquifer water quality is generally good and appropriate for most beneficial uses. Available data indicate that water quality of wells extracting from approximately 100 to 400 feet below ground surface has been degraded. Concentrations of TDS, nitrate, sulfate, and total hardness have increased over the 40 -year period between the 1930s and 1970s. The cause of the degradation was speculated to be seepage of water from the overlying semi -perched aquifer due to excessive groundwater extractions from the upper aquifer. The lower aquifer is of excellent quality and TDS concentrations are generally less than 300 mg/L. The CVEZ EIR included an investigation of incidents of groundwater quality degradation. The following were identified: • Two polluted ground water wells were reported in 1986 according to RWQCB records; • One EPA CERCLIS site is within the boundaries of the CVEZ. EPA has recommended "no further action" on the site; and • Sixty-four underground storage tank (UST) release cases were identified in the CVEZ. Nineteen cases have been closed by the lead agency. The remaining forty-five cases are under investigation by the RWQCB and/or local health departments. Of the UST cases in the project area, only one is within a mile of the project site, and involved soil, rather than groundwater, contamination. Gasoline was released by JPH Enterprise in the vicinity of Avenue 60 and Harrison Street. The case was reported in 1987 and was last reviewed in 1990, when the case was closed. is Leighton and Associations, Inc. Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority Summary Input for Environmental Impact Report, Water Quality and General Historical Review for Hazardous Materials/Waste of Approximately 27,000 Acres, Riverside County, CA, September 28, 1990. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V"129 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA In addition to the cases identified as part of the CVEZ EIR, three contaminated sites were identified in the EIR for the Thermal Airport Master Plan. Two sites are located in the northeast quarter of Section 21. The third is located just north of the La Quinta Air Services terminal. According to the Riverside County Health Department, the sites include a location contaminated by pesticides and several leaking underground storage tanks. The EIR indicates that remediation measures for soil and groundwater contamination have been undertaken. Although the Kohl Ranch is located down -gradient of the airport, the County has indicated that there would not be any impact to groundwater quality now or in the future, due to the minimal migration associated with the airport sites.19 Surface Water The Coachella Canal, the Coachella Valley Agricultural Drains and the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel each have beneficial uses of the surface water designated by the RWQCB. The Coachella Canal, which delivers Colorado River Water to the Coachella Valley, is rich in calcium sulfate and moderately high in dissolved solids. The relatively high calcium concentration is beneficial to the agricultural soils; however, the importation of the relatively higher total dissolved solids (TDS) water from the Colorado River has tended to degrade the overall quality of the groundwater in the region. The Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel is the major drainage in the region. The general quality of the water is poor. The mean TDS for 1980 was listed as 1,684 by the RWQCB. Municipal supply is not a designated beneficial use for this water. No data were reviewed for the Coachella Valley Agricultural Drains as part of the CVEZ EIR study. This water is not reused, and was assumed to be of similar quality to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. 3) Water Quality Issues Associated with Former Sludge Processing_ Facility, This former sludge processing facility is located adjacent to and east of Section 9 of the project site in the vicinity of Polk Street and Avenue 66 on Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation lands owned by the Ibanez family. In December, 1994, two composting companies announced their intention to close operations at the 120 -acre site, following the issuance of a preliminary injunction in November by a U.S. District Court Judge preventing more sludge from being brought to the site.20 At issue was whether the landowner needed federal approval to enter into agreement with companies hauling sludge to the site. Prior to the injunction the operation had been cited for violations by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and was under investigation by the 19 Conversation between Jim Ray, Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist, Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division, and Stephanie Cohn, The Planning Center, September 2, 1994. 20 Haberman, Douglas, "Compost Companies Pull Out of Sludge Site," The Desert Sun, December 20, 1994. V-130 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).21 A 470,000 -ton mound of dried sewage waste which was left on the site by a previous composter remains at the site. The City of San Diego was the source for much of the waste. This facility is not a designated hazardous waste site. The facility is both downgradient and downwind of the project site. The RWQCB, EPA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) have all conducted groundwater quality testing at the Ibanez property. According to the EPA, the BIA testing found that water quality under the pile was not as good as water quality upstream of the pile; however, none of the pollutants exceeded drinking water standards. In addition, the EPA concluded that BIA testing did not produce sufficient data. The most recent and comprehensive testing performed under EPA supervision found no groundwater contamination at the site. 12 At this time EPA has no plans for further testing at the site. EPA is exploring a variety of alternatives for dealing with the remaining sludge pile on the Ibanez property, and in October, 1995 awarded a year-long grant to the Torres - Martinez Indians for this purpose. 4 General Plan Policies Policies and programs contained in the RCCGP are designed to protect surface and groundwater quality. The following land use standard addresses water quality impacts associated with development projects: a) Water Quality Impact Mitigation M All development proposals will be reviewed for potential adverse effects on water quality and will be required to mitigate any significant impacts. Particular impacts which may be created include erosion -sedimentation problems from construction grading or mining; inadequate subsurface sewage disposal; agricultural runoff heavy in silt, salts, fertilizers or pesticides. ■ Examples of mitigation measures which may be required include: timing of grading activities; on-site retention basins; subsurface soil tests where septic systems are proposed; changes in agricultural irrigation and drain systems; alternative pesticide and fertilizer use and practices; requirements for monitoring of runoff quality. The Composite Environmental Hazards Map contained in the RCCGP identifies a closed landfill within one half -mile of the project site (See Section VA. above). Review of 21 Jim Ray, September 2, 1994- 22 Personal communication between Lauren Fondahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Management Division, and Stephanie Cohn, The Planning Center, November 7, 1995. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-131 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA records in the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone EIR indicates that water quality has not been affected by this facility. b. Project lmpact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Short -Term Potential for Increased Erosion a) Impact Analysis The development and construction phase of the proposed project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and sedimentation. Two types of erosion can occur on a construction project: erosion from rainfall impact and sheet erosion. The impact of raindrops on bare soil causes erosion. Because the rainfall impact has a low velocity, this type of erosion will normally result in a minimum of surface erosion on the undisturbed land. Even in areas of California with a semi -arid climate and minimal vegetative cover, natural desert soil conditions (including compacted hardpan) provide protection against erosion for all but the most intense rainfalls. Construction activities remove the protective cover of vegetation and natural soil resistance to impact erosion. After rainfall strikes the ground, it flows in a thin layer, called sheet flow, for a short distance. The distance of sheet flow depends on slope, type of soil, vegetative cover and rainfall intensity. Sheet flow has a low velocity and causes little erosion on undisturbed soils. However, clearing the soil during construction makes the soil more susceptible to erosion, increases sheet flow velocity and may cause the flow to concentrate in rivulets. Construction of the proposed project will result in soil disturbance of more than five acres. During a storm event, particulate matter would run off the site, flow into the flood control system, and ultimately into waters of the United States. In 1972, the Clean Water Act was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful, unless the discharge is within the framework of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published regulations requiring that discharges of storm water associated with construction activity from soil disturbances of five acres or more must be regulated as an industrial activity and covered by a NPDES permit. The State Water Resources Control Board has adopted one statewide general permit that requires all dischargers, including owners of land where construction occurs, to: ■ Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewers and other waters of the nation; ■ Develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan; and V-132 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis ■ Perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures (control practices). Compliance with the statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity would prevent stormwater pollution from impacting waters of the United States in the vicinity of the project site. b) Mitigation Measures C7-1 Private developments constructed in the project area shall be required to provide adequate site drainage during construction. C7-2 Temporary culverts, ditches, dams, catch basins, and settling ponds shall be installed in construction areas to maintain existing drainage flows and collect excess water and sediment coming from construction sites. Refer to mitigation measures C1-1 through Cl -6 in Section V.C.I., Landform & Topography/Slopes & Erosion, regarding grading requirements. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 2 Impact: Degradation of Water Quality from Non pint Pollution a) Impact Analysis Residential, commercial, office and industrial land uses associated with the Kohl Ranch development may impact beneficial uses of surface drainage waters, including the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, through an increase in nonpoint source pollution. Industrial development has the potential to impact surface and groundwater through incidental and accidental releases of contaminants. Increased solid waste and waste handling as a result of the project also could impact surface and groundwater quality. Stormwater discharge permits could include provisions for spill prevention and response procedures, consistent with RWQCB permitting requirements. Thus, in the event of accidental release of contaminants, hazardous materials crews would be able to respond and mitigate pollutants entering storm drain facilities. Such releases are anticipated to be infrequent and controlled. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Over the long term, proposed development would introduce nonpoint sources of pollution such as parking lots, roofs, roads, industrial chemicals and fertilizers. These pollutants may be picked up by stormwater runoff and enter surface water bodies. Runoff water quality is at its worst during the first storm following a prolonged dry period due to the "first flush" effect: the storm tends to remove pollutants that have Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-133 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA accumulated over the preceding dry period. These pollutants include hydrocarbons, heavy metals and bacterial contaminants that originate from urban sources. Subsequent stormwater runoff generally is of better quality because exposed surfaces are typically less contaminated with pollutants. The proposed project incorporates several features that would reduce the impacts of urban nonpoint source pollution. A catch basin and storm drain system is planned, to intercept and convey runoff through the site. The increase in on-site runoff resulting from development would be detained on-site and allowed to percolate into the ground, instead of impacting surface waters. Graded drainage channels throughout the site, with native desert vegetation, would transport water and filter organic and inorganic materials. Under the golf course scenario, urban storm runoff from the project would have reduced levels of pollutants due to detention in lakes and ponds. Studies in various parts of the country have indicated that detention of urban storm runoff can significantly reduce pollutant loads in the discharges of urban storm runoff to surface water bodies. First, a significant amount of the potential pollutants are associated with the suspended fraction of the runoff. Settling removes such pollutants, which are retained with solid materials at the bottom of the basin. Sediment accumulating in the bottom of a basin can be periodically removed, if necessary. Second, treatment of some pollutants naturally occurs while water is held in the pond, due to oxidation, biodegradation and other processes. The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the runoff would be expected to be significantly reduced due to oxidation of organic matter in the detention basin. b) Mitigation Measures C7-3 All development shall be subject to NPDES regulations enforced by the RWQCB. C7-4 All discharges to surface waters and groundwater shall comply with the goals of the most current applicable Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 3) Impact. Water Quality Impact from Interim Agricultural Use a) Impact Analysis The proposed project has a build -out period of twenty-five years. While the site is developing for urban uses, it is anticipated that agricultural operations would be permitted to continue on the site. These operations involve irrigation with Colorado River water, and use of chemical pesticides in accordance with permit requirements. V-134 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The CVEZ EIR included an analysis of pesticide use in the project area. This analysis is summarized below in Section V.C.11., Toxic Substances. These practices have the potential to degrade surface and groundwater quality. This potential impact is short-term and is not considered significant. The proposed Specific Plan project would result in the elimination of agricultural sources of pollution to surface and groundwaters in the project vicinity. b) Mitigation Measures C7-5 Interim agricultural operations shall be required to comply with the applicable permit requirements in the application of pesticides. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) Water quality impacts for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 would be similar to Concept 1 for the following: • Short -Term Potential for Increased Erosion; • Degradation of Water Quality from Nonpoint Pollution; and • Water Quality Impact from Interim Agricultural Use. The following mitigation measures shall be required: C7-1, C7-2, C7-3, C74 and C7-5. In addition, mitigation measures CI -1 through Cl -6 (See Section V.C.l., Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion) shall be required. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 6) Concepts 3 and 6 would be similar to Concept 1 for the planning areas located north of Avenue 62, for the following water quality impacts: • Short -Term Potential for Increased Erosion; • Degradation of Water Quality from Nonpoint Pollution; and • Water Quality Impact from Interim Agricultural Use. For planning areas south of Avenue 62, where development by large-scale industrial uses is anticipated, water quality issues may be of a different nature than under Concept 1, due to the particular manufacturing operations developed at the site, particularly for: Degradation of Water Quality from Nonpoint Pollution. However, with mitigation, impacts are less than significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-135 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley o CA The following mitigation measures are required addition, mitigation measures C1-1 through Topography/Slopes & Erosion) shall be required. 8. Noise a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Characteristics of Noise : C7-1, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-5. In C1-6 (see Section V.C.1, Landform & Noise is usually defined as "unwanted sound." It consists of any sound that may produce physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with human communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep. While hearing impairment and other physical damage does occur from high noise levels, the damage in terms of quality of life from stress and annoyance is much more widespread. Sound intensity or acoustic energy is measured in decibels (dBA) that are weighted to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. Ambient community sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Sound levels corresponding to typical sources found in and around population centers are provided in Figure V-26. Many noise rating schemes exist for various time periods, but an appropriate rating of ambient noise affecting human communities would also account for the annoying effects of sound. The predominant rating scales for human communities are the Noise Equivalent Level (Leq), the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day - Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) based on A -weighted decibels (dBA). The Leq is the total sound energy of time -varying noise over a sample period. The CNEL is the time - varying noise over a twenty four hour period with A -weighting factor applied to noises occurring during evening hours from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (relaxation hours) and at night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (sleeping hours) of 5 and 10, respectively. The Ldn measure is an average of the A -weighted sound levels experienced during a 24-hour period. Unlike the CNEL (which divides the 24-hour period into three periods), the Ldn divides the 24-hour period into only two periods. The Ldn identifies day (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) and night (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) periods, eliminating the evening hours as more sensitive than the daytime. Since nighttime noise levels are considered more annoying, these measurements are increased by 10 dB before averaging along with the daytime levels. Although not as sensitive a measure as the CNEL, for most transportation noise sources the two measures (CNEL and Ldn) are essentially equal and may be used interchangeably. The County has utilized CNEL as its measure for noise control, consistent with procedures recommended by the State of California Office of Noise Control. The noise environments analyzed herein are specified in terms of the CNEL time - averaged measure of noise levels. The CNEL scale accounts for the magnitude of a noise, its duration, number of occurrences and time of day it occurs. V-136 The Planning Center Sound Levels and Human Response dBA dBA THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Sonic Boom Jet Takeoff at 200' Auto Horn at 3' Rock 'n Roll Band Power Mower at 3' Garbage Truck Heavy Truck at 50' Food Blender, Pneumatic Drill at 50' Electric Mixer, Alarm Clock Freight Train at 50' Busy Street Traffic at 50' Freeway Traffic at 50', Vacuum Cleaner at 10' Dishwasher at 10' Air Conditioning Unit at 20' Normal Conversation at 5' Typical Daytime Suburban Background Refrigerator at 10' Bird Calls Library Soft Whisper at 15' Broadcasting Studio Leaves Rustling Source: Adapted from William Bronson, "Ear Pollution; California Health (October, 1971), P. 29 00 50 Figure V-26, V-137 145 Physically Painful 140 Extremely Loud 135 130 125 Discomforting 120 Maximum Vocal Effort 115 Very Annoying Hearing 110 Hearing Damage 105 Very Loud 100 95 90 85 80 75 Telephone Use Difficult 70 65 Intrusive 60 55 Quiet 50 45 40 35 Very Quiet 30 25 20 15 Just Audible 10 5 Threshold of Hearing 0 dBA THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Sonic Boom Jet Takeoff at 200' Auto Horn at 3' Rock 'n Roll Band Power Mower at 3' Garbage Truck Heavy Truck at 50' Food Blender, Pneumatic Drill at 50' Electric Mixer, Alarm Clock Freight Train at 50' Busy Street Traffic at 50' Freeway Traffic at 50', Vacuum Cleaner at 10' Dishwasher at 10' Air Conditioning Unit at 20' Normal Conversation at 5' Typical Daytime Suburban Background Refrigerator at 10' Bird Calls Library Soft Whisper at 15' Broadcasting Studio Leaves Rustling Source: Adapted from William Bronson, "Ear Pollution; California Health (October, 1971), P. 29 00 50 Figure V-26, V-137 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2) Relevant. Planning a) County of Riverside The County of Riverside provides noise objectives, programs and standards in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (Noise Section, 1992). The County noise objectives related to new development projects include: 1) Ensure that noise issues are effectively considered in the planning process by establishing and adhering to protective noise policies; 2) Protect noise sensitive land uses from high level of noise by restricting noise producing uses from these areas; 3) Guide relatively noise tolerant land uses into areas irrevocably committed to land uses which are noise producing such as transportation corridors; and 4) Continue to develop effective strategies and mitigation measures for the abatement of noise hazards reflecting effective site design approaches and state of the art building techniques. The County defines noise standards related to land uses in its Comprehensive General Plan. Roadways, airports, railroads and point sources such as manufacturing plants are identified as generators of potentially intrusive noise. Similarly, noise sensitive receptors are identified as needing protection from high noise producing uses. Sensitive receptors, including schools, residences, hospitals, nursing homes and recreational areas where quiet is a basis of use, are discouraged in exterior areas in excess of 65 CNEL. Business and professional offices where effective communication is essential shall mitigate interior noise to 45 CNEL, with no specific standard for exterior noise environments. There are other noise standards that are more general, which must be addressed for all land use projects. These standards are provided in Figure V-27, Compatibility Chart for Community Noise. These land use compatibility standards are to be utilized for planning purposes to ensure that proposed land uses are compatible with neighboring uses including roadways. The levels of compatibility are identified as "normally acceptable," "conditionally acceptable," "generally unacceptable," and "land use discouraged." If a land use is proposed within a noise contour that corresponds to a "conditionally acceptable" or "generally unacceptable" designation, noise studies must be prepared to ensure that future activities on the site are not adversely impacted by noise. If a land use is proposed within a contour corresponding to "land use discouraged," new construction or development should generally not be undertaken. The County also provides Land Use Guidelines for Noise Compatibility near airports in the Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. These guidelines, reproduced in Table V-27, indicate the type of land uses which are compatible within the 60 CNEL, 65 CNEL, 70 CNEL, 75 CNEL and 80 CNEL contours around all types of airports. As seen in Table V-27, residential uses within the 60 CNEL contours V-138 The Planning Center Land Use Compatibility Chart for Community Noise Residential Land Uses: Single and Multiple Family Dwellings, Group Quarters, Mobilehomes Transient Lodging: Hotels, Motels School Classrooms, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, etc. Recreational Lan Uses: G91f Courses, open 5pace Areas -with walking, bicycling or horseback riding trails, water based recreation areas where motor- ised boats and jet -skis are prohibited. Office Buildings, Personal, Business, and Professional Services iter ums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters, Musts 11 (Maybe noise sensitive or noise producer Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports Recreational Land Uses: Playgrounds, Nelgnovrn Ball Parks, Motorcycle Parks, and Water-based Recreation Areas where motorized boats and jet - skis are permitted. Commercial Land Uses: Retail trade, Movie Theaters, Restaurants, bars, entertainment related commercial activities. services. Commercial Land Uses: wholesale, Industrial/ Manufacturing, Transportation, Communications and Utilities. Explanation of Land Use Consequences: A Normally Acceptable. With no special C noise reduction requirements assuming standard construction. B Conditionally Accu table. New con- struction or deyelopment should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction re- quirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. THE KOHL 11RANCH Coachella Valley) California or Lan value l4 G5 70 75 80 Generally Unacca table. New construction is discouraged. If new construction or developmment does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction require- ments must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. D Land Use Discoura ed. New con- struction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: Riverside County General Plan, Fourth Edition Text, Updated through 1992. ?V;' Figure V•27 V-1 39 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA generated by Thermal Airport require acoustic analyses, with commercial and recreational land uses generally compatible to 70 CNEL, and industrial uses to 75 CNEL. b) State of California The California Office of Noise Control provides interior noise requirements for new multi -family structures. Section 1092 of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code includes noise insulation standards which detail specific requirements for new multi -family structures (hotels, motels, apartments, condos, and other attached dwellings) located within the 60 CNEL contour adjacent to roads, railroads, rapid transit lines, airports or industrial areas. An acoustic analysis is required showing that these multi -family units have been designed to limit interior noise levels with doors and windows closed to 45 CNEL in any habitable room. 31 Characteristics of Noise As a prerequisite to an effective noise control program, a community must be cognizant of the location and extent of local noise problems; namely major noise source locations, noise sensitive receptor locations and current levels of exposure. This data can then be utilized to focus noise control and abatement efforts where they are most needed. In some cases, the control of noise sources will be beyond the County's jurisdiction. However, by recognizing these limitations, more effective land use strategies can be developed. The major noise sources to be considered for the proposed project include aircraft accessing the Thermal Airport and motor vehicles on major roadways. a) Aircraft Noise The site lies south of and adjacent to the Thermal Airport, a general aviation airport that serves business and leisure aircraft. Sixty-four aircraft are currently based at the airport, with an increase to 137 expected by the year 2010. Approximately 65,100 take -offs and landings occurred during 1988 according to the Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (August 1992) on the airport's two runways. Both runways currently receive regular use, although Runway 17-35 receives a greater proportion of the traffic servicing both general aviation aircraft and business jets. Although the airport does not have an Air Traffic Control Tower to keep operational statistics, it is estimated that 85 percent of these operations occurred during the daytime, with 15 percent in the evening and 5 percent at night. This results in 60 CNEL noise contours that extend 6,000 feet north of the higher use runway and 9,000 feet to the south onto the project site. The 65 CNEL contours extend 6,500 feet to the south onto the project, but the 70 and 75 CNEL contours remain on the airport property. The lower use runway (12-30) has 60 CNEL contours which extend 6,000 feet to the south. The 65 and 70 CNEL contours for this runway are within the airport boundaries. V-140 The Planning Center Type of Airporl/ Land Use 60-65 CNEL AIR CARRIER AND MILITARY • Potential for annoyance exists; identify high complaint areas. • Determine whether sound insulation requirements should be established for these areas. • Require acoustical reports for all new construction. • Noise easements should be required for new construction. GENERAL AVIATION Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-27 LAND USE GUIDELINES FOR NOISE COMPATIBILITY 65-70 CNEL 70-75 CNEL • Discourage new single-family dwellings. New construction or development of New hotels a • Prohibit mobile homes. residential uses should not be undertaken. discouraged. • New construction or development should be New hotels and motels may be permitted residential uses should not be undertaken. undertaken only after an analysis of noise after an analysis of noise reduction reduction requirements is made and needed requirements is made and needed noise New hotels and motels may be permitted noise insulation is included in the design. insulation is included in the design. • Noise easements should be required for undertaken only after an analysis of noise after an analysis of noise reduction new construction. • Develooanent nolicles for 'infill.' reduction requirements is made and needed requirements is made and needed noise 75-80 CNEL be 80+ CNEL ResidenliallLodgings • Discourage new single-family dwellings. I New oonslruction or development of New hotels and motels should be • Prohibit mobile homes. residential uses should not be undertaken. discouraged. • New construction or development should be New hotels and motels may be permitted undertaken only after an analysis of noise after an analysis of noise reduction reduction requirements is made and needed requirements is made and needed noise noise insulation is included in the design. insulation is included in the design. • Noise easements should be required. • Develop policies for'infill.' Open Space • Discourage Institutional uses. • If no other alternative Tocalion is available, new construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation is included in the design. Gu& for Local No new inslitulional uses should be undertaken. Satisfactory, with liltie noise impact and New construction or development should be • Same as 70.75 CNEL. requiring no special noise insulation for new undertaken only after an analysis of no construction. reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Noise reduction levels of 25-30 dB will be required. • Satisfactory, with little noise impact and requiring no special noise insulation requirements for new construction. • Outdoor music shells and amphitheaters should not be permitted. Satisfactory, with little noise impact and requiring no special noise insulation requirements [or new conslruclion. • Parks, spectator sports, golf courses and agricullural generally satisfactory with little noise impact. • Nature areas for wildlife and zoos should not be permitted. of Aerarauiks by MetropolAan Transportation Commiss • New construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. • Measures to achieve noise reduction of 25- 35 dB must be incorporated in portions of building where the public is received and in office areas. • Land uses involving concentrations of people (spectator sports and some recreational facilities) or of animals (livestock farming and animal breeding) should not be permitted_ and Assubalfon of Bay Area GoveirlmenlE. 1983, p. 50 • New construction or development should not be undertaken unless regaled to airport activities or services. Conventional construction will generally be inadequate and special noise insulation features should be included in the construction. • Now construction or development should not be undertaken unless related to airport activities or services. Conventional construction will generally be inadequate and special noise insulation features should be included in the construction. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-141 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA A future noise exposure map was developed for 2010 Thermal Airport operations and is contained in the airport's Comprehensive Land Use Plan (See Figure V-28). This map assumes an increase in operations to 157,520 by the year 2010 and a change in operations to increased evening and nighttime activities (20 percent evening and 10 percent night). It also reflects plans to extend Runway 17-35 to 10,000 feet for use by air carrier, air cargo and business jets. As shown in Figure V-28, the future 60 CNEL contour from this runway extends beyond Avenue 62 and creates substantial limitations to the use of the site. The contours from Runway 12-30 also extend onto the Kohl Ranch site, requiring analysis of land use compatibility within the contours. b) Motor Vehicle Noise Motor vehicles in the project area are a major source of continuous noise. The major east -west roadways in the project area include 52nd Avenue, Airport Boulevard, 60th Avenue, 62nd Avenue and 66th Avenue. The major north -south roadways are Jackson Street, Harrison Street, Polk Street and Pierce Street, as well as Highway 111 (Grapefruit Boulevard). The highway traffic noise prediction model developed by the Federal Highway Administration (RD -77-108) was used to evaluate existing noise conditions in the study area. This model utilizes various parameters including the traffic volume, vehicle mix and speed, and roadway geometry, to compute typical equivalent noise levels during daytime, evening and nighttime hours. The resultant noise levels are then weighted and summed over 24 hourly periods to determine the CNEL value. Contours are derived through a series of computerized iterations to provide the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL locations. These contour locations can be used as a planning tool to locate noise sensitive receptors away from major noise generators. They apply only to first line receptors, as receptors set back further from the noise source will benefit from the shielding provided by intervening land uses. The contours do not assume the presence of any sound walls or barriers. Table V-28 provides the current noise levels adjacent to major roadways in and around the project site, assuming a standard sound attenuation of 4.5 dBA with each doubling of distance. As shown therein, the noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of roadways in the planning area currently range from a low of 49.2 CNEL along 60th Avenue to a high of 66.9 CNEL along Harrison Street. The 70 CNEL contour presently falls within the right-of-way along thirty-nine of the fifty-four links analyzed. The 60 CNEL contour presently falls within the right-of-way along one of the links. V-142 The Planning Center Future Airport Noise Exposure so CNEL Noise Contours Coachella Valley, California Source: Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Scale: F=1 Mlle MSP w Figure V,28 V-143 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-28 EXISTING EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE Distance to Contours (Ft.)' Roadway ADT' (VehJDay) CNEL' @ 100 Feet 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 52nd AVENUE West of Jackson Street 2,900 59.1 RMI RNV 87 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 6,500 57.6 RMI RMI 70 Harrison Street to Grapefruit Blvd 8,400 58.8 RMI RMI 83 Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 5,600 57.0 RMI R/W 63 AIRPORT BOULEVARD West of Jackson Street 1,500 56.2 RMI RMI 56 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 2,300 57.0 RMI RMI 63 Harrison Street to Polk Street 3,000 59.2 RMI RMI 89 Polk Street to Grapefruit Blvd 3,400 54.8 RMI RMI RMI Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 3,000 54.3 RMI RNV RMI SR -86S to Pierce Street 2,800 58.9 RMI RMI 85 60th AVENUE West of Jackson Street 3,700 60.1 RMI RMI 102 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 4,000 60.5 R/W RMI 108 Harrison Street to Polk Street 400 50.5 RMI RMI R/W Polk Street to Grapefruit Blvd 300 49.2 RMI RMI RMI East of Pierce Street 1,500 56.2 RMI RMI 56 62nd AVENUE West of Jackson Street 400 50.5 RMI RMI RMI Jackson Street to Harrison Street 500 51.4 R/W RMI RMI Harrison Street to Polk Street 1,300 55.6 R/W RMI 51 Polk Street to Pierce Street 1,100 54.9 RMI RMI 45 Pierce Street to Grapefruit Blvd 600 52.2 RMI R/W RMI Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 1,300 55.6 RMI RMI 51 66th AVENUE Jackson Street to Harrison Street 1,600 56.5 RMI R/W 58 Harrison Street to Polk Street 700 52.9 RMI R/W RMI Polk Street to Pierce Street 800 53.5 RMI RMI RMI Pierce Street to Whitewater Channel 2,500 58.4 RM RMI 79 Whitewater Channel to SR -86S 2,500 58.4 RMI RMI 79 70th AVENUE Polk Street to Pierce Street 900 54.0 R/W RMI RMI JACKSON STREET North of 52nd Avenue 2,500 58.4 RMI RMI 79 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 2,500 58.4 RMI RMI 79 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 3,200 59.5 RMI RMI 93 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 1,900 57.2 RMI RMI 65 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 1,800 57.0 RMI RNV 63 V-144 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-28 EXISTING EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE Distance to Contours (Ft.) Roadway ADT' (VehJDay) CNELZ @ 100 Feet 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA HARRISON STREET North of 52nd Avenue 22,500 66.9 62 134 288 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 16,500 65.6 RNV 109 234 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 9,600 62.0 RNV 63 _ 137 142 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 6,100 62.3 R/W 66 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 6,000 62.2 RNV 65 141 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 6,100 62.3 R/W 66 142 South of 70th Avenue 4,700 61.2 RNV 56 120 POLK STREET Airport Street to 60th Avenue 1,700 56.8 R/W R/W 61 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 600 52.2 RNV RNV RNV PIERCE STREET Grapefruit Blvd to 62nd Avenue 1,400 55.9 RNV R/W 53 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 1,300 55.6 RNV R/W 51 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 2,600 58.6 RNV R/W 81 South of 70th Avenue 1,900 57.2 RNV R/W 65 GRAPEFRUIT BOULEVARD North of 52nd Avenue 14,700 66.1 RNV 119 256 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 11,700 65.1 R/W 102 220 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 10,900 54.8 R/W 97 210 60th Avenue to Pierce Avenue 7,400 63.2 J RNV 75 162 Pierce Street to 62nd Avenue 7,400 63.2 R/W 75 162 South of 62nd Avenue 6,900 62.8 R/W 72 155 SR -86S North of 52nd Avenue 3,500 59.9 RNV R/W RNV 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 3,500 61.9 RNV R/W 134 South of Airport Blvd 2,300 60.1 RNV R/W 10.2 ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volumes. 2 CNEL =Community Noise Equivalent Level. Measured at 100 feet from roadway centerline and 150 feet from the freeway. 3 Measured from roadway centerline. R/W means contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1 Impact: Short -Term Construction Impacts a) Impact Analysis Short-term acoustic impacts are those associated with construction activities necessary to implement the proposed land uses on-site. The noise levels would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction is completed. Two types of noise impacts should be considered during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-145 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. The increase should not exceed 1.0 dBA when averaged over a 24-hour period, and should therefore be inaudible to adjacent noise receptors. The second is related to noise generated by the construction operations on-site. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Figure V-29 illustrates typical construction equipment noise ranges at a distance of 50 feet. b) Mitigation Measures The following mitigation is presented to reduce short-term construction impacts at the neighboring residences. C8-1 Construction activities within 800 feet of existing sensitive receptors shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction activities that occur within one mile of a sensitive receptor but not closer than 800 feet shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction under either of these two scenarios shall not be allowed on Federal holidays. Construction activities where there are no sensitive receptors within a one - mile radius shall not be time -restricted. C8-2 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. C8-3 Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from any existing sensitive noise receivers. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 21 Impact: Long -Term Off -Site Airport and Traffic Impacts a) Impact Analysis The project is proposed in a primarily open space area in the southern portion of the Coachella Valley although several farm buildings and residences exist in the project vicinity. Several houses and other buildings exist on-site that will be removed with the project. Two residences will remain immediately adjacent to the site, one adjacent to Avenue 66 and the other adjacent to C Street that have the potential to be impacted by the project. V-146 The Planning Center Construction Equipment Noise Levels MOTOR CRANE TATIONARY PUMPS GENERATORS COMPRESSORS 11 a .moo 60 70 80 90 100 110 Source: EPA, 1971; "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances". NTID300.1 NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET 70 80 90 100 110 1 I 111�'7 k' 1 l'� .'1 ,`�, t l Coachella Valley, California 9;0? C70 Figure V-29 V-147 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Long-term impacts on the community would be associated with traffic generated by employees, residents and visitors accessing the project area. Noise levels on area roadways were quantified for cumulative conditions in the year 2010 with and without the project. Ambient year 2010 traffic noise levels are provided in Appendix H. Future year 2010 noise levels after project implementation are provided in Table V-29. Noise levels in the project vicinity would range from 54.3 to 73.2 CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The highest noise levels are projected along 62nd Avenue, Harrison Street and the new SR -86S Freeway (east of the project site). Table V-29 YEAR 2010 PLUS PROJECT EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE CONCEPT 1 Distance to Contours (Ft.) Roadway ADT (VehJDay) CNEL @ 100 Feet 70 dBA 65 dBA60 dBA 52nd AVENUE West of Jackson Street 16,800 61.8 R/W 61 131 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 15,400 61.4 R/W 57 124 Harrison Street to Grapefruit Blvd 15,100 61.3 R/W 57 122 Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 17,200 61.9 RNV 62 133 AIRPORT BOULEVARD West of Jackson Street 13,800 63.6 RM 81 174 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 15,300 64.0 R/W 86 186 Harrison Street to Polk Street 10,700 62.5 RNV 68 147 Polk Street to Grapefruit Blvd 20,800 65.4 RNV 106 229 Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 21,900 65.6 R/W 110 237 SR -86S to Pierce Street 12,200 63.1 R/W 74 160 60th AVENUE West of Jackson Street 17,000 64.5 R/W 93 200 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 20,300 65.3 R/W 104 225 Polk Street to Grapefruit Blvd 3,300 57.4 R/W R/W 67 East of Pierce Street 3,300 57.4 R/W R/W 67 62nd AVENUE West of Jackson Street 7,300 60.8 R/W 53 114 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 12,200 63.1 R/W 74 160 Harrison Street to "B" Street 19,700 65.2 RM 102 220 "B" Street to "C" Street 15,700 64.2 RNV 8B 190 "C" Street to "D" Street 16,000 64.3 RNV 89 192 _ "D" Street to "A" Street 19,700 65.2 47 102 220 Polk Street to Pierce Street 40,200 68.3 76 165 355 Pierce Street to Grapefruit Blvd 39,600 68.2 76 163 351 Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 1 12,100 1 68.5 1 79 1 170 366 64th AVENUE Harrison Street to "C" Street 1,600 54.3 R/W R/W RMI V-148 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-29 YEAR 2010 PLUS PROJECT EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE CONCEPT 1 Distance to Contours (Ft.) Roadway ADT (VehJDay) CNEL @ 100 Feet 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 66th AVENUE Jackson Street to Harrison Street 4,100 57.1 R/W RMI 64 Harrison Street to "C" Street 6,000 58.7 RMI RMI 82 "C" Street to Polk Street 10,500 61.1 RMI 55 119 Polk Street to Pierce Street 17,800 64.7 RMI 96 206 Pierce Street to Whitewater Channel 16,200 64.3 RMI 90 194 Whitewater Channel to SR -86S 15,000 64.0 RMI 85 184 East of SR -86S 17,900 64.7 RMI 96 207 70th AVENUE Polk Street to Pierce Street 3,600 56.5 RMI RMI 58 JACKSON STREET North of 52nd Avenue 14,300 63.8 R/W 83 178 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 16,100 64.3 RMI 89 193 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 15,700 64.2 RMI 88 190 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 9,900 62.2 RMI 65 139 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 4,100 58.3 RMI RMI 77 HARRISON STREET North of 52nd Avenue 37,100 67.9 72 156 336 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 34,100 67.5 68 148 318 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 34,500 67.6 69 149 320 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 29,200 66.9 62 133 287 62nd Avenue to 64th Avenue 21,000 65.4 RMI 107 230 64th Avenue to 66th Avenue 19,400 65.1 RMI 101 218 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 17,200 64.6 RMI 93 201 South of 70th Avenue 19,300 65.1 RMI 101 217 POLK STREET Airport Street to 60th Avenue 18,000 64.8 RMI 96 208 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 14,500 63.8 RMI 83 180 62nd Avenue to "E" Street 17,900 64.7 RMI 96 207 "E" Street to 66th Avenue 16,400 64.4 RMI 91 195 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 1 9,1.00 61.8 RMI 61 132 PIERCE STREET Grapefruit Blvd to 62nd Avenue 4,200 57.2 R/W RMI 65 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 3,900 56.8 R/W R/W 62 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 10,700 61.2 RMI 56 121 South of 70th Avenue 10,100 61.0 RMI 54 116 GRAPEFRUIT BOULEVARD North of 52nd Avenue 22,500 65.7 RMI 112 241 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 19,500 65.1 RMI 102 219 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 18,200 64.8 R/W 97 209 60th Avenue to Pierce Avenue 17,900 64.7 RMI 96 207 Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-149 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-29 YEAR 2010 PLUS PROJECT EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE CONCEPT 1 YEAR 2010 PROJECT RELATED NOISE INCREASE CONCEPT 1 CNEL @ 100 Ft. Distance to Contours (Ft.) Roadway ADT CNEL @ (VehJDay) 100 Feet 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Pierce Street to 62nd Avenue 15,300 64.1 R/W 86 186 South of 62nd Avenue 13,700 63.6 R/W 80 173 SR -86S North of 52nd Avenue 70,500 73.2 164 354 763 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 63,700 72.8 154 331 713 Airport Blvd to 62nd Avenue 54,000 72.1 138 297 639 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 32,700 69.9 R/W 212 457 South of 66th Avenue 1 27,400 1 69.1 1 RNV 189 406 1 ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volumes. 2 CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level. Measured at 100 feet from roadway centerline and 150 feet from the freeway. 3 Measured from roadway centerline. R/W means contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is "audible" impacts which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in noise level generally refer to a change of 3.0 dBA or greater since this level was found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, "potentially audible", references a change in noise level between 1.0 dBA and 3.0 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable only in laboratory environments. The last category is changes in noise level of less than 1.0 dBA that are "inaudible" to the human ear. Only "audible" changes located in the presence of sensitive receptors are considered significant. Noise levels with and without the addition of project -related traffic are provided in Table V-29. The noise increases related to the project identified in Table V-30 range up to 7.0 dBA along existing links. Twelve of the analyzed links would experience noise increases of 3.0 decibels or greater. This noise level is considered "audible" to the human ear and therefore has the potential to create significant impacts. Additionally, there is an increase in noise greater than 1.0 dBA but less than 3.0 dBA along twenty-seven roadway links. These noise increases are considered "potentially audible." Table V-30 YEAR 2010 PROJECT RELATED NOISE INCREASE CONCEPT 1 CNEL @ 100 Ft. Ambient Roadway Ambient plus Project I Increase 52nd AVENUE West of Jackson Street 60.6 61.8 1.2 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 60.8 61.4 0.6 V-150 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-30 YEAR 2010 PROJECT RELATED NOISE INCREASE CONCEPT 1 Roadway CNEL @ 100 Ft. Ambient Ambient plus Project Increase Harrison Street to Grapefruit Blvd 61.3 61.3 0.0 Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 61.9 61.9 ( 0.0 AIRPORT BOULEVARD West of Jackson Street 61.4 63.6 2.2 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 62.1 64.0 1.9 Harrison Street to Polk Street 61.7 62.5 0.8 Polk Street to Grapefruit Blvd 63.5 65.4 1.9 Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 64.1 65.6 1.5 SR -86S to Pierce Street 60.5 63.1 2.6 60th AVENUE West of Jackson Street 60.0 64.5 4.5 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 60.2 65.3 5.1 Polk Street to Grapefruit Blvd 55.8 57.4 1.6 East of Pierce Street 55.8 57.4 1.6 62nd AVENUE West of Jackson Street 54.8 60.8 6.0 Jackson Street to Harrison Street 57.1 63.1 6.0 Polk Street to Pierce Street 61.6 68.3 6.7 Pierce Street to Grapefruit Blvd 61.2 68.2 7.0 Grapefruit Blvd to SR -86S 62.4 68.5 6.1 66th AVENUE Jackson Street to Harrison Street 56.0 57.1 1.1 Polk Street to Pierce Street 59.0 64.7 5.7 Pierce Street to Whitewater Channel 61.6 64.3 2.7 Whitewater Channel to SR -86S 61.0 64.0 3.0 East of SR -86S 64.3 64.7 0.4 70th AVENUE Polk Street to Pierce Street 56.5 56.5 0.0 JACKSON STREET North of 52nd Avenue 61.7 63.8 2.1 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 61.6 64.3 2.7 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 61.3 64.2 2.9 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 59.5 62.2 2.7 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 57.3 58.3 1.0 HARRISON STREET North of 52nd Avenue 66.8 67.9 1.1 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 66.0 67.5 1.5 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 65.3 67.6 2.3 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 65.5 66.9 1.4 Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-151 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA Table V-30 YEAR 2010 PROJECT RELATED NOISE INCREASE CONCEPT 1 Roadway CNEL @ 100 Ft. Ambient Ambient plus Project Increase 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 63.8 64.6 0.8 South of 70th Avenue 1 63.3 65.1 1.8 POLK STREET Airport Street to 60th Avenue 61.7 64.8 3.1 60th Avenue to 62nd Avenue 60.9 63.8 2.9 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 59.7 61.8 2.1 PIERCE STREET Grapefruit Blvd to 62nd Avenue 57.2 57.2 0.0 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 56.8 56.8 0.0 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue 58.1 61.2 3.1 South of 70th Avenue 57.6 61.0 3.4 GRAPEFRUIT BOULEVARD North of 52nd Avenue 65.4 65.7 0.3 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 64.7 65.1 0.4 Airport Blvd to 60th Avenue 64.6 64.8 0.2 60th Avenue to Pierce Avenue 64.7 64.7 0.0 Pierce Street to 62nd Avenue 64.1 64.1 0.0 South of 62nd Avenue 63.6 63.6 0.0 SR -86S North of 52nd Avenue 71.6 73.2 1.6 52nd Avenue to Airport Blvd 71.0 72.8 1.8 Airport Blvd to 62nd Avenue 69.9 72.1 2.2 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue 68.6 69.9 1.3 South of 66th Avenue 66.9 1 69.1 1 2.2 The determination of impacts is based on the compatibility between existing and proposed land uses with the projected noise environment. The majority of the noise levels at 100 feet from the roadways analyzed does not exceed the 65 CNEL standard for sensitive uses. This standard is derived from the Riverside County Land Use Compatibility Chart for Community Noise (See Figure V-27). Exceedances of 65 CNEL are expected to occur along 18 of the 54 links analyzed. Many of these roadways and adjacent uses have been and will continue to be designed to accommodate high traffic volumes and the related noise generation. For instance, seven of the links exceeding 65 CNEL are located along Highway 86S or Grapefruit Boulevard (SR -111) which serves regional traffic. Noise generated along Highway 86S would exceed 65 CNEL at 100 feet with or without the addition of project traffic. Similarly, Grapefruit Boulevard would experience fairly high levels regardless of the project. V-152 The Planning Center Chapter V e Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Noise increases along links of Airport Boulevard, 60th Avenue, 62nd Avenue and Harrison Street would cause or contribute to an exceedance of 65 CNEL. This results in the potential for significant noise impacts directly from the long-term use of the project. Several of these roadways have little or no adjacent sensitive receptors such as along 60th Avenue and Airport Boulevard. However, along 62nd Avenue exist single family dwellings that may not have anticipated the proposed noise levels at the time of their construction, particularly since the project traffic mitigation calls for upgrading this route to arterial status. b) Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are available. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Significant. 3 Impact: Long -Tenn On -Site Impacts a) Impact Analysis The proposed uses are generally compatible with the surrounding environment since they were developed with recognition of the noise contours surrounding Thermal Airport. Special noise concerns exist with the more sensitive residential and school uses that are proposed in proximity to motor vehicle noise, and the requirement to meet the state interior noise standards for multifamily dwellings. The proposed land uses on-site could be impacted by noise emanating from Thermal Airport and area roadways. Overlaying the Future Airport Noise Exposure map (Figure V-28) on the Land Use Plan (Figure V-10 in Section V -A.4.) identifies those areas with potential airport noise impacts. Within the airport's 65 CNEL contour lies Open Space, Air Park/Mixed Use and Heavy Industrial land use designations. According to the Land Use Guidelines for Noise Compatibility for airport uses indicated in Table V-27, these land uses are satisfactory with little noise impact and require no special noise insulation for new construction. Within the airport's 60 CNEL contour is proposed Open Space, Air Park/Mixed Use, Office, Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, Residential Low and Residential High uses. With the exception of residential, the other land use categories would be considered compatible. Residential uses are generally discouraged within the 60 CNEL contour. New residential construction should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and noise insulation included in the design. Given the location of these residential uses, the analysis will also need to address the combined impact of motor vehicle noise from adjacent roadways. The area within the 70 and 75 CNEL contours on-site are designated for Open Space uses which should not be impacted by aircraft noise. However, recreational uses should be limited to those that do not involve concentrations of people. Sensitive land uses are proposed within the project including residences and possibly schools under the Public Facilities designation. Residential uses proposed adjacent Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-153 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA to Avenue 62, Avenue 66, Tyler Street and Polk Street may be subject to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL before mitigation. Additionally, from future noise levels generated along on-site roadways identified in Table V-31, residences and schools adjacent to A Street, B Street, and C Street may also be impacted by noise in excess of 65 CNEL prior to mitigation. Table V-31 YEAR 2010 PLUS PROJECT EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE CONCEPT 1 Distance to Contours (Ft.) Roadway ADT (VehJDay) CNEL @ 100 Feet 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA "A" STREET Harrison Street to "B" Street 25,900 65.1 RM 101 217 "B" Street to "C" Street 23,900 64.7 RNV 96 206 "C" Street to 62nd Avenue 22,700 64.5 RNV 92 199 62nd Avenue to Polk Street 36,100 66.5 58 126 271 "B" STREET "A" Street to 62nd Avenue 12,000 61.7 R/W 60 130 "C" STREET "A" Street to 62nd Avenue 12,100 61.8 R/W 61 131 62nd Avenue to "E" Street 10,700 61.2 RMI 56 121 "E" Street to 66th Avenue 9,700 60.8 R/W 52 113 "D" STREET 62nd Avenue to Polk Street 5,500 56.9 R/W RMI 62 "E" STREET "C" Street to Polk 5,700 57.1 R/W RNV 64 z ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volumes. 9 CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level. Measured at 100 feet from roadway centerline and 150 feet from the freeway. Measured from roadway centerline. RMI means contour is located within the roadway right-of-way. These areas would be considered "conditionally acceptable" according to the County of Riverside standards in Figure V-27, indicating that noise studies are required to ensure appropriate sound attenuation is incorporated into project design. Since noise barriers can reduce sound by up to 12 dBA, sound walls should be sufficient to reduce motor vehicle noise to acceptable levels for residential and school uses. However, it is more likely that a combination of techniques including site design and setbacks is required to ensure a compatible noise environment. With mitigation, an exterior environment of 65 dBA CNEL could be achieved. This would ensure that the 45 dBA interior noise standard for multi -family uses is met, since typical building construction practices result in a 20-25 dBA exterior -to -interior reduction. b) Mitigation Measures Long-term noise mitigation is needed to meet the Riverside County noise standards for uses proposed on-site. C84 Residential uses proposed within the 60 CNEL contour of the airport shall require a noise analysis by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure the V-154 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis standards are met. This analysis shall address the combined impact of airport activities and motor vehicle noise from adjacent roadways. C8-5 Residential and school uses proposed within the 60 CNEL contour of Avenue 62, Avenue 66, Tyler Street, Polk Street, A Street, B Street, and C Street shall require a noise analysis by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure the noise standards are met. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 Through 6) Short-term noise impacts associated with construction of Concepts 2 through 6 would be of a similar nature as Concept 1. The conversion of residential, commercial, and light industrial land uses to heavy industrial as proposed with these concepts would always result in a decrease in daily trips. Assuming the trip distribution is similar to that of Concept 1, noise impacts would be less to the degree that neighborhoods are converted to Heavy Industrial usage. Therefore, in terms of noise impacts Land Use Concepts 2 through 6 would be either environmentally superior or comparable to the proposed project depending on the actual land uses constructed. Detailed impact analyses for Concepts 2 through 6 will be conducted as appropriate to assess the following impacts: Short-term construction impacts; Long -tern off-site traffic impacts; and Long-term on-site impacts. At a minimum, the following mitigation measures shall be required: C8-1, C8-2, C8-3, C8-4, and C8-5. The need for any additional mitigation measures will be assessed at the development stage, based upon site specific traffic studies. 9. Energy Resources a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The project site is currently being utilized for agricultural purposes. Agriculture is not an energy intensive use. The policies contained in the RCCGP are intended to reduce the demand of energy resources and to consider alternatives to conventional sources of energy. Programs for achieving this goal which affect the proposed project include reducing energy consumption and implementing building design standards to encourage alternative energy sources. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-155 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) ll_ Impact: Increased Energy Use a) Impact Analysis Implementation of Concept 1 will result in the use of energy for residential purposes. Residential land uses involve the use of energy for heating/cooling, transportation, lighting, and for assorted appliances. Energy usage associated with existing agricultural uses may be generated by on-site structures for lighting and heating. Due to existing agricultural use, energy consumption is minimal. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that a total of 126,059,763 kilowatt hours per year will be required. The natural gas consumption for the development is projected to be 68,713,529 cubic feet per month.23 Electricity will be provided by Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and natural gas will be provided by Southern California Gas Company. Both utilities have indicated they have sufficient capacity and that service will be made available without resulting in an adverse impact to future energy supplies (See Section V.D.7). b) Mitigation Measures C9-1 All developments within the Kohl Ranch project area shall implement Title 24 building standards to minimize energy use. C9-2 Electric vehicle recharging facilities shall be permitted in all commercial developments. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) Development of the land uses associated with Concept 2 will require 174,455,465 kilowatt hours per year and would consume 67,377,755 cubic feet per month of natural gas. At a minimum, mitigation measures C9-1 and C9-2 will be required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 23 Estimates consistent with average usage rates for Southern California Edison and Department of Water and Power as provided by the SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. V-156 The Planning Center Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) Development of the land uses associated with Concept 3 will require 112,726,735 kilowatt hours per year and would consume 35,732,982 cubic feet per month of natural gas. At a minimum, mitigation measures C9-1 and C9-2 will be required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) Development of the land uses associated with Concept 4 will require 168,327,460 kilowatt hours per year and would consume 65,103,679 cubic feet per month of natural gas. At a minimum, mitigation measures C9-1 and C9-2 will be required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) Development of the land uses associated with Concept 5 will require 209,549,169 kilowatt hours per year and would consume 63,636,543 cubic feet per month of natural gas. At a minimum, mitigation measures C9-1 and C9-2 will be required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Development of the land uses associated with Concept 6 will require 148,307,273 kilowatt hours per year and would consume 32,102,414 cubic feet per month of natural gas. At a minimum, mitigation measures C9-1 and C9-2 will be required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-157 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 10. Open Space and Conservation a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The project site is designated for agricultural use in the ECVP. The ECVP includes goals related to open space and conservation. These same goals are embodied in the open space and conservation objectives contained in the RCCGP: ■ The conservation and productive use of important agricultural resources. ■ The retention as open space of lands containing important natural resources such as scenic beauty, sensitive vegetation, wildlife habitat, and historic or prehistoric sites. ■ The retention as open space of areas subject to environmental hazards such as seismic impacts, flooding, unstable slopes and high fire risks in order to minimize injuries to people and property damage. In addition, the ECVP includes the following land use policies for open space and conservation: ■ Open Space which will protect County environmental resources and maximize public health and safety in areas where significant environmental hazards exist shall be preserved and maintained. ■ Open space considerations shall be incorporated into urban developments in order to enhance recreational opportunities and project aesthetics. ■ The utilization of natural resources including soil, water, vegetation, air, wildlife, and mineral resources shall be carefully controlled and managed. ■ Areas designated as agriculture are limited to the following permitted land uses: Open Space and Agriculture and associated uses (including limited commercial, industrial, single-family residential and farm workers housing). b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 11 Impact: Loss of Undeveloped Ogen Space Open space areas are an integral part of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. They provide recreational amenities to residents and workers, and are used to screen development edges from potential noise and visual impacts associated with surrounding arterials. The open space and recreation system for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan includes neighborhood and community parks, passive open space and a project -wide trail system, and may include golf courses. The open space system is organized around the project drainage network and the Thermal Airport safety zones, which limit the land uses and V-158 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis densities that can be located on certain portions of the site. Approximately 411.6 acres are devoted to the open space land use category. Under a golf course scenario, this would increase to 588.6 acres (see Table V-32). Open space uses represent 18.9 percent of the project area. This percentage increases to 27 percent under the golf course scenario. Table V-32 OPEN SPACE BY CATEGORY _ Open Space Type Without Golf Course With Golf Course Golf Course 355.7 Drainage - 323.7 181.8 Local Park Portion Used for Drainage 78.4 33.5' 41.6 7.6' Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel 9.5 9.5 TOTAL 411.6 588.6 1. Not included in total. Golf Courses The specific plan is designed to accommodate two golf courses which would run throughout the northern and southern portions of the site, paralleling the drainage system, and serve as a central view focus and buffer between land uses for the majority of residential units. The southern golf course also serves as a view window into the project from the surrounding road network. Each golf course would be equipped with a driving range and clubhouse facility. The golf courses are secondary uses which are allowable under the provisions of the Specific Plan Zoning. They are sited to maximize the golf course frontage and views for residential units. While both golf courses would be privately owned, it is envisioned that the 162.2 -acre northern course would be open to the public and provide a regional recreational amenity, while the 193.5 -acre southern golf course would serve neighborhood residents. Local Parks A minimum of four local parks are planned to serve residents of the project. Two additional parks will be provided and a third will be enlarged if the golf courses are not built, since three of the parks are located within the area that could be dedicated to the golf course use. The parks are located throughout the site, and are connected by the project -wide trail system. Under the golf course alternative, an enhanced amenity package would be provided, which would supplement the recreation opportunities provided by the local parks. Trail System The proposed development is provided with an off-street trail system that parallels the drainageways throughout the site. The off-street system is supplemented by the on -street sidewalk system located in road rights-of-way. In addition to providing access to the local parks, the trail system also provides a pedestrian linkage to the public facilities Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-159 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA located in the central portion of the site, just south of the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel, and to key commercial sites. Natural Open Space The system of drainage channels throughout the project site will offer a scenic amenity to residents of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan site. The channels will be graded and will contain native desert vegetation that will also provide a buffer between land uses. The acreage of this natural open space will vary depending upon whether the golf courses are built. With the golf courses, natural open space will total 189.4 acres or 8.7 percent of the project area. Without the golf courses, natural open space will increase to 357.2 acres or 16.4 percent. a) Impact Analysis The project site occupies 2,177 acres with a majority of the site in agricultural production or vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would ultimately result in the removal of nearly 2,177 acres from undeveloped open space. It is anticipated that the project will be developed over a 25 -year period. Five phasing scenarios have been established for the proposed project. Each scenario represents an area of the site that it likely to be developed as a unit. For purposes of the Specific Plan, it is anticipated that Scenario I will be developed first, followed by Scenarios III and IV, with Scenarios H and V developed last. On-site agricultural uses would remain in production until a specific Scenario (I-V) is developed. Only at full buildout would agricultural uses no longer be in production on the project site. The loss of agricultural lands is a significant impact, which is discussed in detail in Section V.C.2., Soils and Agriculture. As previously stated, the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan incorporates a variety of open space uses, including natural open space, trails, local parks and golf courses. Depending upon the development scenario, open space uses account for either 18.9 or 27.0 percent of the total project site. The project has responded to the RCCGP objective regarding the retention of open space areas subject to environmental hazards, as well as to the ECVP policy to protect County environmental resources and maximize public health and safety in areas where hazards exist. As was previously described, the golf courses, trail system and natural drainage channels all serve as open space uses, but also as functional and necessary drainage systems. Implementation of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan results in the creation of open space that is accessible to residents and employees within the project area and the surrounding area, as opposed to the present situation of undeveloped open space used primarily for agriculture. The open space uses within the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are a beneficial impact of implementing the project. V-160 The Planning Center Chapter V o Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Mitigation Measures C10-1 All open space areas within the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan project area shall be designed in accordance with all applicable criteria in the Zoning, Community Structure Development Standards, Neighborhood and Planning Area Land Use and Development Standards, and Design Guidelines, Sections III, IV.A.4.b, IV.B, and IV.0 of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) Concepts 2, 4 and 5 would result in a similar amount and type of open space as that associated with Concept 1. Like Concept 1, the loss of undeveloped open space for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 would be a less than significant impact, since it would be offset by the provision of developed parkland and natural open space areas. The following mitigation measures will be required: C10-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3) Approximately 402 acres of open space are provided under Concept 3, which would be located primarily in the area north of Avenue 62. Concept 3 produces a different mix of open space uses than Concept 1. Concept 3 provides for local and community parks, open space and the potential for one golf course, which results in fewer local and community parks and one less golf course than for Concept 1. Both Concept 1 and Concept 3 include drainage channels throughout the site. Implementation of Concept 3 would result in the loss of natural, undeveloped open space, which would be offset in part by the provision of man-made open space throughout the areas designated for industrial use. Concept 3 devotes approximately the same amount of land to open space uses as Concept 1, which results in similar open space impacts. The following mitigation measures will be required: C10-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Approximately 402 acres of open space are provided under Concept 6. The open space uses would be located primarily in the airport safety zones where no structures are permitted. In addition, all on-site drainage areas are included as open space. Implementation of Concept 6 would result in the loss of natural, undeveloped open space, which would be offset in part by Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-161 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley a CA the provision of man-made open space throughout the areas designated for industrial use. Concept 6 devotes approximately the same amount of land to open spaces uses as Concept 1, which results in similar open space impacts. The following mitigation measures will be required: C10-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 11. Toxic Substance a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Existing Conditions The term "toxic substance" means a substance which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may: 1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial threat of potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. Toxic substances include chemical, biological, flammable, explosive, and radioactive substances. The majority of the project site currently is in agricultural use. The agricultural users of the site, and the farming operations adjacent to the site, are all permitted as generators of hazardous materials, as a result of their use of petroleum hydrocarbons and incidental use of pesticides. Potential problems resulting from this use are avoided through routine inspection and education.24 Consequently, existing contamination due to pesticide and fertilizer application is limited. There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area. However, several sites in the project vicinity handle hazardous materials, and have the potential to impact the proposed Kohl Ranch development. These include: ■ Former Sludge Processing Facility (Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation) Potential water quality issues associated with this facility are addressed in Section V.C.7, Water Quality. ■ Golden Acres Produce Cooling Facility This facility is located approximately one mile east of Polk Street and Avenue 62. The facility is typical for agricultural areas in the Coachella Valley, and the site is not considered to be contaminated .21 This cooling facility uses approximately 500 - 24 Jim Ray, Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist, Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division, September 2, 1994. 25 Ibid. V-162 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 1,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia. With any compressed gas, a seismic event could result in a tank rupture and chemical release. Anhydrous ammonia is an irritant and, if significant quantities were accidentally released in the vicinity of a residential population, evacuation would be required. Releases of this chemical are usually associated with an elliptical plume, with weather conditions determining movement and the size of the area affected. Typical risk management measures such as employee education can serve to minimize the potential for a release and can reduce the potential adverse effects should a release occur. ■ Wastewater Reclamation Plant No. 4 The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Wastewater Treatment Plan No. 4 is approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. The facility is located between Avenues 62 and 64 on the north and south, and Fillmore Street and the Whitewater River to the west and east. This plant has a design capacity of 5.0 MGD, and is estimated to be currently operating at half capacity. The plant provides a secondary treatment level through the use of stabilization ponds for finishing. CVWD stores relatively large quantities of hazardous substances at this location, including chlorine gas and compressed sulfur dioxide gas.26 These substances could pose a potential threat in the event of a release, requiring evacuation of the nearby population. This site is cross and down wind from the project site under prevailing wind conditions. 2) General Plan Policies The RCCGP contains one land use standard relating to toxic substances: Toxic Substances ■ The County will review all development proposals to determine its proximity to known contaminated sites and to assess the type of development proposed, the distance from the contaminated site, the types of contamination and the status of any cleanup activity. Development will be prohibited on all sites known to contain contaminated soils. This process will involve the County Health Department and other appropriate agencies. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Generation of Hazardous Wastes a) Impact Analysis Residential development proposed for the Kohl Ranch site has little potential for the storage or use of toxic substances. However, the proposed project also includes 357.7 acres of industrial uses, 157.6 acres of business uses and 62.3 acres of commercial uses. Although not anticipated at this time, it is possible that these future industrial, business and commercial uses may store, handle or generate toxic substances on-site. 26 Jim Ray, January 20, 1995. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-163 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The amount of toxic substances used and generated will depend on the types of industrial and commercial development eventually established within the project. The proposed land use plan separates and buffers these commercial and industrial land uses from the residential uses proposed on-site. These measures will serve to protect future residents from exposure to toxic substances. None of the commercial or industrial land uses would be located within one-quarter mile of any existing school sites. In addition, federal, state and local laws and regulations strictly control the storage, transport and use of hazardous materials. Impacts are considered significant if there is a threat to the general public due to the direct release of toxic substances into the atmosphere, soils or water supply, resulting from the use, storage, transportation or production of these substances. The separation of land uses and existing control regulations would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b) Mitigation Measures C11-1 Users of hazardous materials shall comply with applicable federal, state and local regulations requiring elimination and reduction of waste at the source by prevention of leakage, segregation of hazardous waste, and other means. Industrial operations shall utilize methods such as recovery, reuse and recycling of wastes to minimize the amount of toxic substances disposed of. C11-2 Future industrial uses shall be reviewed to identify the specific wastes which may be generated for storage and disposal of potentially hazardous substances. C11-3 Hazardous materials that may be produced on-site shall require transport by a licensed hauler to a designated facility. Haulers of hazardous materials, as well as disposal facilities, shall be licensed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 2) IMpact: Potential for Contaminated Soils a) Impact Analysis Pesticides and composted sludge associated with agricultural operations can be expected to occur in soils on the project site. These materials are applied in accordance with licenses issued by the County Agricultural Commissioner. A preliminary site assessment would be needed to determine the potential threat to human health posed by these chemicals. The chemical DDT is known to occur at low levels in open fields. In California, agricultural regions in production since WWII typically evidence DDT at levels between 1 and 10 ppm. According to California V-164 The Planning Center 27 Ibid. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis .law, soils with DDT at levels greater than 1 ppm would be considered a hazardous waste?' In addition, applications of composted sludge applied to the site may have contained heavy metals. Levels of heavy metals in sludge are likely to be low, and may have been transported away from the site to the Salton Sea through agricultural drains. The Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone (CVEZ) EIR included an analysis of agricultural pesticide use in the project area, based upon records of the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office. Records of crops grown date from 1985, while records of pesticide and herbicide applications date from 1987. Persistency levels of pesticides and herbicides when applied to soil were obtained from the National Pesticide Telecommunications Network. Based upon the CVEZ study, pesticides/herbicides which may be used on the project site and their persistency levels are included in Table V-33. As indicated in Table V-33, the soil persistency of most of the pesticides believed to have been used on the project site is relatively short. b) Mitigation Measures C11-4 A soils assessment shall be performed by the applicant prior to construction of individual developments, for areas where there is evidence that pesticides or other hazardous materials have been stored, to determine whether site soils have been contaminated by past agricultural practices. If necessary, contaminated soils shall be sufficiently covered or removed, to avoid exposure of project residents, workers and visitors. V-165 Table V-33 PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE SOIL PERSISTENCY Pesticide Persistency Ambush 2 weeks to 1 month Asana 2 weeks to 1 month Buctril 10 days Dimethoate Eptam 2 to 4 days 1 week Kerb 2 to 9 months Lannate 16 weeks Lasso 6 to 10 weeks Malathion Dust 2 days Phosdrin No data Prowl 3 to 4 months Thiodan Moderately long residual activity (no time period described) Source: Leighton and Associates, ira, September 28, 1990. As indicated in Table V-33, the soil persistency of most of the pesticides believed to have been used on the project site is relatively short. b) Mitigation Measures C11-4 A soils assessment shall be performed by the applicant prior to construction of individual developments, for areas where there is evidence that pesticides or other hazardous materials have been stored, to determine whether site soils have been contaminated by past agricultural practices. If necessary, contaminated soils shall be sufficiently covered or removed, to avoid exposure of project residents, workers and visitors. V-165 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA C11-5 Interim agricultural operations shall adhere to all appropriate permit requirements related to the handling, storage and transport of hazardous materials. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) Impacts related to toxic substances for Concepts 2, 4 and 5 are the same as for Concept 1 for the following: • Generation of Hazardous Wastes; and • Potential for Contaminated Soils. The following mitigation measures are required: C11-1, C11-2, Cl 1-3, C11-4 and C11-5. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 6) Concepts 3 and 6 involve the development of the site for large scale industrial uses south of Avenue 62. This type of development may result in impacts from toxic substances that are different from those associated with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures are required: C11-1, C11-2, C11-3, C11-4 and C11-5. In addition, the following mitigation measure shall be required for Concepts 3 and 6. C11-6 Concepts 3 and 6 shall be subject to future environmental review to ensure that all potential toxic substance impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation_ 12. Cultural Resources a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Existing Conditions a) Natural Setting Numerous times in the past, a large freshwater lake known as Lake Cahuilla occupied the Salton Basin. This lake was formed by the Colorado River when the river cut through its delta and flowed northward into the Salton Trough instead of directly into the Gulf of California. Lake Cahuilla acted as a huge settling basin for the millions of tons of silt carried by the Colorado River. Eventually, the inflow channel silted to a point where the river cut a new course, bypassing Lake Cahuilla, and once again V-166 The Planning Center Chapter V o Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis flowing directly into the Gulf. When this occurred, the lake dried by evaporation. This process of infilling and desiccation has occurred an unknown number of times and for undetermined duration. Lake Cahuilla was approximately 115 miles long and about 34 miles wide, with an estimated surface area of 1,256,550 acres, and a maximum depth of 315 feet. It extended from near present day Indio to a point 20 miles south of the international border, and from the foot of the Santa Rosa Mountains east to the foot of the Chocolate Mountains. The most recent shoreline is believed to have been approximately 42 feet above sea level although recent data indicates the possibility of a later partial infilling to approximately sea level. Each episode of infilling inundated the lower Coachella Valley, including the Kohl Ranch project area. The unique physiographic setting of the Coachella Valley, manifested in abrupt variation in elevation ranging from below sea level to over 10,000 feet, produces a wide array of ecological zones all within close proximity to each other. During periods when Lake Cahuilla was being infilled, lacustral zones would have developed, increasing ecological diversity and abundance. b) Cultural Setting Archaeological investigations in the Colorado Desert area have been infrequent, and many gaps exist in our understanding of area prehistory. The chronological framework usually applied to the local area is one which was established primarily on data collected in adjacent desert areas of California. Four temporal periods are generally accepted for the desert area: Pinto Period (5000-2000 B.C.), Gypsum Period (2000 B.C.- A.D. 500), Saratoga Springs Period (A.D. 500-1200), and Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1200 -Historic). Evidence of earlier occupation of the Colorado Desert between approximately 11,000 B.C. until 7000 B.C. does exist but is from sites located well outside the Coachella Valley area. The earliest documented site in the general vicinity produced a radio carbon date of 3840 ± 250 B.C. Three other sites in the area are thought to date to the same general period and include one open-air site and two rockshelters. Sites within the Coachella Valley proper are limited almost exclusively to the later periods, and sites predating A.D. 800 are rare. The bulk of archaeological research has been conducted along the old shorelines of Lake Cahuilla in an attempt to study human adaptation to the lake environment. The first thorough analysis was based on data from four sites located along the northwest lake shore. After periodic episodes of infilling and recession, Lake Cahuilla is believed to have receded for the last time around A.D. 1580. As the lake receded, populations followed the receding shoreline while continuing to exploit the dwindling resources. Excavation of fish traps, and associated houses and midden situated at the -95 foot elevation produced an abundance of fish bone. Fish bone is also reported from archaeological deposits at -103 feet and -120 feet near Thermal. Finally, the water Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-167 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA became too saline to support the usual flora and fauna and human populations are believed to have abandoned the desert floor. At some point after the final recession, the desert floor was recolonized by desert plant communities, and people returned to the area. The length of time required for the desert floor to develop resources sufficient for supporting human populations is unknown. It may be that agriculture was adopted by the local communities at this time to supplement the meager resources available. The people occupying the study area at the time of arrival of the Spanish are known as the Cahuilla. The Cahuilla occupied a very large geographic area extending from present day Riverside to the central part of the Salton Sea. The greatest density of known Cahuilla villages is in the area immediately to the northwest of the Salton Sea, near the current study area. Cahuilla settlement patterns were based on villages that were occupied year-round. Villages were located to take advantage of local resources. In the desert floor areas, they were situated on alluvial fans at the mouths of canyons where there was a high water table. The territory owned by a particular village was usually wedged shaped, ranging from 70 square miles to over 600 square miles, and included a broad array of ecological zones. Within the study area vicinity, the Cahuilla maintained an intricate network of trails that connected villages and provided access to special collecting areas within their territory. c) Archaeological Sites in the Project Area In March 1994, a cultural resources records search for the Kohl Ranch by the Eastern Information Center indicated that a cultural resources survey had not been conducted on the property, and that no archaeological sites are known to exist within the project boundaries. The information center files were later reviewed in detail by a qualified archaeologist. Very little of the Coachella Valley has been systematically surveyed. Consequently little is known about the nature and distribution of archaeological sites along the desert floor. Seven cultural resource survey projects have been completed within one mile of the project area, resulting in the recording of six archaeological sites (Table V-34). In addition, Martinez Historical District is located approximately one- half mile south of the southern project boundary and includes one of the sites previously recorded in the vicinity (CA-RIV-1292). Of the six archaeological sites recorded within the record search area, all but one (CA-RIV-148) are located to the south and southeast of the current project area and lie within the Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation. Two of these sites (CA-RIV-2250, -2251) are located less than 1,000 feet from the current project boundary and are probably associated with CA-RIV-1292 (Martinez Historical District), which is listed as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. V-168 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The final site within the record search area is CA-RIV-148, located approximately one mile north of the project boundary. This site is believed to be a portion of the Desert Cahuilla village of La Mesa or Temal Wakhish and is thought to have been occupied during the very late prehistoric and historic periods. This village was occupied when the U.S. Land Office surveyed the Coachella Valley in 1856, and was still inhabited as late as the 1890s. The village was apparently abandoned sometime between the 1890s and 1920s due to rising ground water caused by the formation of the Salton Sea. Table V-34 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES LOCATED WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT Site Observed Contents Source and Date CA-RIV-148 Village site consisting of artifacts manufactured from bone, shell, Eberhart 1951; Savio and Brown 1976; and European material. Artifacts noted include projectile points, Brown 1976; White 1990; Swenson and manos, bone needles, shell beads and pendants, trade beads, Bouscaren 1980 hair ornaments, broken pipes, hammerstones, potsherds, flakes, and fire affected rock. Evidence of human cremations also present. CA-RIV-1292 National Register District consisting of the Torres -Martinez King 1972 Reservation Agency buildings; and an archaeological site consisting of potsherds, chipped stone tools, and walk in well. CA-RIV-2250 Over 150 potsherds in association with burnt and unburnt bone. Cook 1981a CA-RIV-2251 Ten lower Colorado Buff Ware sherds and a few pieces of fire Cook 1981b affected rock CA-RIV-5152 Six brown ware sherds Graham, Collet, and Pritchard -Parker 1993a CA-RIV-5153H Three glass shards (one sun -purpled) and three ceramic Graham, Collett, and Pritchard -Parker sherds. 1993b This site, situated at an elevation of -120 feet, is reported to contain the lowest fish camp recorded in the Coachella Valley. Also noted was the fact that although the surface of the site had been disturbed by modern agricultural activities, the "materials were apparently buried too deep in the sand to be disturbed by past agricultural activity". d) Paleontological Sites in the Project Area A records search was conducted at the San Bernardino County Museum on April 6, 1994. No fossil sites in the immediate vicinity of the project were noted in the records search, and no previous field surveys have been recorded for the area. During a walkover survey of the site, paleontological resources were encountered and collected for further study. The marine invertebrates Chione sp., Polinices reclusianus, Pecten (Chlamys) sp., Tagelus sp., Trachycardium sp., Leptopecten sp., Ostrea sp., Lucinisca nuttalli, Saxidomus sp., Florimetis biangulata, Tresus sp., and Nassarius sp. were collected from sediments located in the southern portion of Section 4 and in Section 9 at site BRS-03-01-95-02, in borings B2 and B3 and scattered over the surface of the sections (site locations are shown in the Technical Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-169 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Study in Appendix C). The freshwater invertebrates Physa (Physella) cf. humerosa, Hydrobia protea, Amnicola longinqua and the clam Anodonta cf. califoriensis were collected from sediments located in Sections 32, 33, 4 and 9. Four fossil localities were established, and a representative sample of fossils collected. The localities were established in Section 33 of T.6S R.8E, and Sections 4 and 9 of T.7S R.8E of the USGS Valerie 7.5' Series Quadrangle northeast of the Santa Rosa Mountains in sediments of the Coachella Valley basin. Locality BRS-03-01-95-01 was collected from the southwest corner of the intersection of the levee and Polk Street. The specimens collected were from the surface at an elevation of minus 164 feet below sea level, and the UTM coordinates were 579200 ME; 3716200 mN. Specimens collected were one bivalve specimen, and two gastropod specimens. These specimens are of fresh water origin and Holocene age. They are probably associated with dredging of a nearby levee. Locality BRS-03-01-95-02 was collected from the berm approximately 1,200 feet south of BRS-03-01-95-01 along the eastern boundary of the project. Shell material was observed along the whole length of the berm (from 1,200 feet south of the levee to Avenue 66); therefore, only a representative sample was collected from this locality. The sediments that contained the fossils were a light reddish brown silt/sand and possibly imported from another source. The locality was collected from an elevation of approximately minus 164 feet below sea level, and the UTM coordinates were 579200 mE; 3715700 mN. The specimens encountered were large pectens (Pectin sp. and Leptopecten sp.), oysters (Ostrea sp.), chione (Chione sp.), a razor clam (Tagelus sp.), and a moon snail (Polinices reclusianus). These fossils are marine in origin. Locality BRS-03-01-95-03 was collected approximately 2,100 feet east of the Kohl Ranch buildings and 40 feet south of Avenue 60. The locality was collected from an elevation of approximately minus 139 feet below sea level, and the UTM coordinates were 578350 ME; 3717400 mN. The sediments are described as green/grey clayey siltstone. Specimens collected include numerous small gastropods (mostly Hydrobia protea) in the matrix. These shells are freshwater in origin. Locality BRS-03-02-95-01 was collected approximately 3,500 feet south of BRS-03-01-95-03 and approximately halfway between (0.5 miles) Tyler Street and Polk Street. The locality was collected from an elevation of approximately minus 147 feet below sea level and the UTM coordinates were 578" mE; 3718450 mN The sediments were described as green/grey sandy silt that may have been reworked. Specimens collected are moon snails (Polinices reclusianus), pectens (Pectin sp.), chione (Chione sp.) and oysters (Ostrea sp.). All the specimens are invertebrates of marine origin and were collected from the surface. Borings B1, B2, B3 and B4 all produced specimens of non -marine invertebrates (bivalves and gastropods) during subsurface testing. Borings were augered to a depth of approximately 2 meters and the sediment was screened through a 1/8" mesh screen. Some specimens smaller than 1/8" were picked out of the matrix, and collected. V-170 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Marine fossils were observed weathering out of the reddish brown mudstones and grey/green siltstones and sandstones contained within the project area. The fossil material includes Chione sp., Polinices reclusianus, Pecten (Chlamys) sp., Tagelus sp., Trachycardium sp., Leptopecten sp., Ostrea sp., Lucinisca nuttalli, Saxidomus sp., Nassarius sp., Florimetis biangulata, and Tresus sp. The initial find of these fossils indicates that a rich deposit of fossil material is probable within Sections 4 and 9. The paleontological technical report and research were designed to fulfill the requirements for development of a paleontological resource impact mitigation program, to direct monitoring for paleontological resources in the most efficient manner and to provide partial fulfillment of the reporting requirements of the San Bernardino County Museum. e) Historic Setting The first documented non -Indian incursion into this part of the Coachella Valley dates to 1825 and the Romero -Pacheco expedition, when Captain Jose Romero and Lt. Romuldo Pacheco left the Rancho San Bernardino headed for Yuma. The route they followed took them over San Gorgonio Pass and through Cahuilla Indian territory, with water stops at Agua Caliente (modern Palm Springs) and at "Toros" or Toro's, which was one of two Indian rancherias near the Kohl Ranch project area. The second Indian settlement was Martin's, about five miles east of Toro's and together they form the basis for today's Torres -Martinez Cahuilla Indian Reservation, established by President Ulysses S. Grant on May 15, 1876. Anglo -European interest in the general Project Area increased dramatically after the discovery of gold at La Paz, along the Colorado River, in the 1850s. However, the event which truly opened what we now call the Coachella Valley to non -Indian settlement occurred in the year 1876, when the Southern Pacific Railroad reported the departure of their first cars bound for Indio (then known as Indian Wells), the end of line at that time. In 1885, non -railroad land in the Coachella Valley was opened to homesteading under provisions of the Desert Entry Act. By 1900, about 60 people were living in the environs of Indio, about 40 in Coachella and some 60 others around Mecca. In addition to farming, the local salt industry was of significant economic importance through the turn of the century. The first two decades of the twentieth century can be characterized as the farmstead years for this part of the Coachella Valley. Farm families of primarily Anglo ethnic origin, as evidenced by the 1910 Census, arrived by wagon and rail to homestead the best land and establish small farms and rail head settlements. The Kohl Ranch owes much of its current appearance and dimension (minus Section 9) to the Rummonds brothers, who owned the property from 1953 through 1968. The Rummonds brothers consolidated under their ownership most of the small Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-171 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley o CA parcels that once had been homesteads and all the remaining vacant land to create their ranch. 2) General Plan Policies The RCCGP considers historic, prehistoric, architectural and paleontologic resources to be important County assets and recommends programs, policies and standards to preserve these irreplaceable resources. The following land use standards apply to the proposed project: a) Significant Historic Resources ■ Development proposals shall be assessed for potential impacts upon significant historic resources. If a proposed development site includes a significant historic resource, ... then any significant impacts on the resource must be adequately mitigated. b) Prehistoric Resources ■ Development proposals shall be assessed for potential impacts upon prehistoric resources, including archaeological and paleontological resources. As a result of this assessment, an archaeological study or survey by a consulting archaeologist or paleontologist ... and/or an Environmental Impact Report may be required. ■ If a development proposal would affect Native American resources, appropriate Native American groups or individuals will be consulted during project analysis. ■ Development proposals found to have significant potential impacts upon prehistoric resources are required to provide adequate mitigation of those impacts, in accordance with the recommendations of the consultant and the County. ■ Mitigation may include measures such as monitoring of project grading or construction by a paleontologist, study and documentation of resources, extraction or preservation of resources, or incorporation of the resource into the project. The RCCGP also provides an "Archaeological Probability Survey Matrix" and an "Archaeological Probability Mitigation Matrix." A review of these matrices indicates that a survey is required for the project, and that appropriate mitigation measures, if required, would include salvage (scientific recovery of a representative sample of archaeological materials), preservation (archaeological materials preserved in site) or a constraint map (developed as part of final land division process and kept on file in the County Surveyor's Office). The Composite Environmental Resources Map V-172 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis contained in the RCCGP indicates that the site has low probability for prehistoric resources (See Figure V-6 in Section V.A. above). b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Disturbance of Important Archaeological Resources a) Impact Analysis Archaeological Sites The entire surface of the project area has been disturbed by past and on-going agricultural activities. Soil preparation has consistently disturbed at least the top 60 inches of the project area and irrigation and leach lines have been installed to a depth of up to seven feet. This amount of disturbance has profoundly affected any archaeological sites within the study area boundaries. Surface reconnaissance of the Kohl Ranch resulted in the identification of three archaeological sites, CA-RIV-5509H, CA-RIV-5510/H and CA-RIV-5511H, located in blocks 10, 23 and 50, and eight isolates. In addition, eight areas containing one or more buildings were identified and evaluated. Approximately 160 acres were planted in alfalfa at the time of this study and were not examined (Blocks 25, 33, 34 and 35 of the Kohl Ranch) (see Figure V-30). These areas have potential for containing important cultural resources and should be examined by a qualified archaeologist after plowing but before commencement of grading. CA-RIV-5509 consists of a sparse scatter of historic refuse. This site is located in Planning Area B-5, which is designated for commercial use. Artifacts noted include eight sherds of earthenware and porcelain, a ceramic knob, one shard of white opaque glass, one shard of green glass, and a single sun colored amethyst bottle neck. The site is adjacent to a paved road and has been repeatedly disced and plowed for many years. The likelihood of an intact deposit below the plow zone is highly unlikely given the depth of disturbance. If the size of the deposit was of any consequence (i.e., intact refuse pit, privy pit, etc.) one would expect a higher frequency of artifacts. This site lacks the potential to answer consequential research questions and is therefore not an important cultural resource as defined by CEQA. No further research is required. CA-RIV-55101H is a multicomponent site consisting of both Euro -American and Native American artifacts. This site is located in Planning Area M-4, which is designated for development of medium density residential uses. However, if the southern golf course is developed, this site will be located along the edge of the golf course fairway. The first component is a sparse scatter of historic refuse including six sherds of earthenware, nineteen shards of glass including seven sun colored amethyst glass shards, two fragments of iron, one plastic button, and one fragment of Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-173 Blocks Not Examined for Archaeological Resources : 610 . $a A— :: Areas were planted in alfalfa and unavailable for examination. Numbers are Kohl Ranch block numbers. Coachella Valley, California Scale: 1"=2000' Aoag M COO Figure V-30 V-1 7A Chapter V e Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis red brick. The second component consists of one core, one biface fragment, two primary flakes, one secondary flake, one sherd of Native American pottery (brownware), and one possible ground stone fragment. The site area has been repeatedly plowed and disced for many years. Due to the disturbed nature of the soil, it is not clear if the Native American artifacts were deposited at the same time as the Euro -American items. The presence of Native American artifacts usually indicates a prehistoric (occupied prior to European contact) Native American site. However, the presence of historic refuse directly associated with the flaked stone and potsherd, and proximity of the site to a known Native American habitation (Martinez) that was occupied during the historic period suggests the possibility that the historic and prehistoric material was deposited at the same time by a group of Native Americans living near the present Torres -Martinez Reservation. The site is located in the same area as a cluster of buildings shown on the 1904 Indio quadrangle. The location of these structures along a road that connected the historic Cahuilla villages of La Mesa, Toro, and Martinez, and the existence of a trail that lead from the structures to Martinez Canyon suggests these structures may have been occupied by Native Americans associated with the Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation. If this interpretation is correct, this site may be associated with one of those structures. Artifactual evidence observed on the surface of the site indicates a similar interpretation. The importance of this site is unknown at present. Ideally, this site should be avoided. If avoidance is not feasible, this site should be subjected to a program of additional historic research and test excavation to determine its importance. CA-RIV-5511H is a historic site. This site is located in Planning Area C-4, which is designated for medium density residential use. If the northern golf course is developed, this historic site would be just outside the limits of the golf course fairway. It consists of an old reservoir, well head, concrete foundation, scatter of sun colored amethyst glass fragments, including an entire glass insulator, and numerous palm trees. The east side of the road leading to the site from the south is lined with palm trees indicating that a house may have stood there at one time. Archival research shows a house existing in 1942 that subsequently burned in 1988. The presence of sun colored amethyst glass shards indicates the possible existing of a structure prior to 1942. The importance of this site is unknown. Ideally, this site should be avoided. If avoidance is not feasible, the site should be subjected to a program of additional historic research and test excavation to determine its importance. Isolates Isolates 1, 2, 3 and 4 are each single shards of sun colored amethyst glass fragments and attest to historic use of the area. Isolates 5 and 8 (both ground stone) are believed to have been recently imported to the area during road construction and dumping respectively. Isolates 6 and 7 are lithic debitage resulting from either stone tool production or use and indicate Native American use of the area. None of the lithic artifacts are temporally diagnostic. Archaeological Isolates 1-8 have been sufficiently documented. Isolated artifacts are not considered important cultural resources and require no additional work. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-175 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The extreme disturbance of the top five feet of the project area indicates a very low potential for buried historic deposits. However, given the episodic nature of the infilling and recession of Lake Cahuilla, there is a potential for buried prehistoric deposits, and data from CA-RIV-148 indicates the possibility of intact archaeological deposits below areas disturbed by agriculture. The project area has the potential for containing buried prehistoric deposits. All ground disturbing activities occurring below the plow zone (below five feet) should be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. b) Mitigation Measures C12-1 Avoidance of CA-RIV-5510/H is preferred. This site is located in Planning Area M-4. If it is determined at the development stage that avoidance of CA- RIV-5510/H is not feasible, this archaeological site shall be subjected to a program of additional historic research and test excavation to determine its importance, prior to earth -moving on the site. C12-2 Avoidance of CA-RIV-5511H is preferred. This site is located in Planning Area C-4. If it is determined at the development stage that avoidance of CA- RIV-5511H is not feasible, this archaeological site shall be subjected to a program of additional historic research and test excavation to determine its importance, prior to earth -moving on the site. C12-3 The approximately 160 acres of the Kohl Ranch site that were not examined during field reconnaissance (Blocks 25, 33, 34 and 35) shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist after plowing but before commencement of grading (see Figure V-30). c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than Significant. 2) Impact: Disturbance of Important Historic Resources a) Impact Analysis During the course of surface reconnaissance, several structures or groups of structures (compounds) with ambiguous ages were encountered. Historic, archival research indicates that the structures currently standing on the Kohl Ranch property typically date to the late 1940s. Construction dates for two of the structures were ambiguous, although they were apparently not constructed until after 1940. These structures have been so substantially altered that they are not important cultural resources. Structures on the property that were investigated include: ■ CA-RIV-5511H ■ Kohl Ranch Headquarters ■ Feed Lot ■ Pescador Residence a Reed Residence V-176 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis ■ McDaniel Residence ■ Quonset Hut ■ Unfinished House The only CEQA criterion which applies to the historic resources found within the project area is that which ascribes significance to structures older than 50 years of age. Of the structures present, none presents a clear case for this level of antiquity. No evidence of subsurface archaeological deposits indicating a greater antiquity was observed. These structures do not meet the requirements of important cultural resources and require no additional work. Additional, contemporary resources were observed during reconnaissance and were determined to be unimportant: ■ Levee running diagonally across Section 9; ■ network of leach lines and irrigation lines; Two paved roads, Avenue 61 and Avenue 62; ■ Several earthen berm reservoirs, part of the irrigation system; and ■ Several power lines suspended from wooden utility poles. b) Mitigation Measures None required. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 3) Impact: Disturbance of Paleontological Resources a) Impact Analysis The majority of the Kohl Ranch site has been subjected to agricultural practices for several decades, with disturbance from these activities occurring to a depth of five feet. In areas where underground agricultural tiles (i.e., leach lines) were lain, disturbance has occurred to a depth of approximately 7 feet. Consequently, fossil remains within five feet of the surface, and within 7 feet of the surface in some agricultural areas, may already have been destroyed by cultivation. Construction excavation within the high sensitivity areas may negatively impact any existing paleontological resources. However, implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would lower any impacts to an acceptable level and may provide a positive benefit if fossils are salvaged, curated and made available for public education and scientific study. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-177 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Mitigation Measures C12-4 Within Sections 4 and 9 (T.7S, R.8E), a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to attend the pre -grade meeting, and supervise the paleontological monitoring during earth moving activities in these areas of the proposed project. C12-5 Initially, full-time monitoring shall be conducted during all earth moving activities that extend below 5 feet in Sections 4 and 9 (T.7S, R.8E). Wet screening for small vertebrates will be conducted in the appropriate sediments and a representative sample of fossils shall be collected. Recent (Holocene) alluvial materials or sands have a low paleontologic sensitivity and will not require monitoring. If fossils are found, monitoring requirements will be increased accordingly; if no fossils are encountered, monitoring efforts will be reduced in these sediments. If any adequate sample is collected from the sensitive sediments, the paleontologist may reduce or eliminate monitoring requirements. C12-6 Specimens collected shall be prepared (to a point of identification), identified and curated into a suitable repository that has a retrievable storage system, such as the San Bernardino County Museum. C12-7 A final report summarizing findings shall be prepared at the end of earth moving activities, and shall include an itemized inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality data. This reports shall be sent to the Lead Agency, signifying the end of mitigation. Another copy shall accompany the fossils, along with field logs and photographs, to the designated repository. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) Similar to Concept 1, Concepts 2 through 6 would involve grading and construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing cultural, historic and paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts associated with Concepts 2 through 6 would be the same as for Concept 1 for the following: • Disturbance of Important Archaeological Resources; • Disturbance of Important Historic Resources; and • Disturbance of Paleontological Resources. As with Concept 1, mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The following mitigation measures are required: C12-1, C12-2, C12-3, C124, C12-5, C12-6 and C12-7. V-178 The Planning Center Chapter V . Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 13. Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Existing Conditions The project site is located in the southeastern Coachella Valley, which is bounded by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and southwest, the Salton Sea to the southeast and the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north and east. The Kohl Ranch site is characterized by flat terrain, with a very gentle slope. The majority of the site is currently in agricultural use, although a significant portion in the southern section is vacant, disturbed land with sparse, non-native vegetation. Existing man-made features include the Avenue 64 Evacuation Channel which flows west to east through the project site, and structures associated with current and past farming activities, including an abandoned feed lot. Some limited residential uses occur along the project periphery and Avenue 61. Because of the limited development on the site, views of the nearby mountains framing the valley floor are generally unobstructed. 2) General Plan Policies The RCCGP cites one program that establishes a Special Lighting Area, which encompasses a 30 -mile radius surrounding the Mt. Palomar Observatory. The Special Lighting Area was designated as an area in which to alleviate skyglow impacts on the Observatory. The RCCGP program requires the installation of low pressure sodium lights for all new fixtures within the special lighting area. Also as a part of the special lighting area program, the Riverside County Planning Department, in cooperation with other affected agencies and parties, was to develop and update a map showing the specific boundary to be used in implementing the special street lighting area policies. The RCCGP contains specific street lighting policies to reduce the impact of skyglow to the Mt. Palomar Observatory. The following land use policies pertain to new lighting: ■ All new lighting within the special lighting area will be low pressure sodium vapor. The special lighting area is established as the area within a 30 -mile radius of Mt. Palomar Observatory. ■ Where street lights other than low sodium have been installed along one side of a street segment, low pressure sodium street lights will generally not be required along the other side of the street, unless the existing lights are also changed to the low pressure sodium type. The RCCGP Policies and Programs for the Mt. Palomar Observatory and Special Lighting Area were amended in December 1984. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-179 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3) Riverside County Ordinance Riverside County adopted Ordinance No. 655, entitled Regulating Light Pollution, which became effective in July 1988, and supplements the 30 -mile radius policy for the Mt. Palomar Observatory in the RCCGP. Ordinance No. 655 restricts the permitted use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays that have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research. The ordinance also establishes two lighting zones, Zone A and Zone B, around the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Zone A represents a 15 -mile radius centered on the Observatory, while Zone B represents a 45 -mile radius. The Kohl Ranch project site is located approximately 40 miles from the Mt. Palomar Observatory. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Overview of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan The following sections are excerpts from the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. These sections highlight how the Specific Plan addresses such aesthetic issues as grading, architecture, and lighting, as well as how the Specific Plan reduces aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level. a) Specific Plan Design Concept Certain key design elements will contribute significantly to the visual order and consistency of the entire Specific Plan area. These common features — site planning, architecture, landscape architecture, signage, lighting and other details — are the subject of the Specific Plan Design Guidelines. The guidelines express the desired character of future development, which is represented conceptually in Figure V-31, Community Structure. Each guideline will be considered in terms of how it applies to a given development proposal, during the review process. The Design Guidelines are intended to be flexible and are illustrative in nature. Therefore, over time they can respond to unanticipated conditions, such as changes in taste, community desires and the marketplace. Fundamental principles that are the foundation of the Design Guidelines include the coordinated use of land for passive and active recreational open space, to handle storm drainage and to comply with restrictions of the Thermal Airport Safety Zones. In addition, use of landscaping materials and architectural treatments should be compatible with the desert landscape, as well as the rich agricultural tradition of the Coachella Valley. V-180 The Planning Center Community Structure THE KOHL 11RANCH Coachella Valley, California PROJECT PROJECT Scale: 1"=2000' �� CIV Figure V 31 V-1 81 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Project -Wide and Planning Area Development Standards To ensure a logical, orderly and sensitive development of land uses proposed for the Kohl Ranch, special development criteria, standards and mitigation measures have been created for each Planning Area. These area -specific standards, discussed in detail in Section IV.B. of the Specific Plan, Neighborhood and Planning Area Land Use and Development Standards, provide for appropriate transitions to neighboring land uses. In addition to these specific techniques, project -wide development standards also have been developed as part of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and are designed to complement the individual conditions within each Planning Area (Section IV.A. of the Specific Plan). c) Open Space and Recreation Concept The open space areas are an integral part of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. They provide recreational amenities to residents and workers, and are used to screen development edges from potential noise and visual impacts associated with surrounding arterials. The open space system also provides aesthetically pleasing views both from within the project and from surrounding roadways and adjacent properties. The open space and recreation system for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan includes neighborhood and community parks, golf courses, passive open space and a project - wide trail system. The open space system is organized around the project drainage network and the Thermal Airport safety zones which limit the land uses and densities which can be located on certain portions of the site. Approximately 411.6 acres are devoted to the open space land use category. Under a golf course scenario, this would increase to 588.6 acres. d) Landscape Concept The landscape concept for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan provides criteria for the treatment of areas within roads and easements, medians, land use transitions, development edges and project entries. The landscape concept has been conceived to organize the development and to establish a unified landscape framework that provides continuity throughout the project area and supports the community themes. Proposed landscape materials are intended to direct and guide the resident or visitor to the development, screen sensitive views, and frame or create focal points and views as the motorist and pedestrian moves through and around the project. The landscape concept consists of a hierarchy of recommended plantings that correspond to the roadway classifications and project entry statements. More detailed descriptions of these landscape features are provided in Section IV.C., Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan. The landscape concept is based upon the use of natural desert vegetation both for its visual effect and drought tolerant characteristics. V_182 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The use of water efficient irrigation practices is encouraged, with canal water used for golf courses and public open space areas. e) Streetscapes In order to achieve a cohesive overall circulation system for the Kohl Ranch and provide a strong community structure and identity, a consistent level of landscape design quality for public and private rights-of-way will be maintained. A consistent streetscape treatment will be implemented throughout the project as well as for the roadways surrounding the site. The general streetscape concept combines the use of palm trees with citrus understory, massed in selected locations, supported by turf and plantings of lush desert plants and annual color. The streetscapes are broken down into four major categories with special features and plant forms as indicated, and are applied to the hierarchy of the project roadways: • Palm Tree Streetscape • Formal Canopy Streetscape • Informal Canopy Streetscape • Windrow Planting Plant materials within these areas are intended to create a mood of movement and procession. Plant materials should direct and guide the traveler, screening sensitive views, or framing and creating focal points or "rooms" as the motorist, cyclist or pedestrian moves through the streetscape. f) Architectural Guidelines The Specific Plan includes architectural guidelines, which are intended to produce a feeling of authenticity without creating rigid, over -specific product/style requirements that often lead to architectural blandness and homogeneity. Instead, the architectural guidelines for Kohl Ranch encourage a program of innovative design that reflects the historical desert landscape. g) Wall and Fence Guidelines Walls and fences are of particular functional importance for the Kohl Ranch. Two plans have been developed, one without the golf course and one with the golf course. Walls and fences establish enclosure, confer physical and visual privacy and also provide vertical texture. Walls and fences are especially important in creating a theme for the residential portion of the community. They should, however, be used sparingly and with great consideration so as not to detract from the open space or to simply demark property lines. The material, style and height of walls and fences shall provide an element of continuity throughout the project to insure visual consistency. The walls and fences should be designed with the intent of furthering the architectural character of the site. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-183 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA Walls may be solid, perforated, or hidden from view when security is required, but view retention is desired. As fences are subject to severe exposure they must be well - made. All community and perimeter project walls and fencing are to be provided by the project builder at the time of development. Wherever practical, plant material should be used as a barrier rather than walls and fences. h) Lighting Guidelines In the design of lighting for the Kohl Ranch, careful consideration and coordination must be given to the community architectural and street furniture themes, as well as the safety of the site users. An effort should be made to emphasize "human scale" in public areas adjacent to buildings and along walks. Streetlight standards, traffic signal poles, pedestrian and building lighting play a vital role in defining a safe and secure appearance. This lighting concept has been devised to provide a hierarchy of lighting effects that would contribute to the overall cohesiveness of the community image. i) Signage Guidelines All signs within the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan should be designed to provide a consistent reinforcement of the Kohl Ranch character. Signs must communicate not only specific information but should, in themselves, add to the attractiveness of the area. Signs in the project area should advertise a place of business, a residential area or provide directions and information. They should not compete with each other or dominate the setting via inconsistent height, size, shape, number, color, lighting or movement. An effort shall be made to achieve consistency between building style and sign design. In all cases, signage should be complimentary to the exterior treatment of the building or location involved. In addition, signage typeface should be consistent with building architectural style. 2 Impact: Chane to Visual Character of the Site a) Impact Analysis For purposes of this EIR, visual impacts are considered potentially significant where they would have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic impact. This determination is based on several criteria, including observer position, views and the characteristics of the proposed development. Factors to be considered include development that blocks existing significant public views, is substantially inconsistent with the character, scale, massing, bulk and form of the surrounding development, or proposes substantial terrain modifications. V-184 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Implementation of the proposed Kohl Ranch Specific Plan may significantly alter the existing visual character of the project site and the surrounding area. The visual character of the project site in its current condition, which is vacant and agricultural land, would be replaced with a multi -use development of residential, commercial, industrial and open space uses. These uses would result in the construction of new single -story and multi -story buildings and surface parking areas. While the project would alter the visual aspects of the project site, it is not a significant impact. The Santa Rosa Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains surround the project site and the Coachella Valley. Since the project site is located on the valley floor, it is not anticipated that views of these mountains would be adversely impacted. The Specific Plan includes view corridors that allow both views into and out of the project site. The Santa Rosa Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains are important visual resources in the Coachella Valley. Views of these resources have been preserved in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is an overall development plan for the project area and, at this time, no specific development plans have submitted. As previously discussed, the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan establishes regulations and guidelines for such amenities as landscaping, signage, lighting, etc. It is evident that elements such as pedestrian walkways, parks, additional landscaping and other amenities including lighting and hardscape features will serve to improve the aesthetic value in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan project area and the surrounding area. Implementation of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan would result in the installation of streetscape plantings, which are described in detail for five street categories in Section IV.C.2.d, Streetscapes, in the Specific Plan. The streetscaping plantings would focus views, as well as create beacons that add visual interest in the flat desert landscape. In summary, the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan would result in a more aesthetically pleasing area by ensuring architectural and landscaping consistency in proposed projects and creating a unique and unifying theme throughout the area. b) Mitigation Measure C13-1 All future development projects in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan project area shall be designed in accordance with all applicable criteria in the Planning Standards and Design Guidelines in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-185 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 3) Impact: Creation of New Source of Light and Glare a) Impact Analysis Street lighting in the area surrounding the Mt. Palomar Observatory has resulted in a condition referred to as skyglow. Skyglow interferes with the use of the telescope at the observatory. The preferred light source around a large telescope is low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) because it emits light in a narrow band, which can be filtered out at the telescope. Skyglow impacts to the Mt. Palomar Observatory are not anticipated to be significant, as the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan proposes to install lighting fixtures that are sensitive to the Mt. Palomar Observatory and that are consistent with the requirements in Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. The existing and future developments surrounding the Kohl Ranch project site would be exposed to increases in nighttime glare emanating from on-site lighting sources. Nighttime security lighting for buildings and parking lots would also increase nuisance light emanating from the project site. Glare from reflected sunlight could reflect from any polished or reflective building materials used in the construction of buildings. The use of nonreflective glass and building materials would help keep daytime glare to a minimum. Uses that surround the project site on the valley floor, as well as uses located at higher elevations could be impacted by glare emanating from the project site. These impacts are not anticipated to be significant. The lighting for the project is intended to provide adequate illumination for the safety and comfort of vehicular and pedestrian movement. The goal is not to achieve a monotonous lighting level and pattern, but one which responds to the varied land use and street edge conditions found within Kohl Ranch. The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan contains general lighting guidelines, as well as guidelines for roadway, parking area, pedestrian and entry way, architectural, landscape, and athletic field, court and driving range lighting. b) Mitigation Measures C13-2 Lighting shall conform to the Lighting Guidelines Section, Section IV.C.2.j, of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. The following mitigation measures are general lighting guidelines contained in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. General Lighting Guidelines C13-3 Warm white lighting shall encouraged. Bright colored or blinking lights shall not be encouraged except in theme restaurants and shops of commercial development areas. V-186 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis C13-4 Building or roof outline tube lighting shall be subject to County of Riverside approval. C13-5 Design and placement of site lighting shall minimize glare affecting adjacent properties, buildings, and roadways. C13-6 Careful consideration and coordination shall be given to avoid any potential conflicts with Thermal Airport operations. C13-7 Lighting shall be designed to minimize sky glow and effects on the Mt. Palomar Observatory and the nighttime desert sky. C13-8 Fixtures and standards shall conform to state and local safety and illumination requirements. In particular, lighting shall conform to Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, which includes requirements related to the Mt. Palomar Observatory. C13-9 Automatic timers on lighting shall be designed to maximize personal safety during nighttime use while saving energy. In addition to the lighting guidelines contained in the Specific Plan, the following mitigation measures are recommended. C13-10 The buildings shall use non-metallic, low reflective glass (30 percent or lower reflective factor) and building materials to keep daytime glare to a minimum. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4 Impact: Compliance with General Plan Policies a) Impact Analysis The RCCGP Policies and Programs for the Mt. Palomar Observatory and Special Lighting Area were amended in December 1984. Since that time, Riverside County has adopted Ordinance No. 655, entitled Regulating Light Pollution, which became effective in July 1988. The RCCGP designates a 30 -mile influence area. Ordinance No. 655 established additional standards relating to outdoor lighting. The Kohl Ranch project site is located approximately 40 miles from the Mt. Palomar Observatory, which locates it outside of Zone A of Ordinance No. 655 (15 -mile radius around Mt. Palomar Observatory) and outside the 30 -mile influence area set forth in the RCCGP, but within Zone B (45 -mile radius of Ordinance No. 655). Therefore, the project is subject to the lighting requirements for Zone B. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-187 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA Section 5 of the Ordinance outlines general requirements for preferred lighting sources, shielding, hours of operation and outdoor advertising displays. Section 6, Requirement for Lamp Source and Shielding, of Ordinance No. 655 establishes lamp type and shielding requirements for different lamp classes (Table V-35). Table V-35 RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 655 LAMP TYPE AND SHIELDING REQUIREMENTS Lamp Type 7 Zone A I Zone B CLASS I - OUTDOOR LIGHTING, ADVERTISING DISPLAYS (COLOR RENDITION) Low Pressure Sodium Allowed Allowed Others above 4050 Lumens Prohibited Allowed, if fully shielded Others 4050 Lumens & below Allowed' Allowed CLASS II - PARKING LOTS, WALKWAYS, SECURITY Low Pressure Sodium Allowed Allowed Others above 4050 Lumens Prohibited Prohibited Others 4050 Lumens & Below Prohibited Allowed CLASS III - DECORATIVE Low Pressure Sodium Prohibited Allowed Others above 4050 Lumens Prohibited Prohibited Others 4050 Lumens & below Prohibited Allowed 1 Maximum of 8,100 total lumens per acre or per parcel if under one acre. Note: When lighting is allowed by this ordinance, it must be fully shielded if feasible and partially shielded in all other cases, and must be focused to minimize spill light into the night sky and onto adjacent properties. Source: Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan includes a section devoted entirely to lighting within the project area. The Lighting Guidelines have incorporated the guidelines and restrictions set forth in Ordinance No. 655. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, as well as with Ordinance No. 655. b) Mitigation Measures C13-11 Future development projects shall be subject to the requirements of Section 7 of Ordinance No. 655, which includes the preparation of lighting plans and evidence of compliance. C13-12 All new light fixtures installed shall be consistent with the guidelines in Section 5 (General Requirements), Section 6 (Requirements for Lamp Source and Shielding) and Section 8 (Prohibitions) of Ordinance No. 655. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. V-188 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2, 4 and 5) Concepts 2, 4 and 5 would include a similar amount and type of open space as Concept 1. Therefore, implementation of Concepts 2, 4 and 5 would result in a similar aesthetically pleasing development as Concept 1. In addition, Concepts 2, 4 and 5 would comply with County ordinances and design guidelines in the Specific Plan related to lighting. Concepts 2, 4 and 5 would result in similar impacts as Concept 1: • Change to Visual Character of the Site; • Creation of New Source of Light and Glare; and • Compliance with General Plan Policies. The following mitigation measures will be required: C13-1, C13-2, C13-3, C13-4, C13-5, and C13-6, C13-7, C13-9, C13-10, C13-11 and C13-12. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 6) Implementation of Concepts 3 and 6 would result in the development of large-scale industrial facilities, with buffer areas provided on the perimeter of the project site to avoid unpleasant views from adjacent off-site areas. Approximately the same acreage of open space is included under these concepts. Concepts 3 and 6 would result in similar impacts as Concept 1: Change to the Visual Character of the Site; Creation of New Source of Light and Glare; and Compliance with General Plan Policies. The following mitigation measures will be required: C13-1, C13-2, C13-3, C13-4, C13-5, C13-6, C13-7, C13-8, C13-9, C13-10, C13-11, and C13-12. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-189 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] KOL-O] WDSPEIR3\EIR-V.C3 V-190 The Planning Center PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 1. Circulation and Traffic The following section summarizes the Kohl Ranch Buildout Traffic Study Report Revised prepared in September 1995. Study objectives include 1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; 2) evaluation of Year 2010 traffic conditions for the area surrounding the proposed project; and 3) determination of buildout circulation system features and system management actions needed to achieve County of Riverside level of service requirements. The report in its entirety is contained in Technical Appendix J. a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Existing Conditions a) Area Roadway System Figure V-32 identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are identified. Figure V-33 shows the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. Figure V-34 illustrates the Riverside County arterial cross-sections. b) Traffic Volumes and Conditions Existing average daily traffic (ADT) on arterial highways throughout the study area is shown on Figure V-35. Average daily traffic volumes (ADT) are based upon the latest traffic data collected by the County of Riverside Transportation Department, Traffic Division, Traffic Count Book dated 1993, the 1993 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways by Caltrans and factored up from peak hour counts made for the project. Section III, Area Conditions in the traffic study report describes the methodology used to analyze the intersections in the study area. Please refer to pages 35 to 52 of Technical Appendix J for a full description. Table V-36 depicts the existing conditions for study area intersections. Existing intersection level of service calculations are based upon manual a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts made in September 1994; see Figures V-36 and V-37. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-191 LEGEND: N � 70TH AVE. = TRAFFIC SIGNAL 7 �\U 2U 2U O$ = ALL WAY STOP 2 : = STOP SIGN 4 = NUMBER OF LANES D = DIVIDED U = UNDIVIDED Source: Robert Kahn, John Kaci & Assoc., ?. X THE KOHLIIE13XANCH 04N.? Coachella Valley, California C070 Figure V-32 Existing Number of Through Lanes and Intersection Controls 21-1 52ND AVE. 4D 2D 4D h 2U J 2D 2U 4D ova `rQ� 4D t� l 2U 2U'' `s+N 2U 2U 21-1 2U AIRPORT BLVD.2D 2U 2U 2U 2U 4D U) 2U 2U o w w 2U W CL 2U 2U CL THERMAL AIRPORT DIRT 60TH AVE. 2U L i 2U }s 2U r - - - - - - - - - - 2U DIRT . 2U { 2U L� CC l 2U 2U �! 2U 62ND AVE. 2U 2U 21-11 I 2U i I 2U 2U V N I rJ I I I l \2U z 0 2U z o 2U i ❑ N 2U I I I Of 'SITE 66TH AVE. L ------ (SR -195) S 21-1 2U 2U 2U L 2U w °1 \--,WHITEWATER 2U 2U 0 w 1 U) CHANNEL LEGEND: N � 70TH AVE. = TRAFFIC SIGNAL 7 �\U 2U 2U O$ = ALL WAY STOP 2 : = STOP SIGN 4 = NUMBER OF LANES D = DIVIDED U = UNDIVIDED Source: Robert Kahn, John Kaci & Assoc., ?. X THE KOHLIIE13XANCH 04N.? Coachella Valley, California C070 Figure V-32 SECONDARY !!' ---- MAJOR 100' ARTERIAL 110' H>y MOUNTAIN ARTERIAL 110' URBAN ARTERIAL 1�' 18)0• EXPRESSWAY VARIABLE f■�■R FREEWAY VARIABLE SPECIFIC PLAN ROAD VARIABLE+ BRIDGE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STATE AND FEDERAL LANDS ?r;;','•p'aes::{?�,`:s?;,?::: 1/2 MILE ACCESS RESTRICTION 25' TRANSPORTATION EASEMENT * 4r Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. (40162, COO Fim=e V 33 Riverside County General Plan Roadway Cross -Sections MIN. 2:1 MAX. 2% I CURB�I 'I MLANE I CURB I 27 —CURBED OR PAINTED MEDIAN ARTER1 HiG wAr $+' rL 12' 12' 12' 12' --- +k CONCRETE CURB. GUTTER AND SIDEWALK MAY BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION. *PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR AN INTERIOR RI�W COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL STREET R� 56' 44' 3+. 3. MN. H WL 5�-�---� D 12 12 10 6 I FS�EMIi (CURB CURB -ti l w COLLECTOR *PART WIDTH STREET SECTION FOR ALL COLLECTOR STREET - 34' IMPROVEMENTS ON 48' R/W 2:1 MAX. Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Ing, THE KOHLIRANCH g;o? Coachella Valle California co y, Fi¢ure V.34 Existing Average Daily Traffic Coachella Valley, California Source, Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. COO Fieure V 35 2.5 22.5 14.7 \ \ 52ND AVE. \ 2.9 6.5 8.4 0 5.6 16.59a�j 1 11.7 1 cp 2.5 & S 3.0 3.5 12.9 \ 3.4�a AIRPORT BLVD. 1.5 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.3 � 00 1 I JII W 3.2 9.6 0 1.7 Q THERMAL AIRPORT 10.9 I �� 4 f 60TH AVE. \ J 3.7 4.0 0.3 1.5 t 1.9 6.1 [] L- 0.6 --L] L 1.4 7. 62ND AVE. ------- I 0.4 0.5 1.3 I � 1.1 1 I 0.6 V 1.3 V) N I FJ I I I I z 1.8 z I O I \ 69 1.3 o LA 6.0 SITE a ; 66TH AVE. L -----J (SR -195) 1.6 0.7 0.8 \ 2.5 Lo 6.1 v °? 12.6 WHITEWATER 0 w � CHANNEL FL 70TH AVE. LEGEND: 0.9 1.9 1.6 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 4.7 Coachella Valley, California Source, Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. COO Fieure V 35 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-36 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Intersection Approach Lanes' DeW (mss. Level of Traffic Control Reserve Capacity' Service Northbound - Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Jackson St. (NS) at: All -Way 52nd Ave. (EW) Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1.6 1.6 A A Jackson St. (NS) at: All -Way Airport Blvd. (EW)' Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2.9 2.0 A A Jackson St. (NS) at: Cross Street 60th Ave. (EW)6 Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 317 377 B B Right WB Left Through 449 441 A A Right SB Left 963 943 A A NB Left 987 986 A A Jackson St. (NS� at: Cross Street 62nd Ave. (EW) Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 622 709 A A Right WB Left Through 725 743 A A Right SB Left 983 985 A A NB Left 987 987 A A Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)6 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 11 11 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)6 Signal 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 10 9 B B Harrison St. (NS) at Cross Street 60th Ave. (EW)6 Stop 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 • EB Left Through 426 314 A B Right WB Left Through 408 350 A B Right SB Left 806 718 A A NB Left 791 774 A A Harrison St. (NIT at: Cross Street 62nd Ave. (EW) Stop 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 467 369 A B Right WB Left Through 472 387 A B Right SB Left 815 717 A A NB Left 1 808 789 A A V-196 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-36 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' (Sers•y Level of Traffic Control Northbound Southbound Reserve Capacity' Service Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R AM PM AM PM L T R L T R Harrison St. (NS) at: Cross Street 66th Ave. (EW)5 Stop 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 431 567 A A Right WB Left Through 446 421 A A Right SB Left 808 759 A A • NO Leh 758 734 A A Polk St. (NS) at: Cross Street Airport Blvd. (EW)5 Stop 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 NB Left 526 Right 541 A A WB Left 939 952 A A Polk St. (NS) at: Cross Street 60th Ave. (EW)5 Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 742 701 A A Right WB Left Through 769 790 A A Right • SB Left 998 993 A A NB Left 9981 9971 A I A Polk St. (NS) at: Cross Street 62nd Ave. (EW)5 Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 NB Left Through 799 720 A A Right SB Left Through 745 817 A A Right • EB Left 990 986 A A WB Left 1 997 9991 A I A Polk St. (NS) at: Cross Street Harrison St. (EW)5 Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 EB Left 346 312 B B Through 419 404 A A Right 819 811 A A WB Left 348 342 B B Through 417 401 A A Right 801 792 A A SB Left 793 781 A A NB Left 806 801 A A SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)5 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 1 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)6 Signal 1 1 1>> 1 1 1» 0 1 1 0 1 1 10 10 B B Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-197 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-36 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay' (Secs.0 Level of TraControl Reserve c Pa w Service Northbound Southbound Eastbound WestboundCa L T R L T R L T R L T R AM I PM AM PM SR -111 (NS) at: Cross Street 62nd Ave. (EW)5 Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 473 457 A A Right WB Left Through 513 462 A A Right SB Left 860 841 A A NB Left 887 830 A A SR -86S (NS) at: Cross Street Airport Blvd. (EW)5 Stop 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 0 1 1 0 1 1 EB Left Through 375 344 B B Right 864 870 A A WB Left Through 469 459 A A Right 870 865 A A SB Left 895 900 A A NB Left 847 865 A A Pierce St. (NS) at: Cross Street 62nd Ave. (EW)5 Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 674 649 A A Right • WB Left Through 663 668 A A Right SB Left 997 996 A A NB Left 990 993 A A Pierce St. (NS) at: All -Way 66th Ave. (EW)" Stop 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1.8 2.0 A A Pierce St. (NS) at: Cross Street 70th Ave. (EW)5 Stop 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 EB Left Through 621 596 A A Right WB Left Through 865 775 A A Right SB Left 995 996 A A NB Left 994 981 A A 1 When a right tum is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right tum lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Tum 2 Source: Transportation Research Board, Circular Number 373, (July, 1991) and MGA, CAPSSI (Release 11.0). 3 Source: FHWA, Highway Capacity Software (Release 1.51). 4 Based upon all -way stop control methodology. 5 Based upon unsignallzed intersection reserve capacity methodology. 6 Based upon delay methodology. V-198 The Planning Center Existing AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes WHITEWATER CHANNEL "t) 44A i\ , WeL N Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. 920a co Figure W;6 Existing PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes WHITEWATER CHANNEL Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., In� C QQ 0 Fieure v 37 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis For existing traffic conditions, study area intersections are currently operating within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours. Traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix "A" of Technical Appendix J. HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "B" of Technical Appendix J. c) Transit Service The study area is currently served by the SunLine Transit Agency Routes 90 and 91 along Grapefruit Boulevard (SR -111), Airport Boulevard, 62nd Avenue, 52nd Avenue and Harrison Street (old SR -86). d) Existing Relevant Transportation System Management Programs A trip reduction ordinance has been adopted by the County of Riverside. 2) General Plan Policies The RCCGP lists four objectives related to circulation. They are as follows: 1) monitor land use and economic trends so that the Riverside County Transportation Department can propose modifications to the Circulation Plan; 2) maintain the existing transportation network, while providing for expansion and improvement based on travel demand, and the development of alternative travel modes; 3) encourage the use of road improvement financing mechanisms which equitably distribute the cost of road improvements among those who benefit from the road improvements; and 4) provide bike routes and related bicycle facilities which will form a network in connecting the various communities of Riverside County and forming a continuous link in the overall bikeway system of the State of California. The following land use standards address circulation impacts (access, intersections, on - and off-site road improvements, commercial and industrial development, flooding, dust and blowsand, etc.) associated with development projects: ■ New industrial, commercial and residential development should be designed and developed to promote alternative forms of travel through the use of bikeways, park - n -ride facilities, bus stops and other alternative travel facilities. ■ Through traffic movements shall be limited to general plan roads and shall avoid streets through residential neighborhoods. Provisions shall be made for highways capable of carving high volumes of through traffic between major trip generators. ■ Curves and grades shall be designed to permit safe movement of vehicular traffic at the road's design speed. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-201 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA ■ Whenever access must be taken directly off of a general planned highway for abutting parcels, common access shall be provided at the property line. Parcels on opposite sides of a highway shall have access points located directly opposite each other, whenever possible, to allow for future street intersections and increased safety. ■ Sight distances shall be adequate to provide for safe vehicular movement at a road's design speed. Setbacks allowing for clear, unobstructed sight distance shall be provided at all intersections. ■ Roadways shall be located outside identified floodplains whenever possible. ■ All streets and highways located within identified blowsand areas shall be protected from blowsand hazards. ■ Developments which are identified as major trip attractors (i.e., commercial and employment centers) shall incorporate the potential for public transit service in their design. ■ Bikeways should link major activity centers such as residential areas, employment centers, commercial facilities, recreation areas and education facilities. Bikeways shall be located in aesthetically pleasing surroundings such as through parks, adjacent to scenic highways, and near watercourses, whenever possible. ■ Bikeways shall be developed in compliance with the land use standards established in the Riverside County Bicycle and Facilities Plan. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 1, 2 and 5) The traffic analysis and associated mitigation measures prepared for Concept 1 is to be used to assess the impacts and mitigation measures for Concepts 2 and 5. In terms of impacts and mitigation measures required, Concept 1 represents a "worst case" analysis. Therefore, the impacts for Concepts 2 and 5 fall within the "envelope" of impacts created by Concept 1. 1) Impact: Traffic Generated by Concept I a) Impact Analysis Trip Generation Trip generation represents the amount of traffic that is attracted and produced by a development. The traffic generation for Concept 1 is based upon the specific land uses planned for the Kohl Ranch development. Trip generation rates for Concept 1 are shown in Table V-37. At buildout, the trip generation rates are based upon data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). V-202 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-37 TRIP GENERATION RATES' Peak -Hour AM PM Land Use Units' Daily In Out In Out Light Industrial TSF 0.76 0.16 0.12 0.86 6.97 Heavy Industrial TSF 0.27 0.03 0.06 0.24 1.50 Industrial Park TSF 1 0.72 0.16 0.19 0.72 6.97 Warehousing TSF 0.41 0.161 0.26 0.48 4.88 Residential Low DU 0.19 0.55 0.66 0.35 9.55 Residential Medium DU 0.17 0.50 0.47 0.36 8.00 Residential High DU 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.20 6.59 Retirement/Senior Home DU 0.08 0.09 0.16 0.121 3.30 Office' TSF • 145.9 TSF 1.56 0.19 0.29 1.40 12.80 • 595.9 TSF 1.14 0.14 0.20 0.96 9.08 Commercial Retail" TSF • 68.0 TSF 1.20 0.70 3.78 3.78 81.69 • 136.1 TSF 0.90 0.53 2.93 2.93 62.95 • 407.7 TSF 0.571 0.341 1.971 1.97 41.72 Public Facility AC 9.361 6.241 0.901 2.10 60.00 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, 1991, Land Use Categories 110, 120, 130, 150, 210, 221, 230, 250, 710 and 820. 2 TSF = thousand square feet; DU = dwelling units; AC = acres 3 Office trip generation rates are based upon the following ITE equations for Land Use Code 710: 4 Commercial Retail Rates °a In °'a Out LN(T) = 0.625 Ln (X) + 5.985 0 50 LN(AMT) = 0.777 Ln(X) + 1.67 89 11 LN(PMT) = 0.737 Ln(X) + 1.831 17 83 X = building gross leasable area in TSF AMT = AM peak hour trips PMT = PM peak hour trips Both daily and peak -hour trip generation by zone for Concept 1 are shown in Table V-38. The Kohl Ranch development is projected to generate a total of approximately 110,000 trip -ends per day with 9,270 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour and 12,430 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. Trip Distribution Trip distribution represents the directional orientation of traffic to and from the project site. Trip distribution is heavily influenced by the geographical location of the site, the location of commercial and recreational opportunities and the proximity to the regional freeway system. The directional orientation of project traffic for this study has been based upon the General Plan circulation facilities for Year 2010. The trip distribution patterns for the project are based on the Project Traffic Analysis Zones (Figure V-38) and are graphically depicted on Figure V-39. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-203 Project Traffic Analysis Zones Immul-IIIIIIIIIIIRA) �WMIIIIIIL i Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Ir 91GII cc Figure V.38 LE io Overall Project Traffic Distribution Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Wmj Figure V-39 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA TABLE V-38 CONCEPT 1 TRIP GENERATION Peak -Hour' AM PM Zone Land Use Dailyz In Out In Out 1 Residential Low 75 210 255 135 3,690 Residential Medium 145 430 405 310 6,910 Residential High 40 170 170 90 2,920 Office 230 30 40 205 1,870 Commercial Retail 230 140 805 805 17,010 Industrial Park 780 175 205 780 7,550 2 Residential High 501 205 205 105 3,520 Heavy Industrial 920 100 205 815 5,100 Light Industrial 145 30 25 165 1,350 Office 680 85 120 570 5,410 Industrial Park 450 100 120 450 4,360 3 Light Industrial 895 190 140 1,010 8,200 Warehousing 845 3301 535 985 10,030 4 Retirement/Senior Home 175 195 350 265 7,240 Commercial Retail 80 50 255 255 5,550 Public Facility 255 170 25 55 1,640 5 Retirement/Senior Home 220 250 440 330 9,080 Commercial Retail 125 70 400 400 8,570 TOTAL 6,340 2,930 4,700 7,730 110,000 1. All peak hour trips rounded to the nearest 5. 2. All daily trips rounded to the nearest 10. Traffic volumes shown in Table V-38 consist of the total trips generated for each project land use. As a residential trip generated by the project will also be making trips to a commercial or recreational land use within the project, a double counting of those trips occurs. Ten percent of traffic generated by the project has been removed for the internal interaction of commercial/recreational and residential uses. Modal Split The traffic reducing potential of public transit has not been considered in this report. Essentially the traffic projections are "conservative" in that public transit might be able to reduce the traffic volumes. Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distributions, and proposed arterial highway and local street system. Based on the identified project traffic generation and distributions, project related traffic volumes are shown on Figure V-40. Project a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures V-41 and V-42, respectively. V-206 The Planning Center Concept 1 Average Daily Traffic I FrFNin. 0.9 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) Coachella Valley, California A Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. A066D COO Concept 1 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes JIL 2 ` 52ND AVE. -0-429 W11F 0-1 ILE oflff b ti bi AIRPORT BLVD. 17$-; �00 ,- 3 1 I L91 A x --02 1-4-55 199-1 Nn 0 1� 1Ld 46- �o 6 19 r N �� 0- Y 1--0 11 v+� v r J`ti F -p12 ti 4 60TH AVE. THERMAL AIRPORT { f 2g- In �Q r ----- 2 — eSIm 1 -- T M s9" 310 S ) �bb 6 2ND AVE. T I 2 L �i4 N r I it,7 -1 I i^ Z 1-15 4 � I "xM. 524-1 a J� L 1 r—O o 1 J` I'� 1-0 �� , 146— r �7;24JJ.[ �! S 7ti , L-455 TE (SR -19 _N 0L T4 66Tr C. f, NLn ^� 1-16 LLJ 146 �� w LLJ I --13 � 37- 1 0l ,70— cif 70TH AVE. JL a 215 ML - p rr m q�9 211 L89 17 b� 50�� JL1 '�48 L-0 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., In (, THE KOHLIOXANCHQ y� Coachella Valle California coo Figure V 41 Concepti 1 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ISL _ggf f 52ND AVE. 1 re, Ji��ppqq L 239- AIRPORT BLVD. ' 41 €) �j' �-Q �j235 J Y L F� J 05 c0 _ Y J JO w 10 38 �b 46 r 15 �f Q " n p 3 60TH AVE. THERMAL AIRPORT 2ID-11 �i � �"—�344 r F 230 , %• I 1 r 0 2ND AVE. I ill. � 33 J I L X94 I a I T �� I mai 0 �� j' S � Im n-18518 JYL f1 f :�] I I I � I o_IQ i �Z J 1 I� i--- ` � 1367- �- 386 1 to nb 0 (-188 N 7gyVE. 3"0-'L 1 66T I 1 �— ----� 300-1_SITE (SR 19 -�L r�—o23 }irs� 39 � l I ®� y 73J�. 1541 J �L �39 N 33g3 -J_ Z�r 386 � N W Y- L-19 4 J �11 r 6— v 63--- 1 I� 70TH AVE. - L -o 3-t 332J "L X16 D :E � '-0 �41� 339 f1s),E7 I f r 12 �° _� 369:� THE KOHLIRANCH Coachella Valley, California 0--j ji:i:s rin ,—t344 229- Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Mn NJ Figure V 42 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Mitigation Measures Dl -1 Project roadways shall be aligned and sized as illustrated on Figure V-43 and Table V-39. "A" Street, from 60th Avenue to Polk Street, shall be constructed to an Arterial highway (110 foot right-of-way) cross-section within the project boundaries and along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-43 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway in conjunction with development. D1-2 60th Avenue adjacent to the site shall be downsized and constructed at its ultimate part -width standard as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-3 Polk Street adjacent to the project site shall be constructed from the north project boundary to 66th Avenue at its ultimate half -section width as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. Dl -4 Tyler Street from "C" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate part -width standard as a collector roadway adjacent to the project site, from 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. D1-5 62nd Avenue from "A" Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate half -section width as a secondary highway adjacent to the project site, between "C" Street and the west project boundary in conjunction with development. D1-6 66th Avenue from Tyler Street to Polk Street shall be constructed at its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-7 "B" Street from "A" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. Dl -8 "C" Street from 60th Avenue to "A" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) from "A" Street to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. D1-9 "D" Street from 62nd Avenue to Polk Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. V-210 The Planning Center Concept 1 Circulation Recommendations AVE. i __ __-�- ----t-------v— I I I � I I 00 I I V) I V , I ---- ■ �_- — L ------- ■ z O■.� Cn q., o----�� Of L■��► ■ h ■� a 62ND Jaz�m+w 219106 Fe a 11M -F AVE. I , � p I -I f Uj� � SITE 1p ■ 1 II �■ I I no 1 II 1 L. p ` 4 I I �� _ _I �1 I. `' 4 r■ f' II � a i l ■ LEGEND: 4400 = ARTERIAL ■■no = MAJOR i ■ ■ a. = SECONDARY I I� = INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR II I COLLECTOR ACCESS LOCATION I I ___ _�_ _ c RESTRICTED ACCESS■■��■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ (NO LEFT TURN OUT) TH AVE. = TRAFFIC SIGNAL i = STOP SIGN THE KOHL RANCH. Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. e 0Q, 070 Figure V 43 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-39 ON-SITE ROADWAY SEGMENT IMPROVEMENTS Facility No Project Concept 1 Concept 4 Concept 6 °A° St. 60th Ave. to Polk St. N/A' Arterial Cross- Section Major Cross -Section Secondary Cross -Section 60th Ave. Adjacent to the site Arterial Industrial Collector Industrial Collector Industrial Collector Half -Section Half -Section Half -Section Polk St. 60th Ave. to 66th Ave. Major Major Half -Section Major Half -Section Major Half -Section Tyler St. "C" St. to 62nd Ave. N/A Collector Cross -Section Collector Cross -Section Collector Cross -Section 62nd Ave. to 66th Ave. N/A Collector Half -Section Collector Half -Section Collector Half -Section 62nd Ave. "A" St. to "C" St. Secondary Secondary Cross -Section Secondary Cross -Section Secondary Cross -Section "C" St. to western property Secondary Secondary Half -Section Secondary Half -Section Secondary Half -Section boundary 66th Ave. Tyler St. to Polk St. Secondary Secondary Half -Section Secondary Half -Section Secondary Half -Section — — "B"St. "A" St. to 62nd Ave. N/A Secondary Cross -Section Industrial Collector Industrial Collector Cross - Cross -Section Section "C" St. 60th Ave. to "A" St. N/A Industrial Collector Industrial Collector Industrial Collector Cross -Section Cross -Section Cross -Section "A" St. to 66th Ave. N/A Secondary Cross -Section Secondary Cross -Section Industrial Collector Cross -Section "D" St. 62nd Ave. to Polk St. N/A Industrial Collector Industrial Collector Industrial Collector Cross -Section Cross -Section Cross -Section "E" St. Polk St. to "C" St. N/A Secondary Cross -Section Secondary Cross -Section Industrial Collector Cross -Section "C" St. to Tyler St. N/A Collector Cross -Section Collector Cross -Section Collector Cross -Section 1 N/A = Not Applicable. V-212 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis D1-10 "E" Street from Polk Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way) from "C" Street to Tyler Street in conjunction with development. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 2) Impact: Level of Service at General Plan Buildout Without Concept_ 1 a) Cumulative Future Conditions For cumulative future conditions, the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) Model has been utilized as a starting point to forecast Year 2010 traffic volumes. Estimated Volumes Total traffic volumes projected for Year 2010 traffic conditions without the project are shown on Figure V-44. b) Impact Analysis The resulting volume -to -capacity ratios based on current Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element classifications are shown on Figure V-45. Long range future intersection levels of service for the Year 2010 network without the proposed project are shown in Table V-40. Table V-40 shows HCM calculations based on approach lane configurations identified for buildout of the General Plan, without additional improvements. The study area intersections are projected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours with traffic signals. HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "D" of Technical Appendix J. Year 2010 a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volumes without the project are shown on Figures V-46 and V-47, respectively. c) Mitigation Measures No changes to the current General Plan Circulation Element are required. d) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Draft EIR a May 13, 1996 V-213 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley A CA TABLE V-40 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITHOUT CONCEPT 1 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delays Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (Secs.) Service L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Intersection Control Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 10 12 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 10 11 B B Harrison St. (NS) at., Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 10 10 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 9 9 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 9 9 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 6 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 10 11 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 10 10 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Harrison St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 6 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW) Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 9 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic Airport Btvd. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 7 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 8 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 7 7 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 8 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 9 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 7 B B V-214 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-40 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITHOUT CONCEPT 1 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay, Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (Secs.) Service L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Intersection Control Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 5 1 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 1 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 11 12 B 1 B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic l 1 1 70th Ave. (EW)3 Signal i l 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 6 6 B B 1 When a right tum is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Tum 2 Source: MGA, CAPSSI (Release 11.0). 3 Based upon delay methodology. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-215 Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., In( AAQ co Figure V-44 Year 2010 Study Area Average Daily Traffic Without Project 17.2 48.5 8.8 28.7 20.8 52ND AVE. 12.9 13.5 15.1 6.1 X41.7 8.6 23.8 17.8 15.4 AIRPORT BLVD. 8.3 9.8 8.8 13.6 6.7 U) p N Ui U 8.2 00 1 20.6 0 4 17.2 L v C1. 8.9 THERMAL AIRPORT 1 � �T' J 60TH AVE. 6.0 6.3 6.0 2.3 1 17.9 5.433.0 21.2 7.4 1 4.2 10.5 62ND AVE. 1.8 3.1 3.0 8.2 8.6 'T' 8.0 6.6 � 15.3 � 13.7 24.1 � V) z 16.5 7.0 Z V) O N 1 3.9 WHITEWATER �' i CHANNEL 66TH AVE. (SR --19 3.2 3.4 4.8 .\ 7.5 16.3 F-: \ 14.3 5.6 w rn 8.7 r cf 5.2 w cr- a .) 16.4 70TH AVE. LEGEND: 3.6 4.6 3.2 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 12.9 Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., In( AAQ co Figure V-44 Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratios Without Project 0.11 = VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO 0141111, -3 wt�L 16*111 Coachella Valley, California 43 Source: Robert Kahn, john Kain & Assoc., Inc. 401Q, CO Figure V-45 jh - 16 1� F-: I I r 4 L Z�r JT°C 3� H 60TH AVE. ND AVE. Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Without Project { L ;L-�7 AIRPORT BLVD. xI{ 0 CL a W �� THERMAL AIRPORT H N Z 0 V) CC Q S Coachella Valley, California 5i�:; � L' 7I H x-246 N u� w � U � N^ W 70TH AVE. �36 367 r 28,--- L-20 J` L P8 z �1 -4- Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc( a COO F;onr,. V.AA ;U AVE. Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Without Project .r � .�' AIRPORT BLVD. r I44ITQ- Y -,�r o T-, 1L THERMAL AIRPORT Coachella Valley, California V- 5$Q-� r 32r-R1nUiW d � TH AVE. -N if r -4t 474- 48--1 1�w Tw Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. 04Q, CvA The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA 3) Impact: Year 2010 Level of Service With Concept 1 and Tvpical General Plan Improvements a) Impact Analysis Total traffic volumes projected for Year 2010 traffic conditions with Concept 1 are shown on Figure V-48. The resulting volume -to -capacity ratios based on current Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element classifications are shown on Figure V-49. Future intersection levels of service for the Year 2010 network with Concept 1 are shown in Table V-41. Table V-42 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the intersections with approach lane configurations identified for buildout of the General Plan, without additional improvements. The following study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours: TABLE V-41 CONCEPT 1 INTERSECTIONS OPERATING AT UNACCEPTABLE LOS DURING PEAK HOURS Intersection Level of Service A.M. P.M. 62nd Avenue (NS) at: "A" Street (EW) D F Polk Street (NS) at: 62nd Avenue (EW) n/a D SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: 62nd Avenue (EW) F F SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: 62nd Avenue (EW) F F HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "E" of Technical Appendix J. Year 2010 a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with the project are shown on Figures V-50 and V-51, respectively. It should be emphasized that the approach lane geometrics shown in Table V-42 support areawide travel demand projected to occur in the Year 2010 time frame and do not constitute improvements needed with the addition of project traffic to existing conditions. b) Mitigation Measures D1-11 To ensure that off-site roadway improvements (see Table V-43) are provided in conjunction with each development phase, the following development monitoring requirements shall be followed throughout the study area: a. Traffic impact study reports shall be required with submittal of tentative tract maps or plot plans as required by the County of Riverside. b. The required format for each traffic impact study report shall be determined by the County of Riverside. The required format shall include evaluation of peak hour conditions at intersections significantly impacted by each phase of development. V-220 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis C. If an impacted intersection is estimated to exceed County service level standards, then appropriate link and intersection improvements shall be required to be presented for County staff review. d. The improvements needed to maintain the County service level standards shall be required to be in place or funding assured prior to occupancy of the relevant development phase. Because off-site improvements are generally needed to serve areawide growth, the developer shall initiate efforts to establish an areawide fee program or funding district to implement General Plan roadway improvements, prior to the issuance of building permits. Without a district or fee program in place, the proposed project would be responsible for providing the off-site improvements necessary for adequate circulation at each project phase. Draft EIR • Mav 13, 1996 V-221 Year 2010 Study Area Average Daily Traffic With Concept 1 I FrFKin- 4.1 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) U, Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., InN SHE KOHLIRANCH. 22. Coachella Valley, California NO 'Fivitrr V- d92 FC.FNn- 0.14 = VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity With Concept 1 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. THE KOHLIRANCHAID Coachella Valley, California 0 igure V.49 J L � — le— 71r Coachella Valley, California ti y y�J�l 1764- 200--1 i r f4]4Y \ i — I W _�pp � U 70TH AVE. oma, I� L—I0 L s �o �t rz 57-1 1! Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., In" COO Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 1�- rpn 33 \ 1" 47� 1 t r 52ND AVE. X70 �73 rT�L y�27$ y7— I 26 �4�LIWV� JL --505 14i—} `3 AIRPORT BLVD. AL 7j7— F-: U) rr, r'a ,3 L �' 3g� r o o i 60TH AVE. THERMAL AIRPORTr i I r �E9 L - - 50)79 rj 9— 2ND AVE. * l 'T r m !:Ilio LI' g y N (n d?ff�:v L--150 E y I CJ ; tyo JTL�o 225--J r 4 �. 5� 78--J �,=T1TE AATi.4 ^v I L- ---� �e lSR `I9 J L ---4702 3 2 J L � — le— 71r Coachella Valley, California ti y y�J�l 1764- 200--1 i r f4]4Y \ i — I W _�pp � U 70TH AVE. oma, I� L—I0 L s �o �t rz 57-1 1! Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., In" COO J -T L 3V U, Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 1 4k 01 l a 1 qj� 1,ib Coachella Valley, California 1-10 J L I x161 ;_0 ^' 11•--t JL a - rT�-L ? L �-' � 249 r r Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain &Assoc., Inc. 52ND AVE- j, / '1Yr taa��18 JAL rte_ �2 a JMf L5 ° -, ria � ��', �T--L� 1 , qtr RL r-3 AIRPORT BLVD. ` 1171-- t9--1 cn � 00 3!S to v w i LLJ B ge CL L-31 r JiL r�-46 THERMAL AIRPORT i j9 60TH AVE. _______®1 -rte 1 2ND AVE. U) ° V' T o .� L-188 1 L �a o I I c' ° t w�1. `� JAL 1--,o ` J :' f S ITE ;7366TH E. L_ _w�J (SR 19 J !. 6 ok J I L ►� 441, ~ Ld^ Lo t V)V �r mm 4k 01 l a 1 qj� 1,ib Coachella Valley, California 1-10 J L I x161 ;_0 ^' 11•--t JL a - rT�-L ? L �-' � 249 r r Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain &Assoc., Inc. The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. TABLE V-42 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 1 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Approach Lanes' Dela Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (Secs.) Service L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Intersection Control Jackson St. (NS� at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 8 1 8 B B Jackson St. (NN at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 16 B C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 14 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 15 24 C C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 14 15 B C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B "B" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 110 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 15 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11 13 B B "C St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 6 8 B B 62nd Ave. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 31 62 D F Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 16 21 1 C C Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 1 8 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 1 62nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 17 31 C D Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic "D" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 11 B B Polk St. (NS1 at: Traffic "E" St. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 12 16 B C Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Harrison St. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 8 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> I 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 12 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 1 1 1 1 1 Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 11 11 B B V-226 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-42 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR2010 WITH CONCEPT 1 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (Secs.) Service L —T FR L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Intersection Control SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 10 12 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 1 7 9 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Traffic Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 7 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 8 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 209 1 131 F F SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 90 1235 F F SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 8 1 9 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 8 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 5 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 11_1 13 B I B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 1 1 1 1 I 70th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 6 6 B B 1 When a right tum is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; >> = Free Right Turn 2 Source: MGA, CAPSSI (Release 11.0). 3 Based upon delay methodology. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-227 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-43 OFF-SITE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Facility No Project Concept 1 Concept 4 Concept 6 62nd Ave. Polk St. to SR -86S Secondary Arterial Major Secondary Harrison St. Airport Blvd. to 60th Ave. Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Polk St. Airport Blvd. to 60th Ave. Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial 60th Ave. to north project boundary Major Major Major Major 66th Ave. to Harrison St. Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary 60th Ave. Jackson St. to Harrison St. Arterial Arterial Arterial Arterial Harrison St. to west project boundary Major Major Major Major 62nd Ave. Jackson St. to Harrison St. Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Harrison St. to west project boundary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary 66th Ave. Harrison St. to west project boundary Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary Polk St. to Pierce St. Major Major Major Major Pierce St. to SR -86S Major Major Major Major 4) Impact: Year 2010 Level of Service With Concept 1 and Additional General Flan Improvements a) Impact Analysis Intersection approach lane geometrics required for Year 2010 traffic conditions at study area intersections are shown in Technical Appendix J. Although they should not be considered as project mitigations, the figures in Technical Appendix J illustrate additional approach lanes required when project traffic is included in the Year 2010 travel demand. As shown in Table V-44 for Year 2010 traffic conditions with Concept 1 and with traffic signals at the study area intersections, the intersections in the vicinity of the site are projected to operate within Level of Service "C" or better during the peak hours. HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "E" of Technical Appendix J. b) Mitigation Measures The following changes are recommended for the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element (see Figure V-52): D1-12 Construct "A" Street between 60th Avenue and Polk Street as an Arterial Highway (along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-52), to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway. V-228 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis D1-13 Upgrade the classification of 62nd Avenue east of Polk Street to SR -86S to an Arterial highway classification from a Secondary highway classification. D1-14 Designate "B" Street between "A" Street and 62nd Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. D1-15 Designate "C" Street between "A" Street and 66th Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. D1-16 Designate "E" Street between "C" Street and Polk Street as a Secondary highway classification. D1-17 Downgrade 60th Avenue between the northwest corner of the project east to Polk Street to an Industrial Collector and delete as an Arterial Highway classification on the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element to accommodate the planned extension of the runway at Thermal Airport. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. TABLE V-44 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 1 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay2 Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (Secs.) Service L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Intersection Control Jackson St. (NS� at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 8 B B Jackson St. (NSl at; Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 7 7 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 16 B C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 1 14 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 13 18 1 B C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 12 14 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B "B" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 1 15 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 13 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 8 B B 62nd Ave. (NS) at; Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 17 15 C B Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-229 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA TABLE V-44 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 1 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay Level of Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (Secs.) Service L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Intersection Control Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 12 15 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 8 B B Polk St. (NS) at; Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 16 22 C C Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic "D" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 11 B B Polk St. (NSI at: "E" St. (EW) Traffic Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 11 12 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 1 Harrison St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 8 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 11 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 10 12 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 1 7 9 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 7 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 7 1 8 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 1 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 3 3 1 A A SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW) Signal 1.5 0 0.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1>> 0 2 1 9 7 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 8 1 9 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 8 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 5 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 11 13 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 1 70th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B 1 When a right tum is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped To function as a right turn lane there must he sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = fell; T = Through; R = Right,, >> = Free Right Turn 2 Source: MGA, CAPSSI (Release 11.0). 3 Based upon delay methodology. V-230 The Planning Center Revised General Plan Circulation Element for Concept 1 LEGEND: 4" = ARTERIAL r..�� = MAJOR si = SECONDARY = ■1 COLLECTOR = TRAFFIC SIGNAL : = STOP SIGN = RECOMMENDED UPGRADE = RECOMMENDED DELETION Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. THE KOHL RANCH QQ �� Coachella Valley, California C007. .— The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 5) Impact: Compliance with General Plan Circulation Policies a) Impact Analysis Study area intersections are projected to achieve Level of Service "C" or better during the peak hours for Year 2010 (General Plan Buildout) traffic conditions with traffic signals and with improvements that are consistent with the recommended General Plan Circulation Element classifications discussed above. The County has established, as a Countywide target, a Level of Service "C" on all County maintained roads and conventional State Highways, except that a Level of Service "D" could be allowed in urban areas only at intersections of any combination of Major Streets, Arterials, Expressways, or conventional State Highways within one mile of a freeway interchange and also at freeway ramp intersections. Road Design The project has been designed to use a network of local streets for neighborhood traffic, and nearby highways (including 60th Avenue, 62nd Avenue, 66th Avenue, Harrison Street and Polk Street) for through traffic. Cross-sections and ultimate alignments would be designed to meet Riverside County Transportation Department requirements. Site Access Access locations along general plan highways have been recommended to minimize conflicting turning movements along routes serving through traffic and to provide safe intersections. Ridesharing To encourage ridesharing/transit ridership and reduce commute trip impacts on access routes to SR -86S, a portion of the commercial parking areas should be designated for Park -N -Ride use on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Bicycle Routes The plan of Bicycle Routes of the RCCGP depicts that the project is in the vicinity of General Plan Class I and Class II bikeway facilities. Harrison Street (old SR -86) and the Whitewater Channel are proposed for Class I facilities. Jackson Street and 66th Avenue are proposed for Class II facilities. Alternative Transportation Modes Potential bus turn -out locations and design features have been recommended (Figures V-53 and V-54). V-232 The Planning Center 6M 1 AV M DO I Cr Z O o' IY Q 2 6� AVER Bus Turnout and Stop Locations --_--_-__.-_-x ____---___ I I I I I I I L_ I I I I L____J I I I I I I LEGEND: ® = BUS TURNOUT D = BUS STOP w I 0 I I I I P. -Imp, ---� I I AVE. I I r--� I I I H c!i L------- J I O I I I I CL I I I LND 66TH AVE. Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. a 60' arc Bus Turnout Design Parameters �01_ R26-BS giv Coachella Valley, California LEGEND: CONCRETE PAD Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., In; �� Fi cure V. 54 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The commercial portion of the project should provide on-site bike racks to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative means of transportation and encourage site plans that are easily accessible to bicycles. b) Mitigation Measures D1-18 The project shall contribute to the installation of traffic signals when warranted through the payment of traffic signal mitigation fees. The traffic signals shall be installed as warranted through the tract map or plot plan level traffic studies. D1-19 The developer shall comply with the trip reduction ordinance of the County of Riverside. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 6) Impact of the Proposed Project on Alternative Forms of Transportation a) Impact Analysis The proposed project includes provisions to increase interconnections between land uses with the placement of commercial, recreation and employment centers in relation to residential uses within the project. In addition, the project includes commercial, institutional, and community center uses that will provide opportunities to store vehicles for those who wish to rideshare with others or use mass transit. b) Mitigation Measures D1-20 As development in the area occurs, the SunLine Transit Agency shall be requested to consider expanding service within the area. D1-21 To accommodate future bus service on key roadways, transit stops shall be anticipated at the far side of major intersections (see Figure V-53). Sunline Transit Agency shall renew transit recommendations in the study area. Figure V-54 shows the recommended bus turnout design parameters. Pedestrian access to the bus stops shall be provided. D1-22 The commercial portion of the project shall provide on-site bike racks to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative means of transportation. D1-23 To encourage ridesharing/transit ridership and reduce commute trip impacts on access routes to SR -86S, a portion of the commercial parking areas shall be designated for Park -N -Ride use on weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-235 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 7) Provision of Adequate Access To and Brom the Project Area a) Impact Analysis The proposed project would have access to 60th Avenue, Polk Street, 66th Avenue, Tyler Street and 62nd Avenue. Figure V-45 illustrates the roadway access connections needed for each zone to provide access from the existing network. The development of the Kohl Ranch will occur in a sequence of phases that are defined by the availability of infrastructure and public services as well as market conditions. b) Mitigation Measures D1-25 Access to roadways shall be oriented to the appropriate locations shown on Figure V-43. Precise access locations and the phasing of roadway improvements shall be determined at the plot plan, use permit or tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the Riverside County Transportation Department. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 3 and 4) The traffic analysis and associated mitigation measures prepared for Concept 4 are to be used to assess the impacts and mitigation measures for Concept 3. In terms of impacts and mitigation measures required, Concept 4 represents a mid-range analysis among all of the Land Use Concepts. The impacts and mitigation measures for Concept 4 can be expected to exceed those for Concept 3; therefore, the impacts for Concept 3 fall within the "envelope" of impacts created by Concept 4. 1) Impact: Traffic Generated by Concept 4 a) Impact Analysis Trip Generation Both daily and peak -hour trip generation by zone for Concept 4 are shown in Table V-45. The proposed Concept 4 development is projected to generate a total of approximately 82,530 trip -ends per day with 9,075 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour and 10,700 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. V-236 The Planning Center Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TriR Distribution See discussion under Concept 1. Modal Split See discussion under Concept 1. TABLE V-45 CONCEPT 4 TRIP GENERATION PEAK -HOUR' AM PM ZONE LAND USE DAILY' IN OUT IN OUT 1 Industrial Park 780 175 205 780 7,550 Heavy Industrial 1,500 165 335 1,335 8,340 2 Industrial Park 450 100 120 450 4,360 Office 505 60 90 435 4,050 Heavy Industrial 1,185 130 265 1,050 6,570 Light Industrial 145 30 25 165 1,350 3 Light Industrial 895 190 140 1,010 8,200 Warehousing 845 330 5351 985 10,030 4 Retirement/Senior Home 175 195 350 265 7,240 Commercial Retail 80 50 255 255 5,550 Public Facility 255 170 25 55 1,640 5 Retirement/Senior Home 220 250 440 330 9,080 Commercial Retail 125 70 400 400 8,570 TOTAL 1 7,160 1,915 3,185 F7,515 82,530 1. All peak hour trips rounded to the nearest 5. 2. All daily trips rounded to the nearest 10. Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distributions, and proposed arterial highway and local street system. Based on the identified traffic generation and distributions, Concept 4 related traffic volumes are shown on Figure V-55. Concept 4 a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures V-56 and V-57. b) Mitigation Measures D1-25 Project roadways should be aligned and sized as illustrated on Figure V-58 and Table V-39. "A" Street, from 60th Avenue to Polk Street, shall be constructed to a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way) cross-section within the project boundaries and along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-58 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway in conjunction with development. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-237 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA D1-26 60th Avenue adjacent to the site shall be downsized and constructed at its ultimate part -width standard as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-27 Polk Street adjacent to the project site shall be constructed from the north project boundary to 66th Avenue at its ultimate half -section width as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-28 Tyler Street from "C" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate part -width standard as a Collector roadway adjacent to the project site, from 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. D1-29 62nd Avenue from "A" Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway adjacent to the project site, between "C" Street and the west project boundary in conjunction with development. D1-30 66th Avenue from Tyler Street to Polk Street shall be constructed at its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-31 "B" Street from "A" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-32 "C" Street from 60th Avenue to "A" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) from "A" Street to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. D1-33 "D" Street from 62nd Avenue to Polk Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-34 "E" Street from Polk Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way) from "C" Street to Tyler Street in conjunction with development. V-238 The Planning Center Concept 4 Average Daily Traffic m 4.1 52ND AVE. 2.5 1 1.7 THE OIL RANCH C n n Ik P I 1 n V n I I P I7 \. '3 1 1 t r% V " 1 7 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale E076 P] �0 � � 16.5 4.9 7.6 1.5 4.9 4 AIRPORT BLVD. 1 4.1 4.1 1.7 5.7 4.1 N W 4.9 00 1 10.0 Y. 0.8 ' w N .. a- 7.4.E CL THERMAL AIRPORT I �� i \.r 60TH AVE. 13.2 4.8 17.3 --12.4 9.1-1 0.8 T 15.7 8.3 9.9 3.3 6.6 C L -1 ST 5.8 22.2 r- 1 62ND AVE. i� s 4.1 6.6 11.5/"'9.9 10.7 22.2 '7' 22.2 4.1 9.7 9.9 13.6 5.9 N z10.7 3.3 9.3� i � i 5.5 Z 64TH AVE. * O vii �' 1.6 5.7 [� 1. I WHITEWATER a' = 1.7 8• SITE SITE 9.2 66TH AVE. i f__ ___J ('SR -19 0.9 2.6 5.7 11.6 7.5 1.6 N 'n 7.5 1.7 3.3 w Im T 4.1 w a� 8.3 70TH AVE. LEGEND: 4.1 0.9 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 5.0 THE OIL RANCH C n n Ik P I 1 n V n I I P I7 \. '3 1 1 t r% V " 1 7 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale E076 P] Concept 4 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 52ND AVE. A JIL ��z y AIRPORT BLVD. ^ N U rAl2 o � { � ..� } THERMAL AIRPORT ' 60TH AVE. r — ------1 r-418.4 rj [ �+ L 1 1 2ND AVE. AZ a 4 r 0 TH 4 iii SITE 66TH E. L_ -J (SR 19 J • .o L-414 � m`� N L Uj W W� W V) 70TH AVE. 74-J 49 � Uf Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc`, Not to Scate HKOHL RANCH Coachella Vallev. California 000 7 Concept 4 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 52ND AVE. TIT �v JT �60 AIRPORT BLVD. 11t; 0 g17 L) LJ -y f� }fia. r 60TH AVE. THERMAL AIRPORT '9• �- ' bbb :2ND AVE. L i N z SITE �FL THE KOHLIRANCH Coachella Vallev. California {SR 19 J1 r—r N U) Y- IL 70TH AVE. ,o : r Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale 246P Concept 4 Circulation Recommendations AVE. -1--_� _ _�__ --------r--# C � ! � I I I f � I I L— L----- L------, u1 L--- Z O ! of L---- L_ ` AVE. Nx. �`sjrw I s4 v~i1 SITE L_J �'� •ter LEGEND: Ila i ;; s @000 = ARTERIAL mimmor = MAJOR ■ ■r:. = SECONDARY I �� COLLECTOR - -- = COLLECTOR = ACCESS LOCATION c=� a RESTRICTED ACCESS (NO LEFT TURN OUT) es.ri��rr�r�ii��=�� TH AVE. = TRAFFIC SIGNAL i = STOP SIGN THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Vallev, California F- V) Y J O a 62ND IMMENA Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale COO Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 2) Impact: Level of Service at General Plan Buildout Without Concept 4 Cumulative future traffic conditions for the Year 2010 would remain the same, regardless of which land use concept is implemented. As with Concept 1, no mitigation measures are required for Concept 4. Impacts will be less than significant. 3) Impact: Year 2010 Level of Service and Concept 4 With Typical General Plan Improvements a) Impact Analysis Total traffic volumes for Year 2010 with Concept 4 are shown on Figure V-59. The resulting volume -to -capacity ratios based on current Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element classifications are shown on Figure V-60. Future intersection levels of service for the Year 2010 network with Concept 4 are shown in Table V-46. Table V-47 shows HCM calculations based on the geometries at the intersections with approach lane configurations identified for buildout of the General Plan, without additional improvements. The following study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours: TABLE V-46 CONCEPT 4 INTERSECTIONS OPERATING AT UNACCEPTABLE LOS DURING PEAK HOURS Intersection Level of Service A.M. P.M. Polk Street (NS) at 62nd Avenue (EW) C D SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at 62nd Avenue (EW) F E SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at 62nd Avenue (EW) F F HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "F" of Technical Appendix J. Year 2010 a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with Concept 4 are shown on Figures V-61 and V-62, respectively. It should be emphasized that the approach lane geometries shown in Table V-47 support areawide travel demand projected to occur in the Year 2010 time frame and do not constitute improvements needed with the addition of project traffic to existing conditions. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-243 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-47 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR -2010 WITH CONCEPT 4 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY` LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)21 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 7 7 1 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 16 B C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 1 14 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 19 17 C C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 15 14 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 6 1 6 B B "B" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 15 12 B B 'C" St. (NS) at: Traffic 1 "A" St. (EW)' Signal 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 5 8 A B 62nd Ave. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 16 15 1 C C Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 15 18 C C Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 8 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)Z' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 19 33 C D Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic "D" St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 11 B B Based upon delay methodology. Based upon delay methodology. V-244 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-47 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR -2010 WITH CONCEPT 4 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY` LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE I TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM I AM PM Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic "E" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 12 16 B C Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Harrison St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 8 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 12 12 1 B B SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B 52nd Ave. (EW)3 SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 9 B B 52nd Ave. (EW)3 SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 7 B B Airport Blvd. (EW)3 SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 8 8 B B Airport Blvd. (EW)3 SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 44 F E 62nd Ave. (EW)3 50 SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 F F 62nd Ave. (EW)31 32 SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 9 8 B B SR -195 (EW)3 SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic 1 (NS) at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 8 9 B B SR -195 (EW)3 -- = Level of Service "F". Based upon delay methodology. -- = Level of Service "F". Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-245 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-47 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 4 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY` LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Pierce St. (NS) at: 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Traffic Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: SR -195 (EW)3 Traffic Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 6 5 B A Pierce St. (NS) at: 66th Ave. (EW)3 Traffic Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 11 1 12 1 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: 70th Ave. (EW)3 Traffic Signal 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 1 B B V-246 The Planning Center Year 2010 Study Area Average Daily Traffic With Concept 4 12.9 15.4 13.5 17.2 34.5 22.3 'ND AVE. 15.2 15.1 31.4 1 AIRPORT BLVD. 6.1 1 _58.2 12.4 13.9 10.5 19.3 10.8 Ln N v t 13.1 30.6 18.0 s CL V) C 16.3 THERMAL AIRPORT 1 i 60TH AVE. 19.2 4.8 25 5s-{.�J1 14.3 16.2 w 18.415 1� 3.1 1 7.9 8.7 27.8 y i 48.7 1 13.2 � 4.2 32.7 62ND AVE. L - 5.9 9.7 14.5/12.9 r u 17.7 30.8 ' T' 30.2 10 9.7 12.9 16.6 15.711 5.3 30.0 5.5 ►= �- `D N 19.8 9.3 t � o N 64TH AVE. t' G i 17.7 3.9 ch 1.6 5.7Cr t 'WHITEWATER a = 18.2 8 ' SITE 16.2 CHANNEL 66TH AVE. L._ ___Jt (SR -19 4.1 6,0 9.1 16-4 15.0 N 0) 16.2124.7 16.0 8.9 LUC i 9.3wN_ LEGEND: 4.1 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 'THS, KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California 17.9 8.7 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale ajahi? LEGEND: 0.14 = VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO 1IF F LOU6 '1111� '!�� i Coachella Valley, California 0.31 w V) d 0.29 70TH AVE. 0.12 0.29 0.47 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratios With Concept 4�. 0.45 0,76 0.34 0.91 0.59 52ND AVE. 0.41 0.40 0.40 0 0.16 1 0.68 0.36 0.83 0.51 1. 0.54 AIRPORT BLVD. \ 0.33 0.37 0.28 0.51 0.28 F v~i w co � U 0.47 " w_ 0.35 1 V) 0.80 0.43 THERMAL AIRPORT 1 1P 60TH AVE. 0.50 0.26 0. 7 0.38 0.43 i -- 0.48 0 40 0.0$ 1 0.47 0.57 L 1. 0.23 0.73 ,- C ��. -10.35 i 0,14 0.86 62ND AVE. L 0.20 0.32 0.48 0.43 0,47 0.81 'T 0.79 0.36 0.3 0.43 .55 0.40 I 0.36 0.35 N Z p 0.524 64TH 0VE I't ❑ i 0.30 0.47 0.13 N N 0.09 0.3 f �\ v = " E! 0.480.2 WHITEWATER CHANNEL S]TE 0.43 66TH AVE. I -1---j (SR -19 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.43 0.39 0.47 4 N 0.42 w 0.30 cj m 0.43 LEGEND: 0.14 = VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO 1IF F LOU6 '1111� '!�� i Coachella Valley, California 0.31 w V) d 0.29 70TH AVE. 0.12 0.29 0.47 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 4 1'1!1 11� 14"t I Coachella Vallev, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale �AW CO Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 4 til Ae1 I 1 !' \ 1 f Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inca, Not to Scale C007. .. — Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Mitigation Measures See mitigation measure D1-11 above regarding development monitoring requirements. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4) Impact: Year 2010 Level of Service_ with Concept 4 and Additional General Pian Improvements a) Impact Analysis As shown in Table V-48 for Year 2010 traffic conditions with Concept 4 and with traffic signals at the study area intersections, the intersections in the vicinity are projected to operate at Level of Service "C" or better during the peak hours. HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "F" of Technical Appendix J. b) Mitigation Measures D1-35 Construct "A" Street between 60th Avenue and Polk Street as a Major highway to tie into 62nd Avenue at the intersection of Polk Street (along the proposed alignment shown in Figure V-52), to establish a continuous east - west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway. D1-36 Upgrade the classification of 62nd Avenue east of Polk Street to SR -86S to a Major highway classification from a Secondary highway classification. D1-37 Designate "C" Street between "A" Street and 66th Avenue as a Secondary highway classification. D1-38 Designate "E" Street between "C" Street and Polk Street as a Secondary highway classification. D1-39 Downgrade 60th Avenue between the northwest corner of the project east to Polk Street to an Industrial Collector and delete as an Arterial highway classification on the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element to accommodate the planned extension of the runway at Thermal Airport. The following mitigation measures also will be required: D1-15, D1-16 and D1-17. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-251 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 5) Impact: Compliance with General Plan Circulation Policies„ Concept 4 would result in the same impacts as Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D1-18 and D1-19. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 61 Impact: Impact of the Proposed Project on Alternative Forms of Transportation Concept 4 would result in the same impacts as Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D1-20, D1-21, D1-22 and DI -23. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 7) Provision of Adequate Access To and From the Project Area a) Impact Analysis Concept 4 would provide adequate access to and from the project area, therefore resulting in the same impacts as for Concept 1. b) Mitigation Measures D1-40 Access to roadways shall be oriented to the appropriate locations shown in Figure V-58, Concept 4 Circulation Recommendations. Precise access locations and the phasing of roadway improvements shall be determined at the plot plan, use permit or tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the Riverside County Transportation Department. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. V-252 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-48 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR -2010 WITH CONCEPT 4 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY' LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)33 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 11 16 B C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 14 B B -larrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 14 17 C C Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 12 13 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B "B" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 15 12 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A' St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 5 8 A B 62nd Ave. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 15 13 C B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 12 13 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 8 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)34 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 18 22 C C Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic F "D" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 11 B B 9ased upon delay methodology. Based upon delay methodology. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-253 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-48 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR2010 WITH CONCEPT 4 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY° LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic "E" St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 11 12 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 1 Harrison St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 8 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 12 1 12 B I B SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B 52nd Ave. (EW)' SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 9 B B 52nd Ave. (EW)' SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 7 B B Airport Blvd. (EW)' SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 8 8 B B Airport Blvd. (EW)' SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 2 1 1 2 0 3 3 A A 62nd Ave. (EW)' SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 2 1>> 0 2 1 10 5 B A 62nd Ave. (EW)36 SR -86S SB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 0 0 D 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 9 8 B B SR -195 (EW)' SR -86S NB Ramps Traffic (NS) at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 8 9 B B SR -195 (EW)' Pierce St. (NS) at: 62nd Ave. (EW)' Traffic Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Based upon delay methodology. V-254 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-48 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 4 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY` LEVEL OF f NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 5 1 B A Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 11 12 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic f 70th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) The traffic impacts and associated mitigation measures for Concept 6 represent the low end of the range for all of the Land Use Concepts. 1) Impact. Traffic Generated by Concept 6 a) Impact Analysis Both daily and peak -hour trip generation by zone for Concept 6 are shown in Table V-49. The proposed Concept 6 development is projected to generate a total of approximately 37,840 trip -ends per day with 6,345 vehicles per hour during the a.m. peak hour and 6,380 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak hour. Trip Distribution See discussion under Concept 1. Modal Split See discussion under Concept 1. Trip Assignment The assignment of traffic from the site to the adjoining roadway system has been based upon the site's trip generation, trip distributions, and proposed arterial highway and local street system. Based on the identified traffic generation and distributions, Concept 6 related traffic volumes are shown on Figure V-64. Concept 6 a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figures V-64 and V-65, respectively. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-255 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-48 CONCEPT 6 TRIP GENERATION ZONE LAND USE PEAK -HOUR' DAILY' AM PM IN OUT IN OUT 1 Industrial Park Heavy Industrial 780 1,500 175 165 205 335 780 1,335 7,550 8,340 2 Industrial Park Office Heavy Industrial Light Industrial 450 505 1,185 145 100 60 130 30 120 90 265 25 450 435 1,050 165 4,360 4,050 6,570 1,350 3 Heavy Industrial 190 20 40 170 1,050 4 Heavy Industrial 395 45 90 350 2,200 5 Heavy Industrial 425 45 95 380 2,370 TOTA L 5,575 770 1,265 5,115 37,840 1. All peak hour trips rounded to the nearest 5. 2. All daily trips rounded to the nearest 10. b) Mitigation Measures D1-41 Project roadways shall be aligned and sized as illustrated on Figure V-66 and Table V-39. "A" Street, from 60th Avenue to Polk Street, shall be constructed to a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) cross-section within the project boundaries and along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-66 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway in conjunction with development. D1-42 60th Avenue adjacent to the site shall be downsized and constructed at its ultimate part -width standard as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-43 Polk Street adjacent to the project site shall be constructed from the north project boundary to 66th Avenue at its ultimate half -section width as a Major highway (100 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-44 Tyler Street from "C" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate part -width standard as a Collector roadway adjacent to the project site, from 62nd Avenue to 66th Avenue in conjunction with development. V-256 The Planning Center Concept 6 Average Daily Traffic .6 LEGEND: 0.1 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000-S) 'THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California 1.9 w 70TH AVE, ((3.8 1.9 2.0 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale 1.9 2.7 0.9 52ND AVE. 1.7 0.9 ®�. 4 7.6 2.7 3.6 0.9 2.7 AIRPORT BLVD. 1.9 1.9 0.9 2.8 1.9 N ` U 2.7 4.6 a 0.8CL W a 3.7- _w THERMAL AIRPORT I i 60TH AVE. 7 8 4.8 11.7 3.8 5.4i _7 1 6,6 0.8 '1 1.1 2.2 r ST � 2.1 i '� 6.7 11.7 62ND AVE. 1.9 2.8 5.5 3.9 + .0 11.7 'T` 11.7 i.9 7.0 5.3 `� 5.5 I v~i N 1.1 2.7� i 0.3 1 3.5 Z Z 64TH AVE.I+ ' p 1 2,0 N Y N 0.2 0.8 ! „ c�L.I Ex j 1 WHITEWATER = 0.9 2. SITE 1.8 CHANNEL 1 66TH AVE. i__ ___J (SR -19 0.1 0.4 2.2 2.9 1.0 0.2 LEGEND: 0.1 = VEHICLES PER DAY (1000-S) 'THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California 1.9 w 70TH AVE, ((3.8 1.9 2.0 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale Concept 6 AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inb', Not to Scale COO Concept 6 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes jig Sol 11 W. (0) lauji - tt"� Ila Vallev. Calif Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale �0 Vl Z O N CE Q 62ND ■■■i� AVE. LEGEND: Concept 6 Circulation Recommendations ■■■■■� '� 60TH r -- — —--'-------- — AVE. I �• Cn L - - - - I I I I I r L - - - - - - - r y I � � +• ti J �IS> I �- 4b to 62NDI owspeaso an" ! AVE. � I I @000 = ARTERIAL womo■ = MAJOR ■ ■ ■ =SECONDARY LHI = INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR - = COLLECTOR .■� = ACCESS LOCATION ra = RESTRICTED ACCESS (NO LEFT TURN OUT) �} = TRAFFIC SIGNAL i = STOP SIGN I � F.: I V)I LHI II F rl r r ra � II rl Ir II 11 40 11 ■■■■alp■■■■■ THE KOHLIRANCH Coachella Vallev, California ! I I � 1 N i■ i■■■■■■■M 66TH AVE. ■ ■ f Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inca Not to Scale 9G? �7 Chapter V o Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis D1-45 62nd Avenue from "A" Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway adjacent to the project site, between "C" Street and the west project boundary in conjunction with development. D1-46 66th Avenue from Tyler Street to Polk Street shall be constructed at its ultimate half -section width as a Secondary highway (88 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-47 "B" Street from "A" Street to 62nd Avenue shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-48 "C" Street from 60th Avenue to 66th Avenue shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. DI -49 "D" Street from 62nd Avenue to Polk Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way) in conjunction with development. D1-50 "E" Street from Polk Street to "C" Street shall be constructed at its ultimate cross-section width as an Industrial Collector (78 foot right-of-way), and to its ultimate cross-section width as a Collector roadway (66 foot right-of-way) from "C" Street to Tyler Street in conjunction with development. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 2) Impact: Level of Service_ at General Plan Buildout Without Concent 6 Cumulative future traffic conditions for the Year 2010 would remain the same, regardless of which land use concept is implemented. As with Concept 1, no mitigation measures are required for Concept 6. Impacts will be less than significant. 3) Impact: Year 2010 Level of Service With Concent 6 and Typical General Plan Improvements a) Impact Analysis Total traffic volumes for Year 2010 with Concept 6 are shown on Figure V-67. The resulting volume -to -capacity ratios based on current Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element classifications are shown on Figure V-68. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-261 Year 2010 Study Area Average Daily Traffic With Concept 6 17.2 10.7 31.4 21.7 52NO AVE. 14.6 1 14.4 1 15.1 11.3 27.4 18. 1 AIRPORT BLVD. 10.2 11.7 9.7 16.4 8.6 F co N U s 10.9 c 25.2 18'0 w cr CL 12.6 a THERMAL AIRPORT l i 60TH AVE. 13 8 4.8 19.9 �T. 9.8 11.7 w - 13.1 12.61 3' 1 1 17.9 6.5 23.4i 39.7 C S 9.5 4.2 22.2 T � 62ND AVE. 3.7 5.9 8.56.9 i 0 20.3 '?` 1 9.7 8.; 7.0 8.3 � 5 15.3 • 13.7 27.6 N ' 17.6 2.7r, i 9.0 .3 0 0.8 00 64TH AVE 8 3.9 N 0.2 1 [.� m : ~ E' i WHITEWATER �' = 17.4 2. I S ITE L 8.8 CHANNEL 66TH AVE. _ __-J (SR -19 3.3 3.8 5.6 7.7 , 8.5 Ln 9.7 15.2 6.7 v C= 7 7.1LU Cr - LEGEND: 3.3 = VEHICLES PER DAY (100O -S) Coachella Vallev, California 14.9 20.2 6.5 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Im Not to Scale 911pilkC070 Year 2010 Study Area Volume to Capacity Ratios With Concept 6 0.45 0.65 0.28 0.83 0.57 - 52N0 AVE. 0.38 0.38 0.40 0 ! 0.15 0.30 0.72 0.49'�Q�ai� \ 0.57 C 0.48 AIRPORT BLVD. 0.27 0.31 0.25 0.43 0.23 V) I 0.29 0.66 0 0.47' a 0.33 THERMAL AIRPORT l i 60TH AVE. 046 0.26 0. 6 0.26 0.31 i - 0-- 0 42.1 0.08 70.47 0.46 0.17 0.74 0.25 0.62 r "� Sp I 0.14 62ND AVE. L� 0.12 0.20 0.2-8/0.23 v; 0.24 0.68 '?' 0.66 52-8 I 0.3 0.28 28 0.40 0.36 0.32 N N 0.46 0.15 r 0.02 Z I 10.24 NN 64TH0.01VE.le 0.0 I \� 0.13 v Cr it 1 WHITEWATER ` = 0.460.14 I �� E 1 0.23 CHANNEL r. AATH AVS t✓- ___J (SR -19 V) 0.25 w, 0.40 0.22 v 10.24 �'-•- w V a 0.23 70TH AVE. LEGEND: 0.12 0,22 0.11 = VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO 0.39 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale THE KOHL]RANCH QQ),Coachella Vallev. California C The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Future intersection levels of service for the Year 2010 network with Concept 4 are shown in Table V-50. Table V-51 shows HCM calculations based on the geometrics at the intersections with approach lane configurations identified for buildout of the General Plan, without additional improvements. The following study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service during the peak hours: TABLE V-50 CONCEPT 6 INTERSECTIONS OPERATING AT UNACCEPTABLE LOS DURING PEAK HOURS Intersection Level of Service A.M. P.M. SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at 62nd Avenue (EW) I F B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at 62nd Avenue (EW) F F HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "G" of Technical Appendix J. Year 2010 a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volumes with Concept 6 are shown on Figures V-69 and V-70 respectively. It should be emphasized that the approach lane geometrics shown in Table V-51 support areawide travel demand projected to occur in the Year 2010 time frame and do not constitute improvements needed with the addition of project traffic to existing conditions. b) Mitigation Measures See mitigation measure D1-11 above regarding development monitoring requirements. V-264 The Planning Center Year 2010 Study Area AM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 6 Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc. Not to Scale I pp� 111; 1!1 1 �i'� � 111 1131111:11111 � � 111 '44 Coachella Vallev. California Year 2010 Study Area PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes With Concept 6� THE KOHL RANCH Coachella Valley, California Source: Robert Kahn, John Kain & Assoc., Inc: Not to Scale �" C� Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-51 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 6 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY` LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)" Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 13 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 12 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 13 13 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 12 11 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave." ve. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B 'B' St. (NS) at: Traffic St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 14 10 B B 'C' St. (NS) at: Traffic A' St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B 'C' St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EVA' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 7 A B 62nd Ave. (NS) at: Traffic 'A' St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 13 12 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 11 11 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 8 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)" Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 15 15 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 'D' St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 A A Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 'E' St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 A B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 10 11 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Harrison St. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 7 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1>> 12 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 10 9 B B Based upon delay methodology. Based upon delay methodology. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-267 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-51 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 6 WITH TYPICAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY` LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE I TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 9 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 7 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 8 8 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 94 11 F B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)" Signal 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 " F F SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 9 8 B B SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 7 7 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)' Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 5 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 11 12 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 70th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B Based upon delay methodology. -- = Level of Service -F-. V-268 The Planning Center Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4) Impact: Year 2010 Level of Service with Concept 6 and Additional General Plan Improvements a) Impact Analysis As shown in Table V-52 for Year 2010 traffic conditions with Concept 6 and with traffic signals at the study area intersections, the intersections in the vicinity are projected to operate within Level of Service "C" or better during the peak hours. HCM calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix "G" of Technical Appendix J. TABLE V-52 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 6 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY' LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 7 B B Jackson St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 7 7 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 13 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 12 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 13 13 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 12 11 B B Harrison St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 6 B B "B" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 14 10 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B "C" St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 7 A B 62nd Ave. (NS) at: Traffic "A" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 13 11 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic li Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 11 11 B EB] Based upon delay methodology. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-269 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA TABLE V-52 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR 2010 WITH CONCEPT 6 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLATT IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY' LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 60th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 7 8 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)" Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 15 15 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic "D" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 A A Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic "E" St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 A A Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 10 11 B B Polk St. (NS) at: Traffic Harrison St. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6 7 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 52nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 12 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic Airport Blvd. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1>> 1 2 1>> 1 2 1 1 2 1 11 11 B B SR -111 (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 10 9 B B SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 8 B B 52nd Ave. (EW)3 SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 7 9 B B 52nd Ave. (EW)3 SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 10 7 B B Airport Blvd. (EW)3 SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 8 8 B B Airport Blvd. (EW)3 SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1>> 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 3 A A 62nd Ave. (EW)3 SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 1.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 2 1>> 0 2 1 8 5 B A 62nd Ave. (EW)12 SR -86S SB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 9 8 B B SR -195 (EW)3 SR -86S NB Ramps (NS) Traffic at: Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 7 7 B B SR -195 (EW)3 Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 62nd Ave. (EW)3 Signal 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 71 71 B I B Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic SR -195 (EW)3 Signal 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 6 5 B B Based upon delay methodology. Based upon delay methodology. V-270 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis TABLE V-52 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR YEAR -2010 WITH CONCEPT 6 WITH ADDITIONAL GENERAL PLAN IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES' DELAY' LEVEL OF NORTH- SOUTH- EAST- WEST- BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND (SECS.) SERVICE TRAFFIC INTERSECTION CONTROL L T R L T R L T R L T R AM PM AM PM Pierce St. (NS) at: Traffic 66th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 11 12 B B Pierce St. (NS) at: _t Traffic 1 70th Ave. (EW)' Signal 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2L±1 2 0 6 6 B B b) Mitigation Measures The following changes are recommended for the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element (see Figure V-66): D1-51 Construct "A" Street between 60th Avenue and Polk Street as a Secondary highway along the proposed alignment shown on Figure V-66 to establish a continuous east -west corridor south of the extended Thermal Airport runway. D1-52 Delete 60th Avenue between Harrison Street and Polk Street as an Arterial highway classification to accommodate the planned extension of the runway at Thermal Airport. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 5) Impact: Compliance with General Plan Circulation Policies Concept 6 would result in the same impacts as Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D1-18 and D1-19. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 6) Impact: Impact of the Proposed Project on AIternative Forms of Transportation Concept 6 would result in the same impacts as Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D1-20, D1-21, D1-22 and D1-23. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-271 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 7) Provision of Adequate Access To and From the Project Area a) Impact Analysis Concept 6 would provide adequate access to and from the project area, therefore resulting in the same impacts as for Concept 1. b) Mitigation Measures D1-53 Access to roadways shall be oriented to the appropriate locations shown on Figure V-66, Concept 6 Circulation Recommendations. Precise access locations and the phasing of roadway improvements shall be determined at the plot plan or tentative tract map level, subject to approval by the Riverside County Transportation Department. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. V-272 The Planning Center Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 2. Water and Sewer a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1 Water The 2,177 -acre project site is located entirely within the service boundary of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Water and other utilities in the project vicinity are depicted in Figure V-71. There are no existing domestic water distribution facilities within the project boundary. An 18" water main is proposed to run along Avenue 60, the northern boundary of the project site." All domestic water provided within the CVWD service boundary comes from groundwater which is chlorinated. Previous studies conducted in the area indicate that groundwater meeting the State Drinking Water Standards is currently attainable at depths of between 900 and 1,400 feet. An existing domestic well on the Kohl Ranch property is located near the southeast comer of Section 4, on Tyler Street, north of Avenue 64. Water quality meets both state and federal standards (see Appendix F). Irrigation water is distributed in the Coachella Valley through open channels and pipe distribution systems fed from the Colorado River via the All-American and Coachella Canals. Surplus canal water and irrigation water, not absorbed by plant growth, is used to replenish the groundwater aquifer supplying domestic wells. Historic use of the Kohl Ranch property has been dominated by the growth of "water -intensive" crops utilizing flood irrigation methods. Consequently, a number of existing irrigation facilities are located on the site, including pipelines, subsurface tile drainage lines, canals, standpipes and valves. These facilities were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau of Reclamation and CVWD have easements through the site for the operation and maintenance of these irrigation facilities. Irrigation facilities located on the site include: ■ Lateral 123.45-1.3 Sublateral 3.9, Avenue 60, pipe diameters from 14-20" Sublateral 4.6, Avenue 61, pipe diameters from 14-20" Sublateral 5.3, Avenue 62, pipe diameters from 14-20" Sublateral 6.0, Avenue 63, pipe diameters from 14-27" ■ Lateral 97.1-7.1 Sublateral 3.0, Avenue 66, pipe diameters from 12-16" 43 Proposed Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Draft Environmental Impact Report, Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority, March 1991. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-273 Utilities & Storm Drainage E _ do as I ' Drainage System Major Transmission Lines Coachella Valley Storm Channel Existing Power Lines ..w:..4 Existing Drains - - - - Proposed Power Lines Open Drain or Storm Water Channel Substation Sewer System CVWD Water System -==- Existing Sewer Lines••: ��•�• Proposed Water Main .., 2$� ••••• Proposed Sewer Lines Treatment Facility THE K a t .rr Drainage System Major Transmission Lines Coachella Valley Storm Channel Existing Power Lines ..w:..4 Existing Drains - - - - Proposed Power Lines Open Drain or Storm Water Channel Substation Sewer System CVWD Water System -==- Existing Sewer Lines••: ��•�• Proposed Water Main .., 2$� ••••• Proposed Sewer Lines Treatment Facility THE K Coachella Valley, California Source: Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Em i, Mai? Figure V 71 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis There are no downstream users of the existing irrigation lines, which terminate just west of Polk Street, the eastern project boundary. Upstream users will not be affected by removal of the irrigation facilities resulting from development of the proposed project. CVWD estimates that current water use on the site is 7 acre-feet/acre or 9 gpm/acre. 2 Sewer CVWD provides sewer service to the project area. There are currently no sewer facilities located within the project boundary. However, CVWD operates and maintains an 18" diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) forcemain, 17 feet north of the centerline of Avenue 60. This pipe is not currently operating at its full capacity of approximately 5.7 million gallons per day (MGD), but there is little additional volume available to serve the project. CVWD may allow the initial phases of development to pump into this line, until an alternate conveyance is necessary. This pipe conveys sewer flows from west of the project site to the treatment facility, Wastewater Reclamation Plant No. 4, located between Avenues 62 and 64 on the north and south, and Filmore Street and the Whitewater River to the west and east (See Figure V-70). This plant has a design capacity of 4.35 MGD, and is scheduled to be expanded to 5.8 MGD. The plant is estimated to be operating at two-thirds capacity. The plant provides a secondary treatment level through the use of stabilization ponds for finishing. The ponds are also used for flow stabilization by allowing the depth to increase during peak storm events. An additional 24" forcemain is proposed to be located along Polk Street, Avenue 62 and a portion of Filmore Street in the project vicinity. 3) General Plan Policies. Policies and standards related to the provision of water and sewer facilities are contained in the Public Facilities and Services Element and the Land Use Element of the RCCGP and the ECVP. All projects are assessed for the availability and extent of water and sewer facilities to the development site. The following standards apply to projects designated land use Category II through the County Land Use Determination System: a) Water and Sewer ■ A Category II development must be located within special districts authorized to provide water and sewer service. A Category II development must use a district water and district sewer system. The development proponent must show that adequate water and sewer facilities, water resources availability and sewer treatment plant capacity will exist to meet the demands of the development. Commitments for adequate and available water and sewer service must be confirmed by the special districts. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-275 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA In addition, the following standards apply to all development: b) Water Use for Landscaping ■ Vegetation which uses less water will be encouraged for landscaping purposes. ■ Irrigation systems shall be properly designed, installed, operated and maintained to prevent the waste of water. "Drip" irrigation and other water application techniques which conserve water should be considered prior to final approval of plans. c) Wastewater Reuse ■ Where adequately treated wastewater is available it shall be incorporated into new development water plans for such things as irrigation for landscaping, golf courses, agriculture, and man-made lakes and ponds. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Water SuRR ies a) Impact Analysis The proposed project is located within the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) which provides water and sewer service to the project area. The proposed water system for the Kohl Ranch would operate within a single pressure zone serving ground elevations from 119 to 167 feet below sea level. The project assumes that hydraulic control would be set using a reservoir high water level of approximately 40 feet above sea level. Recommended pad elevations for storage facilities range from 8 to 16 feet above sea level; however, the pads and the high water level may vary as required to conform with established CVWD pressure zones. The system is proposed to be fed by wells located within the project site (Figure V-72). Ten wells are anticipated to pump peak daily demands through an on-site system consisting of 12 -inch to 24 -inch transmission lines looped for maximum efficiency and fire flow delivery. Excess water during low and average flows would be conveyed to reservoirs located near the terminus of Avenue 66 in the foothills (Figure V-73). Two 24 -inch diameter transmission mains would convey these flows and provide a dual feed, gravity flow system to the project. One main would be located within the right-of-way of Avenue 66, extending from the project site to the foothills. A second main would be situated within the rights-of-way of Avenue 62 and Jackson Street. The water system would be designed to deliver gravity flow during high power cost windows. Well pumps would be controlled by level sensing devices and transmitters on the reservoirs. The water system would utilize a certain volume from the tanks, prior to the well pumps cycling, to ensure that adequate circulation of water in the tanks is maintained. V-276 The Planning Center w Tr Di Water Plan Note: Per CVWD requirements, well sites will be required at a ratio of one well site per 70 acres of development. The location and size of well sites shall be approved by CVWD. ° [KOHLIX"ANCH Coachella Valley, California Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Scale: P-2000' 0� EM Figure V-72 360 R1 31 Ave 60 Coach-ella Valley, California Off -Site Water Improvements 1:3 In MIN TO IND Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Sc9e: r=3000' 9,00 C70 ire V, 73 V- 278 Propos d 24" Dia. Water ?I Ave 62 long go to 111111191111 ILIKIIII 28,142111120 T A R*ri 4 E:z 6 .-ERV ATION - =--Proposed 24" Dia. W ter r TO R R ES MARTINEZ — - - ------- I 12 Prop6i6d 24" Dia. Water —\�I N h4 -*N;, -'R F S E R V A T 10N 12.5 MG Storage A 1.fr— I 1 11161 Big 10 111 go Be is INJITI i�! Valerie - wil'irt I I I Be I ffop It of I';II Be III Coach-ella Valley, California Off -Site Water Improvements 1:3 In MIN TO IND Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Sc9e: r=3000' 9,00 C70 ire V, 73 V- 278 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The project under Concept 1 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 19.37 million gallons. Table V-53 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for the project at buildout. CVWD has indicated that adequate water supplies are available to service the site. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites an construction of reservoirs in accordance with the mitigation measures described below, to provide water during periods of peak demand. Table V-53 CONCEPT 1 DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND No. Description EDU" Acres Units/ Acres' Acre Factor (GPMDU)2 Factor (GPMDU)3 ADD (GPM)' 1 Open Space/Golf Course 411.6 (Assumes that irrigation supply water will be from canals) 2 Residential - High' 2,540 169.3.8 15.0 0.8 2,031.6 3 Residential - Medium' 3,062 382.8 8.0 1.3 3,981.1 4 Residential - Low' 1,569 413.0 3.8 2.6 4,080.4 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 1.4 478.3 6 Industrial - Heavy 659 173.4 1.4 922.5 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 1.4 502.2 8 Air Park w/ Food Services 426 112.0 1.4 595.8 9 Office 173 45.6 1.4 242.6 10 Commercial 237 62.3 1.4 331.4 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 98 1.4 145.2 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 98.0 1.4 137.2 TOTAL 9,470 2,177.0 13,448.44 1 High Density based on 15; Low based on 3.8; and Medium based on 8 units/acre. Assumes 3 CAP/DU. 2 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Lower Use factors for higher density assumes irrigation by canal water. 3 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Converted various land uses to equivalent units using 3.8 DU/Acre. 4 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit based on 3.8 units per acre. 5 ADD = Average Day Demand. 6 Assumes that major arterials and common areas in the Medium and High Density Residential will be irrigated with canal water. Assumes 50% of Right -of -Way to be irrigated by domestic water. According to calculations for maximum water allowance for Concept 1, the project is allocated a maximum water usage of 2,417 acre-feet per year. Based on the acreage distribution of the land use classification for Concept 1, an approximate 2,235 acre-feet of water will be utilized per year, resulting in an unused allocation of 182 acre-feet per year. The proposed project will have short- and long-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities. Long-term impacts tothe �r un water will be miti¢ated bz L_ to rQ*Lin the form o financial narticiDation in the eroundwater recharge in the lower oachella Vailey. According to CVWD, mitigation re uirements will a ly to single users who exceed an annual water use t reshold from groundwater. As a point of comparison, users in the upper valley in excess of 25 acre-feet/year are required to pay approximately $38.00 per acre-foot. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-279 The Kohl Ranch $ Coachella Valley • CA As noted in Section V.C.S. above, the groundwater table in the lower Coachella Valley has been dropping significantly. According to the Riverside County Environmental Health Department, the domestic water table in the region is presently being overdrafted by 100,000 plus acre feet per year which has resulted in water levels dropping by as much as 90 feet in some areas and creating the possibility of subsidence. CVWD is in the early stages of studying the problem; however, the exact method of mitigation or the time frame for correction is not currently known. At buildout, Concept 1 will add approximately 20 percent to the amount presently being mined. The developer will work with CVWD and participate in area -wide programs developed under the leadership of CVWD to address impacts to groundwater supplies. To address this issue, measures which reduce the impact on the groundwater basin and increase efficiency in water usage are proposed, and are identified in the Water Conservation Plan prepared for the project (see Appendix F). Such measures include: using untreated canal water or treated effluent for irrigation of most landscaped areas; installation of dual water systems to service larger landscaped areas; use of water conservation plumbing fixtures in all construction; maintenance of precautionary tile drains to prevent salt water from migrating to the underground basin; consistency with irrigation system requirements of County Ordinance No. 348; and the use of drought -tolerant native desert vegetation, where possible. These measures should minimize the burden placed on groundwater supplies. According to CVWD, the wastewater treatment plant serving the project area (WARP4) does not provide tertiary treatment of wastewater. Consequently, treated effluent from the plant cannot be used for irrigation purposes. CVWD has plans to upgrade the facilities when circumstances warrant. b) Mitigation Measures D2-1 A detailed hydraulic analysis shall be performed by the developer in conjunction with the preparation of improvement plans for each phase of development. D2-2 Ten on-site domestic water wells shall be provided, with capacity to pump an average of 1,600 gallons per minute. These wells should be deep well vertical turbines with electric motors and a portable generator receptacle for emergency operation. D2-3 Additional wells shall be identified and dedicated to CVWD. The district requires one well site per 70 acres of development. D2-4 Reservoirs shall be provided in accordance with CVWD standards. D2-5 Transmission lines to the reservoirs shall be sized in accordance with CVWD requirements. V-280 The Planning Center Chapter V 9 Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis D2-6 Where possible, the existing tile drains will be maintained to prevent high salt water from migrating_to the underground basin. D2-7 All water lines shall be designed and installed as required by CVWD. D2-8 A dual water system will be installed to service the larger landscaped areas. Where practical, smaller landscape areas requiring irrigation will be provided with service from a separate irrigation line. D2-9 The irrigation line will utilize canal water or treated effluent to irrigate the larger landscape areas initially. Treated effluent will be utilized when facilities are available, treatment is acceptable and the cost is practical. D2-10 All project development shall comply with State, County and CVWD regulations regarding water conservation and reclamation. All applicable sections of Title 20 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations shall be adhered to regarding water consumption and conservation. D2-11 Water conserving plumbing fixtures shall be used in all construction, including low or ultra-low flow toilets and reducing valves for showers and faucets. D2-12 Consistent with the requirements of County Ordinance No. 348, irrigation systems shall be used for common landscaped areas that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize water availability to plant roots. Project landscaping plans that identify irrigation systems shall be submitted for review prior to the issuance of individual project building permits. D2-13 Consistent with the requirements of County Ordinance No. 348, native, drought -tolerant plants approved by the County shall be used in common landscaped areas. Additionally, mulch shall be utilized in common landscaped areas where soil conditions warrant to improve the soil's water storage capacity. D244 Subsequent tentative tract maps, conditional use permits and plot plans shall be approved by the County of Riverside based on adequate wells, reservoirs and transmission systems. D2-15 The developer shall work with CVWD and participate in area -wide programs developed under the leadership of CVWD to address impacts to groundwater supplies. D2-16 Development shall be consistent with the project Water Conservation Plan. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than Significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-281 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Conveyance Facilities a) Impact Analysis The proposed sewage system would operate by using four independent collection systems to convey flows to a sump located at Polk Street and Avenue 63 near "D" Street (Figure V-74). By splitting the flows, pipeline diameters can be kept relatively small. From 63rd Avenue and Polk Street, a 24 -inch diameter trunk main would convey the total flow, by gravity, approximately 6,800 linear feet to the west side of the existing plant headworks, at which a new wetwell would be constructed to collect the pipe flow. Pumps installed by CVWD would lift wastewater into the treatment plant. The proposed development under Concept 1 would impact the CVWD existing treatment plant by introducing an average daily flow of 2.78 million gallons, with daily peaks as high as 3,283 gallons per minute. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the completed project is detailed in Table V-54. This anticipated volume would require CVWD to expand their existing treatment facility at some point during development of the project. This could be achieved through sewer connection fees collected from early phases of development. b) Mitigation Measures D2-17 A detailed analysis shall be performed for pipe sizing, in conjunction with the preparation of improvement plans for each phase of development. D2-18 Infrastructure facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements identified in the Specific Plan. D2-19 CVWD shall expand the existing treatment facility capacity to accommodate project wastewater. D2-20 Interim septic tank systems shall be subject to approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. D2-21 CVWD shall review and approve any interim connection to existing CVWD Systems. CVWD shall review and approve sewage collection and transportation system designs where expanded facilities are proposed. D2-22 Developer(s) shall pay all fees required by CVWD for sewage treatment services and facilities. D2-23 All sewage lines, pump stations and other required transmission facilities shall be installed as directed by CVWD. V-282 The Planning Center J 7 8• SeWE (Dir( Mari Sewer Plan Coachella Valley, California Source: J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. Scala V -20W 0 AmQ CO Perera V 7d The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-54 CONCEPT 1 WASTEWATER GENERATION No. Description EDU' Acres EDU/Ac. Factor ADF' (GPDU)Z (GPD) PDF" (GPM) (GPD) (GPM) 1 Open Space/Golf Course 1,564 411.6 3.8 252.0 394,148 273.7 670,052 465.3 2 Residential - High 2,540 169.3 15.0 252.0 639,954 444.4 1,087,922 755.5 3 Residential - Med. 3,062 382.8 8.0 252.0 771,725_ 252.0 395,393 535.9 1,311,932 911.1 4 Residential - Low 1,569 ^413.0 3.8 274.6_ 672,168 466.8 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 3.8 252.0 86,088 59.8 146,350 101.6 6 Industrial - Heavy 659 173.4 3.8 252.0 166,048 115.3 282,281 196.0 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 3.8 252.0 90,397 62.8 153,676 106.7 8 Air Park w/ Food Svcs. 426 112.0 3.8 252.0 107,251 74.5 182,327 126.6 9 Office 173 45.6 3.8 252.0 43,667 30.3 74,233 51.6 10 Commercial 237 62.3 3.8 252.0 59,658 41.4 101,419 70.4 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 3.8 252.0 26,142 18.2 44,442 1 30.9 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 (Assumes that no water used goes into sanitary sewer system) TOTAL 11,034 2,177 2,780,472 1 1,931 4,726,803 3,283 TOTAL (Million gal. per day) 2.780 4.727 1 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) = EDU/AC + Ac. 2 Gallons Per Day per EDU = 252. 3 ADF = Average Daily Flow GPM = Gallons per Minute 4 PDF = Peak Daily Flow ADF x 1.7. Water conservation methods shall be implemented, as outlined above, to reduce wastewater generation and impacts to sewage transmission and treatment facilities. (See mitigation measures D2-8 through D2-14.) c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Water SUplies Concept 2 will have similar long- and short-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities as Concept 1, with long-term impacts to the groundwater to be mitigated in the form of financial participation in the groundwater recharge in the lower Coachella Valley. Concept 2 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 12.02 million gallons. Table V-55 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for Concept 2 at buildout. This represents an 11 percent lower average daily water demand than projected for Concept 1. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites and construction of reservoirs in accordance with the following mitigation measures: D2-1, D2-2, D2-3, D2-4, D2-5, D2-6, D2-7, D2-8, D2-9, D2-10, D2-11, D2-12, D2-13, D2-14, D2-15 and D2-16. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation. V-284 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-55 CONCEPT 2 DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND No. Description EDU' Acres Acres' Units/ Acre Factor (GPMDU)2 Factor (GPMDU)' ADD (GPM)' 1 Open Space/Golf Course 401.6 (Assumes that irrigation supply water will be from canals) 2 Residential - High' 2,054 136.9 15.0 0.8 1,643.2 3 Residential - Medium' 2,051 256.4 8.0 1.3 2,666.3 4 Residential - Low' 1,052 276.9 3.8 2.6 2,735.2 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 1.4 478.3 6 Industrial - Heavy 1,837 483.4 1.4 2,571.8 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 1.4 502.2 8 Air Park w/ Food Services 426 112.0 1.4 595.8 9 Office 173 45.6 1.4 242.6 10 Commercial 217 57.1 1.4 303.8 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 98 1.4 145.2 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 98.0 1.4 137.2 TOTAL 8,462 2,177.0 12,021.60 1 High Density based on 15; Low based on 3.8; and Medium based on 8 units/acre. Assumes 3 CAP/DU. 2 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Lower Use factors for higher density assumes irrigation by canal water. 3 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Converted various land uses to equivalent units using 3.8 DU/Acre. 4 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit based on 3.8 units per acre. 5 ADD = Average Day Demand. 6 Assumes that major arterials and common areas in the Medium and High Density Residential will be irrigated with canal water. Assumes 50% of Right -of -Way to be irrigated by domestic water. 2) Increased Demand on Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Conveyance Facilities. The proposed sewage system for Concept 2 is the same as for Concept 1. The proposed development under Concept 2 would impact the CVWD existing treatment plant by introducing an average daily flow of 2.56 million gallons, with daily peaks as high as 3,015 gallons per minute. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the completed Concept 2 is detailed in Table V-56. This represents an 8 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to Concept 1. Mitigation measures D2-15, D2-16, 132-17, 132-18, D2-19, D2-20 and 132-21 are required. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-285 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-56 CONCEPT 2 WASTEWATER GENERATION No. Description EDU' Acres EDU/Ac. Factor ADF' (GPDU)Z (GPD) PDF° (GPM) (GPD) (GPM) 1 Open Space/Golf Course 1,526 401.6 3.8 252.0 384,552 267.1 653,738 454.0 2 Residential - High 2,054 136.9 15.0 252.0 517,608 359.5 879,934 611.1 3 Residential - Med. 2,051 256.4 8.0 516,852 358.9 876,648 608.8 4 Residential - Low 1,052 276.9 3.8 _252.0 252.0 265,104 184.1 450,677 313.0 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 3.8 252.0 86,088 59.8 146,350 101.6 6 Industrial - Heavy 1,837 483.4 3.8 252.0 462,924 321.5 786,971 546.5 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 3.8 252.0 90,397 62.8 153,676 106.7 8 Air Park w/ Food Svcs. 426 112.0 3.8 252.0 107,251 74.5 182,327 126.6 9 Office 173 45.6 3.8 252.0 43,667 30.3 74,233 51.6 10 Commercial 217 57.1 3.8 252.0 54,684 38.0 92,963 64.6 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 3.8 252.0 26,142 18.2 44,442 30.9 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 (Assumes that no water used goes into sanitary sewer system) TOTAL 10,141 2,177 2,555,269 17,147 4,341,959 3,015 TOTAL (Million gal. per day) 2.555 4.342 1 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) = EDU/AC + Ac. 2 Gallons Per Day per EDU = 252. 3 ADF = Average Daily Flow GPM = Gallons per Minute 4 PDF = Peak Daily Flow ADF x 1.7. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Water Supplies Concept 3 will have similar long- and short-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities as Concept 1, with long-term impacts to the groundwater to be mitigated in the form of financial participation in the groundwater recharge in the lower Coachella Valley. Concept 3 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 9.99 million gallons. Table V-57 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for Concept 3 at buildout. This represents a reduction in average daily demand compared with Concept 1 of 26 percent. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites and construction of reservoirs in accordance with the following mitigation measures: D2-1, D2-2, D2-3, D2-4, D2-5, D2-6, D2-7, D2- 8, D2-9, D2-10, D2-11, D2-12, D2-13, D2-14, D2-15 and D2-16. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation. V-286 The Planning Center Chapter V * Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 2) Increased Demand on Wastewater Treatment. Capacity and Conveyance Facilities. The proposed sewage system for Concept 3 is the same as for Concept 1. The proposed development under Concept 3 would impact the CVWD existing treatment plant by introducing an average daily flow of 2.21 million gallons, with daily peaks as high as 2,612 gallons per minute. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the completed Concept 3 is detailed in Table V-58. This represents a 20 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to Concept 1. Mitigation measures D2-15, D2-16, D2-17, 132-18, D2-19, D2-20 and D2-21 are required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-287 Table V-57 CONCEPT 3 DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND No. Description EDU" Acres Units/ Factor Acres6 Acre (GPMDU) Z Factor (GPMDU)3 ADD (GPM)5 1 Open Space/Golf Course 401.6 (Assumes that irrigation supply water will be from canals) 2 Residential - High' 976 65.1 15.0 0.8 780.8 3 Residential - Medium' 864 108.0 8.0 1.3 1,123.2 4 Residential - Low' 386 101.6 3.8 2.6 1,003.6 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 1.4 478.3 6 Industrial - Heavy 3,491 918.7 1.4 4,887.4 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 1.4 502.2 8 Air Park w/ Food Services 426 112.0 1.4 595.8 9 Office 173 45.6 1.4 242.6 10 Commercial 169 44.6 1.4 237.3 11 Public Facilities N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 98.0 1.4 137.2 TOTAL 7,186 2,177.0 9,988.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 High Density based on 15; Low based on 3.8; and Medium based on 8 units/acre. Assumes 3 CAP/DU. GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Lower Use factors for higher density assumes irrigation by canal water. GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Converted various land uses to equivalent units using 3.8 DU/Acre. EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit based on 3.8 units per acre. ADD = Average Day Demand. Assumes that major arterials and common areas in the Medium and High Density Residential will be irrigated with canal water. Assumes 50% of Right -of -Way to be irrigated by domestic water. 2) Increased Demand on Wastewater Treatment. Capacity and Conveyance Facilities. The proposed sewage system for Concept 3 is the same as for Concept 1. The proposed development under Concept 3 would impact the CVWD existing treatment plant by introducing an average daily flow of 2.21 million gallons, with daily peaks as high as 2,612 gallons per minute. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the completed Concept 3 is detailed in Table V-58. This represents a 20 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to Concept 1. Mitigation measures D2-15, D2-16, D2-17, 132-18, D2-19, D2-20 and D2-21 are required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-287 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-58 CONCEPT 3 WASTEWATER GENERATION No. Description EDU' Acres EDU/Ac. Factor (GPDU)Z ADF' PDF° (GPD) (GPM) (GPD) (GPM) 1 Open Space/Golf Course 1,526 401.6 3.8 252.0 384,572 267.1 653,772 454.0 2 Residential - High 976 65.1 15.0 252.0 245,952 170.8 418,118 290.4 3 Residential - Med. 864 108.0 8.0 252.0 217,728 151.2 370,138 257.0_ 4 Residential - Low 386 101.6 3.8 252.0 97,272 67.6 165,362 114.8 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 3.8 252.0 85,932 59.7 146,084 101.5 6 Industrial - Heavy 3,491 918.7 3.8 252.0 879,732 610.9 1,495,544 1,038.6 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 3.8 252.0 90,468 62.8 153,796 106.8 8 Air Park w/ Food Svcs. 426 112.0 3.8 252.0 107,251 74.5 182,327 126.6 9 Office 173 45.6 3.8 252.0 43,667 30.3 74,233 51.6 10 Commercial 169 44.6 3.8 252.0 59,658 41.4 101,419 70.4 11 Public Facilities N/A N/A 3.8 252.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 (Assumes that no water used goes into sanitary sewer system) TOTAL 8,71L]__2,1177 2,212,232 1,536.3 3,760,793 2,611.7 TOTAL (Million gal. per day) 2.212 3.761 1 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) = EDU/AC + Ac. 2 Gallons Per Day per EDU = 252. 3 ADF = Average Daily Flow GPM = Gallons per Minute 4 PDF = Peak Daily Flow ADF x 1.7. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Water Supplies Concept 4 will have similar long- and short-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities as Concept 1, with long-term impacts to the groundwater to be mitigated in the form of financial participation in the groundwater recharge in the lower Coachella Valley. Concept 4 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 12.0 million gallons. Table V-59 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for Concept 4 at buildout. This represents a decrease in average daily demand compared with Concept 1 of 11 percent. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites and construction of reservoirs in accordance with the following mitigation measures: D2-1, 132-2, D2-3, D2-4, D2-5, D2-6, D2-7, D2-8, D2-9, D2-10, D2-11, D2-12, D2-13, 132-14, D2-15 and D2-16. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-288 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-59 CONCEPT 4 DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND No. Description EDU° Acres Acres' Units/ Factor Acre (GPMDU)' Factor (GPMDI ADD (GPM)' 1 Open Space/Golf Course 411.6 (Assumes that irrigation supply water will be from canals) 2 Residential - High' 1,563 104.2 15.0 0.8 1,250.4 3 Residential - Medium' 2,198 274.8 8.0 1.3 2,857.4 4 Residential - Low' 1,183 311.3 3.8 2.6 3,075.8 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 1.4 478.3 6 Industrial - Heavy 1,927 507.2 1.4 2,697.8 7 Warehouse/Distribution 1 359 94.4 1.4 502.2 8 Air Park w/ Food Services 426 112.0 1.4 595.8 9 Office 118 31.1 1.4 165.2 10 Commercial 67 17.7 1.4 93.8 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 1.4 145.2 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 98.0 1.4 137.2 TOTAL 8,287 2,177.0 11,991.1 1 High Density based on 15; Low based on 3.8; and Medium based on 8 units/acre. Assumes 3 CAP/DU. 2 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Lower Use factors for higher density assumes irrigation by canal water. 3 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Converted various land uses to equivalent units using 3.8 DU/Acre. 4 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit based on 3.8 units per acre. 5 ADD = Average Day Demand. 6 Assumes that major arterials and common areas in the Medium and High Density Residential will be irrigated with canal water. Assumes 50% of Right -of -Way to be irrigated by domestic water. 2) Increased Demand on Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Conveyance Facilities. The proposed sewage system for Concept 4 is the same as for Concept 1. The proposed development under Concept 4 would impact the CVWD existing treatment plant by introducing an average daily flow of 2.48 million gallons, with daily peaks as high as 2,931 gallons per minute. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the completed Concept 4 is detailed in Table V-60. This represents an 11 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to Concept 1. Mitigation measures D2-15, D2-16, D2-17, D2-18, D2-19, D2-20 and D2-21 are required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-289 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Water Supplies Concept 5 will have similar long- and short-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities as Concept 1, with long-term impacts to the groundwater to be mitigated in the form of financial participation in the groundwater recharge in the lower Coachella Valley. Concept 5 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 10.6 million gallons. Table V-61 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for Concept 5 at buildout. This represents a reduction in average daily demand compared with Concept 1 of 21 percent. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites and construction of reservoirs in accordance with the following mitigation measures: D2-1, D2-2, D2-3, D2-4, D2-5, D2-6, D2-7, D2-8, D2-9, D2-10, 132-11, D2-12, D2-13, D2-14, D2-15 and D2-16. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation. V-290 The Planning Center Table V-60 CONCEPT 4 WASTEWATER GENERATION No. Description EDU' Acres EDU/Ac. Factor (GPDU)2 ADF' (GPD) (GPM) PDF" (GPD) (GPM) 1 Open Space/Golf Course 1,564 411.6 3.8 252.0 394,148 273.7 670,052 465.3 2 Residential - High 1,563 104.2 15.0 252.0 393,876 273.5 669,589 465.0 3 Residential - Med. 2,198 274.8 8.0 252.0 553,896 384.7 941,623 653.9 4 Residential - Low 1,183 311.3 3.8 252.0 298,116 207.0 506,797 351.9 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 3.8 252.0 86,088 59.8 146,350 101.6 6 Industrial - Heavy 1,927 507.2 3.8 252.0 485,695 337.3 825,682 573.4 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 3.8 252.0 90,397 62.8 153,676 106.7 8 Air Park w/ Food Svcs. 426 112.0 3.8 252.0 107,251 74.5 182,327 126.6 9 Office 118 31.1 3.8 252.0 29,781 20.7 50,628 35.2 10 Commercial 67 17.7 3.8 252.0 16,950 11.8 28,815 20.0 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 3.8 252.0 1 26,142 18.2 44,442 30.9 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 (Assumes that no water used goes into sanitary sewer system) TOTAL 9,851 2,177 2,482,340 1,724 4,219,981 2,930.5 TOTAL (Million gal. per day) 2.482 4.220 1 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) = EDU/AC + Ac. 2 Gallons Per Day per EDU = 252. 3 ADF = Average Daily Flow GPM = Gallons per Minute 4 PDF = Peak Daily Flow ADF x 1.7. f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Water Supplies Concept 5 will have similar long- and short-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities as Concept 1, with long-term impacts to the groundwater to be mitigated in the form of financial participation in the groundwater recharge in the lower Coachella Valley. Concept 5 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 10.6 million gallons. Table V-61 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for Concept 5 at buildout. This represents a reduction in average daily demand compared with Concept 1 of 21 percent. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites and construction of reservoirs in accordance with the following mitigation measures: D2-1, D2-2, D2-3, D2-4, D2-5, D2-6, D2-7, D2-8, D2-9, D2-10, 132-11, D2-12, D2-13, D2-14, D2-15 and D2-16. Impacts are less than significant after mitigation. V-290 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-61 CONCEPT 5 DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND No. Description EDU' Acres Acres' Units/ Factor Acre (GPMDU)2 Factor ADD (GPMDU)3 (GPM)' 1 Open S ace/Golf Course P P 401.6 (Assumes that irrigation supply water will be from canals) 2 Residential - High' 1,077 71.8 15.0 0.8 861.6 3 Residential - Medium' 1,187 148.4 8.0 1.3 1,543.1 4 Residential - Low' 666 175.3 3.8 2.6 1,731.6 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 1.4 478.3 6 Industrial - Heavy 3,606 817.2 1.4 4,347.5 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 1.4 502.2 8 Air Park w/ Food Services 426 112.0 1.4 595.8 9 Office 118 31.1 1.4 165.5 10 Commercial 48 12.5 1.4 66.5 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 1.4 145.2 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 98.0 1.4 137.2 TOTAL 8,133 2,177.0 10,574.5 1 High Density based on 15; Low based on 3.8; and Medium based on 8 unitslacre. Assumes 3 CAP/DU. 2 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Lower Use factors for higher density assumes irrigation by canal water. 3 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Converted various land uses to equivalent units using 3.8 DU/Acre. 4 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit based on 3.8 units per acre. 5 ADD = Average Day Demand. 6 Assumes that major arterials and common areas in the Medium and High Density Residential will be irrigated with canal water. Assumes 50% of Right -of -Way to be irrigated by domestic water. 2) Increased Demand on Wastewater Treatment Capacitv and Conveyance Facilities. The proposed sewage system for Concept 5 is the same as for Concept 1. The proposed development under Concept 5 would impact the CVWD existing treatment plant by introducing an average daily flow of 1.90 million gallons, with daily peaks as high as 2,240 gallons per minute. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the completed Concept 5 is detailed in Table V-62. This represents a 32 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to Concept 1. Mitigation measures D2-15, D2-16, D2-17, D2-18, D2-19, D2-20 and D2-21 are required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-291 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) 11 Im act: Increased Demand on Water Su lies Concept 6 will have similar long- and short-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities as Concept 1, with long-term impacts to the groundwater to be mitigated in the form of financial participation in the groundwater recharge in the lower Coachella Valley. Concept 6 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 8.5 million gallons. Table V-63 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for Concept 6 at buildout. This represents a reduction in average daily demand compared with Concept 1 of 36 percent. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites and construction of reservoirs in accordance with the following mitigation measures: D2-1, D2-2, 132-3, D2-4, D2-5, D2-6, D2-7, D2-8, D2-9, D2-10, D2-11, D2-12, D2-13, D2-14, 132-15 and D2-16. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-292 The Planning Center Table V-62 CONCEPT 5 WASTEWATER GENERATION No. Description EDU' Acres EDU/Ac. Factor (GPDU)z ADF' (GPD) (GPM) PDr (GPD) (GPM) 1 Open Space/Golf Course 1,526 401.6 3.8 252.0 384,572 267.1 653,773 454.0 2 1 Residential - High 273 71.8 15.0 252.0 68,756 47.7 116,885 81.2 3 JResidential - Med. 564 148.4 8.0 252.0 142,108 98.7 241,583 167.8 4 Residential - Low 666 175.3 3.8 252.0 167,867 116.6 285,374 198.2 5 Industrial - Light 342 89.9 3.8 252.0 86,088 59.8 146,350 101.6 6 Industrial - Heavy 3,105 817.2 3.8 252.0 782,551 543.4 1,330,336 923.8 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 3.8 252.0 90,397 62.8 153,676 106.7 8 Air Park w/ Food Svcs. 426 112.0 3.8 252.0 107,251 74.5 182,327 126.6 9 Office 118 31.1 3.8 252.0 29,781 20.7 50,628 35.2 10 Commercial 48 12.5 3.8 252.0 11,970 8.3 20,349 14.1 11 Public Facilities 104 27.3 3.8 252.0 26,142 18.2 44,442 30.9 12 i Right -of -Way 196.0 (Assumes that no water used goes into sanitary sewer system) TOTAL 7,531 2,177 1,897,483 1,317.8 3,225,723 2,240 TOTAL (Million gal. per day) 1.897 4.727 1 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) = EDU/AC + Ac. 2 Gallons Per Day per EDU = 252. 3 ADF = Average Daily Flow GPM = Gallons per Minute 4 PDF = Peak Daily Flow ADF x 1.7. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) 11 Im act: Increased Demand on Water Su lies Concept 6 will have similar long- and short-term impacts on existing CVWD facilities as Concept 1, with long-term impacts to the groundwater to be mitigated in the form of financial participation in the groundwater recharge in the lower Coachella Valley. Concept 6 would produce an average daily demand of approximately 8.5 million gallons. Table V-63 estimates the amount of domestic water consumption for Concept 6 at buildout. This represents a reduction in average daily demand compared with Concept 1 of 36 percent. CVWD requires the dedication of well sites and construction of reservoirs in accordance with the following mitigation measures: D2-1, D2-2, 132-3, D2-4, D2-5, D2-6, D2-7, D2-8, D2-9, D2-10, D2-11, D2-12, D2-13, D2-14, 132-15 and D2-16. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-292 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-63 CONCEPT 6 DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND_ No. Description EDU" Acres Acres' Units/ Acre Factor (GPMDU)Z FactorADD (GPMDU)3 (GPM)' 1 Open Space/Golf Course 401.6 - (Assumes that irrigation supply water will be from canals) 2 Residential - High' N/A N/A 15.0 0.8 N/A 3 Residential - Medium' N/A N/A 8.0 1.3 N/A 4 Residential - Low' N/A N/A 3.8 2.6 N/A 5 Industrial - Light 293 77.2 1.4 410.7 6 Industrial - Heavy 4,808 1,265.2 1.4 6,730.9 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 1.4 502.2 8 Air Park w/ Food Services 426 112.0 1.4 595.8 9 Office 118 31.1 1.4 165.5 10 Commercial N/A N/A 1.4 N/A 11 Public Facilities N/A N/A 1.4 N/A 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 98.0 1.4 137.2 TOTAL 6,004 2,177.0 8,542.3 1 High Density based on 15; Low based on 3.8; and Medium based on 8 units/acre. Assumes 3 CAP/DU. 2 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Lower Use factors for higher density assumes irrigation by canal water. 3 GPMDU = Gallons per Minute per Dwelling Unit. Converted various land uses to equivalent units using 3.8 DU/Acre. 4 EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit based on 3.8 units per acre. 5 ADD = Average Day Demand. 6 Assumes that major arterials and common areas in the Medium and High Density Residential will be irrigated with canal water. Assumes 50% of Right -of -Way to be irrigated by domestic water. 2) Increased Demand on Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Conveyance Facilities. The proposed sewage system for Concept 6 is the same as for Concept 1. The proposed development under Concept 6 would impact the CVWD existing treatment plant by introducing an average daily flow of 1.90 million gallons, with daily peaks as high as 2,240 gallons per minute. The amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the completed Concept 6 is detailed in Table V-64. This represents a 32 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to Concept 1. Mitigation measures D2-15, D2-16, D2-17, D2-18, D2-19, D2-20 and D2-21 are required. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR a May 13, 1996 V-293 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA Table V-64 CONCEPT 6 WASTEWATER GENERATION No. Description EDU' Acres EDU/Ac. Factor (GPDU)2 ADF` PDF" (GPD) (GPM) (GPD) (GPM) 1 Open Space/Golf Course 1,526 401.6 3.8 252.0 384,572 267.1 653,773 454.0 2 Residential - High N/A N/A 15.0 252.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Residential - Med. N/A N/A 8.0 3.8 252.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 Residential - Low N/A N/A 252.0 N/A N/A N/A 5 Industrial - Light 293 77.2 3.8 252.0 73,927 51.3 125,675 87.3 6 Industrial - Heavy 4,808 1,265.2 3.8 252.0 1,211,556 841.4 2,059,644 1,430.3 7 Warehouse/Distribution 359 94.4 3.8 252.0 90,468 62.8 153,796 106.8 8 Air Park w/ Food Svcs. 426 112.0 3.8 252.0 107,251 74.5 182,327 126.6 9 Office 118 31.1 3.8 252.0 29,781 20.7 50,628 35.2 10 Commercial N/A N/A 3.8 252.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 Public Facilities N/A N/A 3.8 252.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 Right -of -Way 196.0 (Assumes that no water used goes into sanitary sewer system) TOTAL 7,530 2,177 1,897,555 1 1,317.5 3,225,843 2,240.2 TOTAL (Million gal. per day) 1.897 3.226 1 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU) = EDU/AC + Ac. 2 Gallons Per Day per EDU = 252. 3 ADF = Average Daily Flow GPM = Gallons per Minute 4 PDF = Peak Daily Flow ADF x 1.7. V-294 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 3. Fire Services a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Fire Department, a full service department that would provide the following services to the project: structure fire control; wildland fire control; medical aid and rescue; fire protection planning and engineering; fire investigations; and a hazardous materials response team. The three stations that would provide service to the project site and their response times are indicated in Table V-65, Fire Stations in Project Vicinity. Each engine that would service the project has a paid company officer and fire-fighter who would be supported by volunteer fire-fighters. Depending on the type of alarm, a chief officer would also respond. The project site is not located within a High Fire Hazard Area and therefore does not require special fire mitigation measures. To ensure that all new developments have an adequate level of fire protection, the RCCGP includes the following land use standards related to the project: 1) Fire Protection and Response Times ■ Concurrent with the submittal of Category II project applications, fire protection service commitments, including fiscal commitments will be evaluated for adequacy. ■ Category IT projects may be required to contribute to the improvement of fire protection services, including such measures as: dedication of fire station sites; construction of new stations or upgrading of existing stations; and provision of new equipment or upgrading of existing equipment. ■ The response time for Category II (Urban) land uses is to be no greater than five minutes. ■ Category II land uses for which a five minute response time is unavailable must provide additional fire protection mitigation measures, including: above standard water systems or storage facilities; construction of roofs, eaves and siding of structures with fire resistant materials, and the planting of fire resistant vegetation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-295 Table V-65 FIRE STATIONS IN PROJECT VICINITY Station Address Response Time Station 39 56925 Tyler Street, Thermal (Located at the Thermal Airport) 5 minutes Station 40 91100 Fourth Street, Mecca 10 minutes Station 79 1377 6th Street, Coachella 10 minutes Source: Correspondence from Tom Hutchison, Fire Safety Specialist, Riverside County Fire Dept., May 4, 1994. Each engine that would service the project has a paid company officer and fire-fighter who would be supported by volunteer fire-fighters. Depending on the type of alarm, a chief officer would also respond. The project site is not located within a High Fire Hazard Area and therefore does not require special fire mitigation measures. To ensure that all new developments have an adequate level of fire protection, the RCCGP includes the following land use standards related to the project: 1) Fire Protection and Response Times ■ Concurrent with the submittal of Category II project applications, fire protection service commitments, including fiscal commitments will be evaluated for adequacy. ■ Category IT projects may be required to contribute to the improvement of fire protection services, including such measures as: dedication of fire station sites; construction of new stations or upgrading of existing stations; and provision of new equipment or upgrading of existing equipment. ■ The response time for Category II (Urban) land uses is to be no greater than five minutes. ■ Category II land uses for which a five minute response time is unavailable must provide additional fire protection mitigation measures, including: above standard water systems or storage facilities; construction of roofs, eaves and siding of structures with fire resistant materials, and the planting of fire resistant vegetation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-295 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Increased Demand for Fire Services a) Impact Analysis Concept 1 would impact the level of fire protection by placing greater demands on existing fire services. The proposed Category II project would result in the development of 7,171 dwelling units and nearly 10.2 million square feet of non- residential development, excluding open space and rights-of-way. The anticipated increase in service calls from this growth is likely to place additional constraints on existing fire protection services. Based on national fire standards, one new fire station and/or engine company could be required for every 2,000 new dwelling units, or 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial occupancy 44 Given the project's proposed development plan, up to two fire stations could be needed to be available to meet anticipated service demands, given project densities. The cumulative impact of the project would serve to adversely affect the Department's ability to provide acceptable levels of service, by creating an incremental demand for increased fire personnel and facilities. A portion of these impacts are expected to be mitigated by the assessment of a fire mitigation development fee for all new construction. These fees would be assessed by the Riverside County Fire Department at the time of development permit approval. As phased development occurs, roads and water systems would be in place to facilitate efficient fire protection. System fire flow requirements for the proposed project are as follows45: Single Family Residences — 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for two hours duration at 20 pounds per square inch (psi). ■ Multi Family Residences, Commercial Buildings (less than one gross acre), Light Manufacturing Uses — 2,500 gpm, along with 1,500 gpm for a two-hour duration at 20 psi from anyone hydrant. ■ Commercial Buildings (greater than one gross acre), Medium and Heavy Industrial Uses — 5,000 gpm, along with 2,500 gpm for a two-hour duration at 20 psi for any two adjacent hydrants. 44 Response to Questionnaire for Kohl Ranch SP/EIR, Tom Hutchison, Riverside County Fire Department, May 4, 1994. 45 Tom Hutchison, May 4, 1994. V-296 The Planning Center Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Mitigation Measures 133-1 The project shall conform with the requirements of the Public Facilities and Services Element of the RCCGP and the Riverside County Fire Protection Ordinance No. 546. D3-2 The County Department of Building and Safety and the County Fire Department shall enforce fire standards in the review of building plans and during building inspection. D3-3 All project street widths, grades and turning/curve radii shall be designed to allow access by fire suppression vehicles. D3-4 Residences and interior streets shall be clearly marked to facilitate easy identification by emergency personnel. D3-5 The developer shall demonstrate that sufficient on-site fire flow pressure exists, as determined by the Riverside County Fire Department. D3-6 Fire flow requirements shall be incorporated into the overall project design. A fire flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi for a two-hour duration shall be required for single family residential uses; 2,500 gpm for multi family residential, light manufacturing and certain commercial uses; and 5,000 gpm for medium and heavy industrial uses, as well as larger commercial development. D3-7 The project applicant shall contribute appropriate fees in accordance with the fire unit impact fee, as well as plan check fees and all other impact fees in accordance with current County of Riverside regulations. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) Concept 2 would impact the level of fire protection by placing greater demands on existing fire services. This concept would result in the development of 5,157 dwelling units and approximately 16.2 million square feet of non-residential development, excluding open space and rights-of-way. Based on national fire standards, one new fire station and/or engine company could be required for every 2,000 new dwelling units or 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial occupancy. Given the development plan for Concept 2, up to two fire stations could be needed to be available to meet anticipated service demands, given project densities. The following mitigation measures will be required: D3-1, D3-2, D3-3, D34, D3-5, 133-6 and D3-7. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-297 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) -Concept 3 would impact the level of fire protection by placing greater demands on existing fire services. This concept would result in the development of 2,227 dwelling units and approximately 10.2 million square feet of non-residential development, excluding open space and rights-of-way. Based on national fire standards, one new fire station and/or engine company could be required for every 2,000 new dwelling units or 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial occupancy. Given the development plan for Concept 3, up to two fire stations could be needed to be available to meet anticipated service demands, given project densities. The following mitigation measures will be required: D3-1, D3-2, D3-3, D3-4, D3-5, D3-6 and D3-7. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) Concept 4 would impact the level of fire protection by placing greater demands on existing fire services. This concept would result in the development of 4,944 dwelling units and approximately 16 million square feet of non-residential development, excluding open space and rights-of-way. Based on national fire standards, one new fire station and/or engine company could be required for every 2,000 new dwelling units or 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial occupancy. Given the development plan for Concept 4, up to two new fire stations could be needed to be available to meet anticipated service demands, given project densities. The following mitigation measures will be required: D3-1, D3-2, D3-3, D3-4, 133-5, D3-6 and D3-7. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. L Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) Concept 5 would impact the level of fire protection by placing greater demands on existing fire services. This concept would result in the development of 2,930 dwelling units and approximately 22 million square feet of non-residential development, excluding open space and rights-of-way. Based on national fire standards, one new fire station and/or engine company could be required for every 2,000 new dwelling units or 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial occupancy. Given the development plan for Concept 5, up to two new fire stations could be needed to be available to meet anticipated service demands, given project densities. The following mitigation measures will be required: D34, D3-2, D3-3, D3-4, D3-5, D3-6 and D3-7. V-298 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Concept 6 would impact the level of fire protection by placing greater demands on existing fire services. This concept would result in the development of approximately 16 million square feet of non-residential development, excluding open space and rights-of-way. No residential units are proposed for Concept 6. Based on national fire standards, one new fire station and/or engine company could be required for every 2,000 new dwelling units or 3.5 million square feet of commercial/industrial occupancy. Given the development plan for Concept 6, up to two new fire stations could be needed to be available to meet anticipated service demands. The following mitigation measures will be required: 133-1, D3-2, D3-3, D3-4, D3-5, D3-6 and D3-7. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 4. Sheriff Services a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The Riverside County Sheriff's Department based in Indio provides police protection services to the unincorporated area of Riverside County where the project site is located. The Indio Station provides a full range of police services including a SWAT team, a K-9 unit and a forensics division. The station is located at 82-695 Dr. Carreon Boulevard and employs one captain, two lieutenants, eight sergeants, seven investigators and twenty-three deputies. The Station is currently understaffed by one lieutenant and ten deputies. The Indio Station is located approximately eight miles from the project site. The response time from the station in an emergency situation is currently seven to eight minutes. However, field deputies deployed in the field normally respond to emergencies in less than seven to eight minutes. Currently, all calls for police protection services are being answered by the Sheriff's Department, but extended delays in response times are becoming more common due to the decrease in the officer per thousand population ratio. The ratio is currently .85 officers per 1,000 population, down from 1.4 officers per 1,000 population four years ago. This decrease in response time is due to positions in the Department being unfunded and subsequently unfilled. The Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District (SCVCSD) provides supplemental sheriff services to the project area on a cost recovery basis. Area residents pay for these services with an additional parcel charge collected via the property tax system (Appendix E). The policies and programs of the RCCGP are intended to utilize the principles of Crime Prevention through security design and Neighborhood Watch Programs to increase security in the County. The RCCGP recommends that the Riverside County Sheriff's Department review all residential, commercial and industrial development projects to assure that the maximum amount of crime prevention is provided to new developments. The following would be considered during the Sheriff's Department review of the project: pedestrian circulation; police patrols; lighting; landscaping; the placement of buildings and roads; Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-299 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA visibility of doors and windows from the street and between buildings; fencing heights and materials; and public and private spaces. The RCCGP also recommends that new Homeowners Associations establish Neighborhood Watch Programs under the direction of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department Crime Prevention Unit. The Crime Prevention Unit would also distribute literature to new communities that explains crime prevention techniques such as the use of locks, lighting and fencing. In addition, the RCCGP includes the following land use standard related to the project: 1) Police Protection and Facilities Adequacy ■ Category I (Heavy Urban) and Category II (Urban) projects will be reviewed for adequate safeguards for crime prevention. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) l) Impact: Increased Demand for Police Protection Services a) Impact Analysis Concept 1 proposes 7,171 dwelling units and a combined total of nearly 10.2 million square feet of non-residential development, excluding open space and rights-of-way. This increase in population would result in increased crime, which would place additional demands on sheriff services. Based upon the Riverside County Sheriff's Department generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed project has the potential to increase population by approximately 28,684 persons. Utilizing the ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, 43 officers would be required to adequately protect the Kohl Ranch development. The Sheriff's Department has indicated that the Indio Station would be able to handle the additional deputies required to serve the project; a new substation would not be required. Revenues accrued to the SCVCSD will support an additional eleven officers, including ten deputies and one sergeant, plus all necessary support services. This would result in an additional level of service of 0.38 officers per 1,000 population. If a portion of the project is developed as a gate -guarded community, the factors used to estimate the demand for sheriff's services would need to be reevaluated. b) Mitigation Measures D4-1 The applicant shall cooperate with the Sheriff's Department to ensure that adequate protection, facilities and personnel are available. D4-2 The applicant shall contract with the SCVCSD to provide supplemental sheriff services in exchange for an additional parcel charge collected via the property tax system. 134-3 Construction yard fencing and/or security personnel shall be provided during the construction phases to reduce the potential of theft and vandalism at the site. V-300 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis D44 Ample lighting shall be provided in all parking area entrances/exits and walkways, consistent with Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Additionally, the applicant shall ensure that street addresses are highly visible to any responding emergency vehicles. D4-5 For the safety and security of future residents, the applicant or developer shall address the following design concepts within each planning area to assure the maximum measure of crime prevention: • Circulation for pedestrian, vehicular and police patrol circulation • Lighting • Landscaping • Visibility of doors and windows from the street and between buildings • Fencing heights and materials • Public and private spaces c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) Based upon the Riverside County Sheriffs Department generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit, Concept 2 has the potential to increase the population by approximately 20,628 persons. Utilizing the ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, 31 officers would be required to adequately protect the population of Concept 2. Also, revenues accrued to the SCVCSD will support additional officers. Concept 2 would generate a smaller increase in population than Concept 1, which in turn results in a lower demand of police protection services than for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D4-1, D4-2, D4-3, D4-4 and D4-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) Based upon the Riverside County Sheriffs Department generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit, Concept 3 has the potential to increase the population by approximately 8,908 persons. Utilizing the ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, 13.4 officers would be required to adequately protect the population of Concept 3. Also, revenues accrued to the SCVCSD will support additional officers. Concept 3 would generate a significantly smaller increase in population than Concept 1, due to the development of a large-scale industrial use in the southern portion of the site. This, in turn, results in a lower demand of police protection services than for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D44, D4-2, D4-3, D44 and D4-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-301 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) —Based upon the Riverside County Sheriffs Department generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit, Concept 4 has the potential to increase the population by approximately 19,776 persons. Utilizing the ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, 29.7 officers would be required to adequately protect the population of Concept 4. Also, revenues accrued to the SCVCSD will support additional officers. Concept 4 would generate a smaller increase in population than Concept 1, which in turn results in a lower demand of police protection services than for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D4-1, D4-2, D4-3, D4-4 and D4-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) Based upon the Riverside County Sheriffs Department generation factor of 4.0 persons per dwelling unit, Concept 5 has the potential to increase the population by approximately 11,720 persons. Utilizing the ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population, 17.6 officers would be required to adequately protect the population of Concept 5. Also, revenues accrued to the SCVCSD will support additional officers. Concept 5 would generate a significantly smaller increase in population than Concept 1, which in turn results in a lower demand of police protection services than for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D4-1, D4-2, D4-3, 134-4 and D4-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Implementation of Concept 6 would demand a significantly lower level of police protection services than Concept 1, primarily due to the large industrial use on the site and the fact that no residential units are proposed for Concept 6. Concept 6 would generate revenues that would accrue to the SCVCSD. The following mitigation measures will be required: D44, D4-2, D4-3, D44 and D4-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-302 The Planning Center Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 5. Schools �a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Existing Conditions The Kohl Ranch project site is located within the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). Existing school facilities in the project vicinity are identified in Table V-66. Table V-66 SCHOOLS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Students Enrollment as of Exceeding School Name and Location Grades April 1, 1994 Capacity Capacity Adult Education Satellite NA Bobby G. Duke School 7-8 790 720 70 85-358 Baghdad Street, Coachella Cesar Chavez Elementary School K-6 766 669 97 Coachella Valley High School 9-12 2,050 1,712 338 83-800 Airport Boulevard, Thermal John Kelley Elementary School K-8 984 792 192 87-163 Center Street, Thermal Kokell School Center Street, Thermal La Familia Continuation High School 9-12 112 47 65 56-615 Olive Street, Thermal Mecca Elementary School K-8 1,151 608 543 6th and Coachuilla, Mecca Oasis Elementary School K-8 916 497 419 88-755 Avenue 76, Thermal Palm View Elementary School K-6 704 630 74 1390 Seventh Street, Coachella Peter Pendleton Elementary School K-6 757 560 197 84-750 Calle Rojo, Coachella Sea View Elementary School K-8 192 91 101 Shore Hawk & Shore Gem Street, Thermal West Shore High School 9-12 82 112 (30) Shore Hawk & Shore Gem Street, Thermal Valley View Elementary School K-6 822 580 242 85-270 Valley Road, Coachella Westside Elementary School K-8 888 678 210 82-225 Airport Boulevard, Thermal Administrative Offices, District Service Center NA NA NA NA 87-225 Church Street, Thermal TOTALS NA 10,214 7,696 2,518 'County sponsored school for physically handicapped students. Source: Coachella Valley Unified School District Facilities Department, School Capacity Report, April 18, 1994. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-303 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The School District has a number of planned educational facilities in various stages of completion. These planned facilities are identified in Table V-67. In 1991, the School District was declared bankrupt and a state administrator was appointed to run the District. As a consequence, the District is now proceeding cautiously regarding financial issues. Table V-67 PLANNED EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Name and Location Planned Facilities Status Future Elementary School Avenue 49, Avenue 50 and Hjorth Purchased 11.5 -acre property. No phase 1 application yet. Future Jr. High School Site Searching for site. Jr. High School #1 82-489 Avenue 52 Coachella Opened Fall 1995. Coachella Valley High School New girls gym, 20 classrooms, administration building and library. Received phase 1 funding approval. Valley View Elementary School Modernization of existing facilities. Waiting for funding. Source: Coachella Valley Unified School District, 1994. The CVUSD covers a large geographic area and serves a diverse student population. According to school officials, the School District is heavily impacted by overcrowded conditions. In addition, most of the school buildings in the District are old. Currently, there are over 120 portables in use in the District. A high percentage of students in the district are bussed to school; approximately 95 percent of high school students in the District travel to and from school by bus. In December 1993, the CVUSD completed the Development Fee Justification Analysis for Residential Development, CommerciaUlndustrial Development and Senior Housing, and subsequently submitted this document to Riverside County for review. In September of 1994, the County sent the report back to the School District for revisions. Upon submission and acceptance of a revised Development Fee Justification report, developers within the CVUSD service area will be required to successfully negotiate agreements with the School District prior to Specific Plan approval. 21 General Plan Policies The RCCGP contains several land use standards pertaining to school facilities: a) Service and Facilities Adequacy ■ Projects will be evaluated to determine their impact on school services and facilities. V-304 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Impacted Schools ■ Projects located in school districts that are already impacted or over capacity must make arrangements with the school districts to mitigate the additional effects of the project. These arrangements may include site dedication or developer agreements. c) School Facilities Improvements ■ As determined by the school districts, large developments and self-contained planned communities which will generate sufficient students to warrant a new school shall arrange with the school district to provide adequate school facilities in accordance with the needs of the community. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Increased Demand for School Facilities a) Impact Analysis Concept 1 would result in the development of 7,171 dwelling units. Of these, 4,944 are planned to be second home/retirement units, which are unlikely to house school age children. However, assuming 1,800 square feet per dwelling unit, the project would yield 12.9 million square feet of residential development. In addition, the project proposes approximately 9.9 million square feet of commercial/industrial development. Assuming that fees are assessed at the current statutory limit, the project would be responsible for fees of approximately $24.8 million. The portion of the project site north of the Avenue 64 right-of-way is within the Thermal Airport Traffic Pattern Zone (TPZ). Places of public assembly, such as schools, are discouraged within the TPZ, according to the airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This may limit acceptable school sites to locations south of Avenue 64. The Specific Plan identified public facility sites just south of Avenue 64, so that potential school sites would be able to serve communities within the project neighborhoods to the north and to the south. However, these neighborhoods are intended for second home/retirement communities. Neighborhoods in the northern portion of the site are intended to provide housing for families of workers employed in the Specific Plan commercial, business and industrial areas. These communities, which are more likely to house school-age children, would be located between one and two miles from the proposed public facility sites. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-305 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b) Mitigation Measures D5-1 The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of fees at the state statutory limit in effect at the time; or otherwise reach agreement with the school district for provision of school sites and/or payment of fees to effectively mitigate school impacts. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) Concept 2 would result in the development of 5,157 dwelling units. Of these, 2,930 are planned to be second home/retirement units, which are unlikely to house school age children. Concept 2 would generate school age children from 2,227 units, which is identical to Concept 1. Thus Concept 2 would result in similar school facilities impacts as Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D5-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) Concept 3 would result in the development of 2,227 dwelling units. Concept 3 would generate school age children from 2,227 units, which is identical to Concept 1. Thus Concept 3 would result in similar school facilities impacts as Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D5-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) Concept 4 would result in the development of 4,944 dwelling units. Of these, 4,944 are planned to be second home/retirement units, which are unlikely to house school age children. Concept 4 would generate no school impacts from the residential uses, but there is the potential for the commercial and industrial uses to create some additional demand on school facilities. Thus, the demand for school facilities under Concept 4 would be substantially less than that for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D5-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. L Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) Concept 5 would result in the development of 2,930 dwelling units. Of these, 2,930 are planned to be second home/retirement units, which are unlikely to house school age children. Concept 5 would generate no school impacts from the residential uses, but there is the V-306 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis potential for the commercial and industrial uses to create some additional demand on school facilities. Thus, the demand for school facilities under Concept 5 would be substantially less than that for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D5-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Concept 6 proposes no residential units, but could create some additional demand on school facilities. The demand for school facilities under Concept 6 would be substantially less than that for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: 135-1. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 6. Parks and Recreation a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Parks and recreational facilities in the project vicinity are under the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open -Space District (RPOSD) and the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District (CVRPD). The RPOSD operates two parks near the project site: Lake Cahuilla Park and Fish Traps Park. Lake Cahuilla is a 710 -acre site located 4 miles west of the project site, with 50 developed campsites, swimming pool, picnic facilities, recreational vehicle hookups, fishing and hiking. Planned improvements at the Lake Cahuilla facility include improvements to bathrooms, walkways, group campgrounds and trail heads. Fish Traps Park is a 208 -acre undeveloped archaeological site near the terminus of Jackson Street. The CVRPD operates three parks near the project site. Mecca Park is a 3.25 -acre site with ballfield, basketball court and swimming pool. The Oasis Ballfield is 3.5 acres and the Thermal Ballfields at John Kelly School are 4.5 acres. CVRPD is currently pursuing funding for a Community Center in Mecca and is considering purchase of land for a ballfield in Thermal. Both the RPOSD and CVRPD indicate that the demand for parks and recreational facilities in the project area has increased, and that additional facilities are needed. According to the RPOSD, the project area (4th Supervisorial District) is deficient in terms of both developed regional parkland and natural parkland. Future acquisitions for trail linkages and park development are a priority for the RPOSD. The RCCGP Open Space and Conservation Trails Map identifies regional trails running parallel to the northern and southern boundaries of the project site along Avenue 60 and Avenue 66, and a regional trail east of the project site along the Whitewater River. The Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-307 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Regional Trails Map identifies Class I Bike Paths adjacent to the regional trails mentioned above, and along the old Highway 86, west of the project site. The RCCGP recognizes that due to the increasing urbanization of the County, existing recreational and open space facilities are not adequate to meet the increased demand for a variety of recreational opportunities. It is recommended that the provision of recreational opportunities be achieved by: providing a balanced distribution of parks and open space; encouraging recreational tourism; recognizing the needs of the disabled, senior citizens and other special needs groups; and by utilizing the development standards of one developed acre of regional parkland (e.g. camping, fishing facilities) per thousand population, and 25 acres of natural parkland (e.g. sensitive species habitat) per thousand population. In addition, the County utilizes the development standard of three acres developed local parkland per 1,000 population (e.g. ballfield) to address the need for local and neighborhood parks. The RPOSD may require residential developments to either donate a minimum acreage of land or make in lieu payments. The County also may require both the dedication and improvement of trail segments shown on the County Parks and Recreation Map. Development fees assessed for new development by the RPOSD are $350.00 per residential unit for regional parklands and $260.00 per residential unit for natural parklands. Additional sources of revenue for the District include property taxes and user fees collected from facilities in the District. The CVRPD park and facility development standards are contained in the 1989 Master Plan and are generally within the ranges recommended by the National Recreation and Parks Association. CVRPD uses the standard of three acres of parkland per thousand population consistent with the Quimby Act, and also permits payment of fee in lieu of land dedication. The CVRPD assesses development fees based on the current fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication. Fair market value is based on the land as an improved subdivision. The CVRPD may also give credit toward achievement of the park standard, if recreational facilities such as golf courses and community centers are provided. The following RCCGP land use standards would apply to the project: l Provision of Recreational Facilities ■ Residential Category II projects will be reviewed for adequate recreation facilities by the County. Mitigation measures may be required to ensure adequate future recreational opportunities. 2) Siting Neighborhood and Community Parks ■ Where possible, neighborhood parks should serve a population of 2,000 to 5,000 or approximately the same population and area served by an elementary school. Optimally, the service area for a neighborhood park should be between 1/4 and 3/8 of a mile. V-308 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis ■ Where possible, community parks should generally serve the same constituency as a junior or senior high school, with a service radius of 1/2 to 3 miles. Community parks also serve as neighborhood parks for the close population. 3) Design of Neighborhood and Community Parks ■ All parks should be situated and designed to the extent feasible so as to minimize vandalism, maximize access by law and emergency vehicles, and allow for an effective survey by law enforcement patrol officers. In addition, all parks and open spaces should complement the character of a community or neighborhood. Play areas should be surrounded by buffers to protect occupants from nearby street traffic and adjacent land uses through the use of fences, berms, tree rows or open space. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Increased Demand for Parks and Recreational Facilities a) Impact Analysis Development of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan under Concept 1 will add 7,171 residential units to the area. Based upon the County standards for persons per dwelling unit (du), as described in Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35 (2.59 persons/du for single family and 2.34 persons/du for multi -family) and the Quimby requirement of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population, Concept 1 will generate a demand for 53.82 acres of local parkland. Local Parks The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan incorporates an open space and recreation program as a major component. The comprehensive system includes neighborhood and community parks, two potential golf courses, passive open space and a project -wide trail system. Under Concept 1, a total of 411.6 acres would be dedicated to open space. Under the golf course alternative, this acreage would increase to 588.6 This open space acreage would be augmented by a network of on- and off-street pedestrian trails linking the parks and public facility sites. Specifically, Concept 1 includes local parkland in excess of the demand created, by offering to dedicate 78.4 acres for the construction of six local parks in lieu of fees to serve residents of each of the project neighborhoods. Figure IV -10 in the Specific Plan and Figure V-31 in this EIR identify planned park locations. Under the golf course alternative, two parks or 36.8 acres would be incorporated into the golf course acreage, to be used for active recreation by project residents. While both golf courses would be privately owned, it is anticipated that the northern golf course (162.2 acres) would be open to the public, thereby providing a regional recreational amenity, while the 193.5 -acre southern golf Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-309 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley - CA course would be used exclusively by residents of the retirement/second home community. Without the golf courses, parkland would be at a ratio of 4.4 acres per thousand population. With the golf courses, the ratio would be 2.3. In addition to the park and golf course acreage, the proposed project would preserve 333.2 acres of passive open space as part of the project drainage system and airport clear zone. These areas, which incorporate a portion of the trails network, are proposed to remain undeveloped, and to be landscaped with native desert vegetation. Under the golf course alternative, the acreage of passive open space would be 191.3 acres. The potential for joint use of recreation facilities built by the school district, by both residents and students, would provide additional acres of recreation and open space. However, the decision to allow such use of school grounds is at the sole discretion of school district officials. Therefore, additional acreage from school sites is not included in the overall calculation of active parkland. The project land use plan includes 27.3 acres of public facilities, which could be used for schools and associated outdoor recreation areas, if needed. Reeional Parks The proposed project would increase use of recreation facilities at Lake Cahuilla, although planned improvements at the park would mitigate this impact. b) Mitigation Measures D6-1 The project shall dedicate a minimum of 53.82 acres for developed local parkland, or shall provide fees in lieu of dedication, based on agreement with the CVRPD. Parkland or equivalent fees provided by the applicant shall be phased in conjunction with residential development so that appropriate acreage of local parkland is provided for each 1,000 persons within the new development. D6-2 The developer(s) shall work with the CVRPD and the Coachella Valley Unified School District to determine the types of facilities to be installed in parks and schools, if a joint -use program is undertaken. D6-3 Recreation trails shall be improved and dedicated, as described in the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. D6-4 The applicant shall dedicate land for regional and natural parkland or shall pay mitigation fees at the occupancy permit stage to the Building Code and Safety Department, in accordance with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 659. D6-5 Future development projects shall comply with the Land Use Standards for parks and recreation facilities in the RCCGP. V-310 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c) Level of Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) Development of Concept 2 will add 5,157 residential units to the area. Based upon the County standards for persons per dwelling unit (du), as described in Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35 (2.59 person/du for single family and 2.34 persons/du for multi -family) and the Quimby requirement of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population, Concept 2 will generate a demand for 38.53 acres of local parkland. This is less than the amount of local parkland need created by Concept 1. Where a park designated under Concept 1 would be located in a neighborhood that is converted to an industrial use in Concept 2, that park would no longer be needed to serve project residents, and therefore would not impact the provision of adequate park and recreation facilities. However, in addition to the parkland in residential areas, some parkland has been planned in non-residential neighborhoods, to be utilized by employees and residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Consequently, without the golf courses, 68.4 acres of parkland have been planned; with the golf courses, 31.6 acres of parkland have been planned. The following mitigation measures will be required: D64, D6-2, D6-3, D64 and D6-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) Development of Concept 3 will add 2,227 residential units to the area. Based upon the County standards for persons per dwelling unit (du), as described in Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35 (2.59 person/du for single family and 2.34 persons/du for multi -family) and the Quimby requirement of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population, Concept 3 will generate a demand for 16.57 acres of local parkland. This is significantly less than the amount of local parkland need created by Concept 1. Where a park designated under Concept 1 would be located in a neighborhood that is converted to an industrial use in Concept 3, that park would no longer be needed to serve project residents, and therefore would not impact the provision of adequate park and recreation facilities. However, in addition to the parkland in residential areas, some parkland has been planned in non-residential neighborhoods, to be utilized by employees and residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Consequently, without the golf courses, 48.4 acres of parkland have been planned; with the golf courses, 31.6 acres of parkland have been planned. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-311 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The following mitigation measures will be required: D6-1, D6-2, D6-3, D6-4 and D6-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) Development of Concept 4 will add 4,944 residential units to the area. Based upon the County standards for persons per dwelling unit (du), as described in Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35 (2.59 person/du for single family and 2.34 persons/du for multi -family) and the Quimby requirement of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population, Concept 4 will generate a demand for 37.2 acres of local parkland. This is less than the amount of local parkland need created by Concept 1. Where a park designated under Concept 1 would be located in a neighborhood that is converted to an industrial use in Concept 4, that park would no longer be needed to serve project residents, and therefore would not impact the provision of adequate park and recreation facilities. However, in addition to the parkland in residential areas, some parkland has been planned in non-residential neighborhoods, to be utilized by employees and residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Consequently, without the golf courses, 78.4 acres of parkland have been planned; with the golf courses, 41.6 acres of parkland have been planned. The following mitigation measures will be required: D6-1, 136-2, D6-3, D6-4 and D6-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) Development of Concept 5 will add 2,930 residential units to the area. Based upon the County standards for persons per dwelling unit (du), as described in Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35 (2.59 person/du for single family and 2.34 persons/du for multi -family) and the Quimby requirement of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population, Concept 5 will generate a demand for 21.96 acres of local parkland. This is significantly less than the amount of local parkland need created by Concept 1. Where a park designated under Concept 1 would be located in a neighborhood that is converted to an industrial use in Concept 5, that park would no longer be needed to serve project residents, and therefore would not impact the provision of adequate park and recreation facilities. However, in addition to the parkland in residential areas, some parkland has been planned in non-residential neighborhoods, to be utilized by employees and residents of adjacent neighborhoods. Consequently, without the golf courses, 68.4 acres of parkland have been planned; with the golf courses, 31.6 acres of parkland have been planned. The following mitigation measures will be required: D6-1, D6-2, D6-3, D64 and D6-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-312 The Planning Center Chapter V Q Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Both the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District and the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District indicated that the demand for parks and recreational facilities in this area has increased, and that additional facilities are needed. Concept 6 includes no local or regional parks, but would create minimal demand on the parks system as compared to Concept 1. The local and regional parks impacts created by Concept 6 are less than significant. No mitigation measures are proposed for Concept 6. 7. Utilities a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The following utilities currently provide service to the project area: ■ Southern California Gas Company • Imperial Irrigation District ■ GTE ■ Country Cable Television 1) Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company currently maintains an 8 -inch diameter, high pressure service distribution line that follows the alignment of Highway 111 through the Thermal area. This line would be used to provide service to the Kohl Ranch project site. The provision of natural gas service to the project site will be provided through the extension of a distribution line from the intersection of Highway 111 and Fillmore Street to the project site. 2) Electricity The Imperial Irrigation District (IID) currently provides electricity in the vicinity of the Kohl Ranch project site. IID maintains an overhead 161 kV distribution line, mounted on single -shaft steel poles that range in height from 100 to 125 feet north of the Avenue 64 right-of-way. This line extends eastward through the project site and connects with an existing 92 kV, wooden pole -mounted distribution line that runs north and south on Fillmore Street. Service taps are not allowed from the 161 kV line. 3) Telephone GTE currently maintains overhead facilities at the project site. An overhead trunk line exists at the intersection of Avenue 60 and Polk Street. This cable supports a pair -gain device allowing the trunk to branch and support distribution services. This trunk extends southerly along Polk Street and joins a major trunk line, at the intersection with Avenue 62. The trunk line then crosses through the project site to Tyler Street. Another Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-313 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA cable service line exists at Avenue 66 and continues along the project frontage to Tyler Street. 4) Cable Television Country Cable Television currently provides cable television service in the vicinity of the project site. An existing distribution line follows the alignment of Highway 111 through the Thermal area, and would be used to service the project site. 5) General Plan Policies The RCCGP contains policies and programs to ensure that the necessary utilities are provided for new development to protect the health and safety of County residents. Projects which have a major transmission line crossing the site may require setbacks from the edge of the utility easement if analysis shows that this is necessary to assure the public's health and safety. Category H land uses may use agricultural, recreational or open space land use within the required utility setback. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Natural Gas Supplies a) Impact Analysis Given the limited level of existing development in the project area, the proposed development of the Kohl Ranch project would result in a significant increase in the use of natural gas over existing conditions under Concept 1. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that natural gas consumption for the development will be 68,713,529 cubic feet per month.46 Natural gas service to the proposed project site would be made available by extending an existing 8 -inch main, located at the intersection of Highway 111 and Fillmore Street in Thermal, south on Fillmore, then west on Avenue 62 to the project site. This off-site service line would require approximately 19,000 linear feet .4' The estimated cost to serve the Kohl Ranch project is $171,000. The cost to install underground facilities is typically incurred by the property owner; however, the majority of the off-site installation costs will likely be offset by free footage allowances credited to the property owner. On-site distribution lines cannot be determined at this time, and would be planned in conjunction with the development of improvement plans. 46 Estimates consistent with average usage rates as provided by the SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. 47 Correspondence between James Oravets, J.F. Davidson & Associates, Inc. and Michael R. Fryke, Southern California Gas Company, December 7, 1994. V-314 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b) Mitigation Measures D7-1 The developer shall finance the installation of gas lines in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Southern California Gas Company or other authorized service provider. This cost may be offset by credits for free footage allowances. D7-2 All gas services and facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Southern California Gas Company or other authorized service provider policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). D7-3 The developer shall ensure that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the proposed new development. D7-4 Development plans shall be provided to the Southern California Gas Company or other authorized service provider as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction improvements necessary to provide services to the project site. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Electricity a) Impact Analysis IID estimates that the project -related electrical demand would require the extension of between three to five miles of overhead 92 kV subtransmission line. It is anticipated that the line would begin at Fillmore and continue west to the project site, south on Polk Street to Avenue 64, then east along Avenue 64 to connect with the existing line on Fillmore. In addition, at least two new substations would need to be constructed, with 92 kV overhead subtransmission lines, in the vicinity of the project. The required size of the substations would be 300 feet by 300 feet. IID would fund the substations to be built on property donated by the applicant. IID has indicated that it is cost prohibitive for IID to place the 161 kV and 92 kV transmission lines underground; however, the developer may opt to finance the engineering study and complete installation and maintenance costs associated with the installation of an underground transmission line. According to IID, the cumulative impacts of large projects such as the Kohl Ranch, would be to increase the electrical demand on IID's existing facilities at peak loading periods, and to result in the need for additional generation, transmission, substation Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-315 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA and distribution facilities 48 This would directly impact power rates in the IID's service area, and potentially result in higher electric rates in future years. Low voltage distribution lines cannot be determined at this time, and would be planned in conjunction with the development of improvement plans. b) Mitigation Measures D7-5 The developer shall provide the electric power improvements required by IID or other authorized service provider. D7-6 All buildings shall be constructed in compliance with the insulation standards established by the California Uniform Building Code (UBC). D7-7 All electrical facilities shall be constructed in accordance with IID or other authorized service provider policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). D7-8 Underground facilities shall be installed in accordance with District requirements, as outlined in "A Developer's Information Letter" (effective September 15, 1994). Easements, ten feet in width and adjacent to all streets, shall be required for the installation of underground power facilities. D7-9 The project shall comply with the requirements of Title 24 of the Energy Conservation Code. D7-10 The developer shall provide development plans to IID or other authorized service provider as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction improvements necessary to service the project site. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 3 Imp act: Increased Demand on Tele hone Service a) Impact Analysis Telephone service to the Kohl Ranch site could be provided from existing facilities, without requiring off-site facilities. Service could be provided directly from the Avenue 60 and Polk Street facility. Other sources would require the installation of 48 Correspondence between Richard J. MacHott, Riverside County Planning Department, and Thomas F. Lyons, Jr., Imperial Irrigation District, November 18, 1994 (Appendix A). V-316 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis pair -gain devices49. New facilities within the site should be installed underground, as required by County Ordinance No. 460. On-site distribution lines cannot be determined at this time, and would be planned in conjunction with the development of improvement plans. b) Mitigation Measures D7-11 All new telephone lines within the site shall be installed underground, as required by County Ordinance No. 460. D7-12 The developer shall provide development plans to GTE or other authorized service provider as they become available in order to facilitate engineering, design and construction improvements necessary to service the project site. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 4) Impact: Increased Demand on Cable Television Service a) Impact Analysis The provision of cable television service to the Kohl Ranch project site would require an extension of the existing distribution line. It is anticipated that this line would begin at Highway 111 and Avenue 66, and continue west to the project site. The total length of required off-site coaxial cable would be approximately 21,000 linear feet.50 Country Cable Television has indicated that it would finance the cost to extend cable service to the project site, pending completion of the trenching. On-site distribution lines cannot be determined at this time, and would be planned in conjunction with the development of improvement plans. b) Mitigation Measures D7-13 All cable television service lines shall be located underground, in accordance with the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. D7-14 The developer shall coordinate the installation of cable television service lines with a cable television franchise for the area prior to development. 49 Phone conversation between James Oravets J.F. Davidson & Associates, Inc., and Don Kirby, GTE California Incorporated Company. so phone conversation between James Oravets, J.F. Davidson & Associates, Inc. and Rodney Gorges, Country Cable Television, December 5, 1994. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-317 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 5) Impact: Exposure to Electric and Maenetic Fields (EMF) a) Impact Analysis A 161 kV transmission line easement crosses the project site just north of the Avenue 64 right-of-way. This line creates a magnetic field, which has the potential to affect project residents. The Specific Plan proposes residential land uses immediately to the north of the easement, and public facilities to the south. Exposure to magnetic fields is believed by some in the scientific community to cause adverse health effects. However, most analysts agree that there is insufficient scientific evidence to establish a correlation between exposure to EMFs and diseases such as cancer. Nevertheless, the potential effects of exposure to EMFs have been considered in this EIR, so that prudent measures may be taken to minimize the potential for adverse impacts. Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are created by electric charges from the use of electricity. Electric charges with opposite signs (a positive and negative charge) attract each other, while charges with the same sign repel each other. These forces of attraction or repulsion, when not moving, create electric fields whose strength is related to the voltage or electric pressure in the circuit. When these electric charges are in motion they create magnetic fields. Electric power used in North America flows back and forth or alternates at a rate of 60 times per second, and is therefore referred to as 60 hertz alternating current (AC) electric power. Exposure to EMFs comes from sources such as high voltage and long-distance transmission lines, distribution and transmission lines, wiring in the walls of homes, ground currents in water pipes, and from electrical appliances of all sorts including computers, radios, television sets, toasters, hair dryers, and electric blankets. Magnetic field strength diminishes with increased distance from the source. The strength of a magnetic field is measured in units of milliGauss (mG). A typical American home has a background magnetic field level (away from appliances) ranging from 0.5 mG to 4 mG. Table V-68 gives typical magnetic field measurements for several types of single circuit electric power lines at varying distances from the lines, both at times of average electricity usage and at peak usage times. V-318 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Table V-68 MAGNETIC FIELDS NEAR ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION LINES Types of Maximum Distance from Lines Transmission on Right -of - Lines Way 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet 300 feet 115 Kilovolts (kV) Average Usage 30 7 2 0.4 0.2 Peak Usage 63 14 4 0.9 0.4 230 Kilovolts (kV) Average Usage 58 20 7 1.8 0.8 Peak Usage 118 40 15 3.6 1.6 500 Kilovolts (kV) Average Usage 87 29 13 3.2 1.4 Peak Usage 183 62 27 6.7 3.0 1. Magnetic field measurements in units of milliGauss (mG). Source: Bonneville Power Administration, quoted in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, EMF in Your Environment, December, 1992. The first measurement on the table gives the maximum magnetic field strength measured within the power line right-of-way. The next four measurements are at distances of 50 feet, 100 feet, 200 feet and 300 feet. All measurements were taken at a height of one meter above the ground. The measurements are from electric "transmission" lines, which use very high voltages and go long distances. Electrical lines in typical neighborhoods are "distribution" lines, which usually carry less voltage than transmission lines. However, current rather than voltage is the critical issue with regard to magnetic field strength. The highest magnetic field strength measurement directly on the right-of-way of 500 kV transmission lines during peak usage is lower than the median measurement for magnetic field strength within 6 inches of many household appliances, such as hair dryers and vacuum cleaners. However, the duration of exposure to EMFs from power lines near a home is typically much longer than the duration of exposure from most appliances. The electric and magnetic fields from a power line decrease rapidly with distance from the wires. The height of the pole and the width of the easement area around a power line's route can significantly reduce the field strength in a home or backyard. It is not yet known whether EMFs pose human health risks. There is some evidence that points to a relationship between EMFs and some types of cancer. Though the body of evidence cannot be dismissed, it is not complete enough to draw meaningful conclusions. Other health effects have not been studied as extensively as cancer, so any possible relationship with EMF exposure is even more uncertain. Scientists do not know if certain levels of EMFs are safer or less safe than other levels, since there has been no dose/response relationship established. As a result, neither the U.S. EPA Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-319 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA nor any other federal agency has established a standard for EMFs. Several states have formally adopted standards to limit the permissible magnetic field strength along rights-of-way of electric transmission lines. The State of California has not. Since it is not known what intensity of field is safe or unsafe, scientists also do not know what is a safe distance from EMFs. Background magnetic fields usually range from 0.1 to 4.0 mG. In the case of most high voltage power lines, at 300 feet from the center span, the magnetic field has usually dropped below 2 mG. The California Department of Health Services and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have reviewed the scientific literature and have held public hearings on EMF. In 1991, the CPUC began a formal process called an "Order Instituting Investigation (OII)" to decide what, if anything, should be done while the issue of EMF health risks is being addressed. The CPUC adopted an EMF regulatory strategy that includes: ■ An integrated scientific research program to better understand if EMF causes human health effects; ■ An integrated engineering research program to identify and evaluate methods to limit EMF; ■ Identification of reasonable, low-cost design options for new facilities, which limit EMF but do not adversely impact the safety or reliability of utility systems; and ■ An education program. As part of the OII process, the CPUC formed a California EMF Consensus Group in 1991. The group consisted of representatives from the utilities, governmental agencies, unions and citizens' groups. The Group's report formed the basis for interim measures adopted by the CPUC. The CPUC interim decision of 1993 includes developing design guidelines for utilities to use in reducing EMF from new and upgraded facilities, developing public information and research programs directed by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), and offering free measurement services for homes and businesses. Financial support by utilities of the $65 million Federal Research Program also was authorized. The California Department of Education School Facilities Planning Division has established the following limits for locating school sites near high-voltage power transmission line easements. These limits are based on a graph of electric field strengths provided to the Department by the Southern California Edison Company (figures represent updated W strengths of transmission lines used by utility companies in January, 1993): V-320 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis n 100 feet from edge of easement for 50-133 kV line ■ 150 feet from edge of easement for 220-230 kV line ■ 350 feet from edge of easement for 500-550 kV line The idea of applying the concept of "prudent avoidance" to EMF exposures was developed in a report written by Carnegie Mellon University for the Office of Technology Assessment, titled 'Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Background Paper". This decision-making process is based on judgement and values. Prudent avoidance applied to EMFs suggests adopting measures to avoid EMF exposures when it is reasonable, practical, relatively inexpensive and simple to do. Examples of prudent avoidance from the Carnegie Mellon report include: 1) use regular blankets instead of electric blankets; and 2) replace motor driven electric clocks with newer digital clocks. The current position of the County of Riverside with regard to EMF addresses the situation where existing power lines are relocated in close proximity to residential uses. In this case, the relocation must be accomplished so that EMF levels at the residences are no higher than ambient levels. The County has no requirements for situations involving development adjacent to existing power lines.51 Since the Kohl Ranch project involves the development of land adjacent to an existing power line, County requirements do not apply. b) Mitigation Measures D7-15 The developer shall submit to the County supporting data on the generally accepted standards and guidelines for EMFs in effect at the time of project development and shall recommend appropriate distances from the 161 KV power line easement for development of residential and educational land uses. The County shall make a final determination regarding safe distances for siting these land uses. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) 1 IMpact: Increased Demand on Natural Gas Supplies Natural gas demands will be less for Concept 2 than for Concept 1, generally due to the lesser amount of commercial square footage proposed for Concept 2. Based on the land uses proposed for Concept 2, it is estimated that natural gas consumption for the development will be 67,377,755 cubic feet per month. 51 Personal communication between Bill Reddon, County of Riverside, Office of Industrial Hygiene, and Stephanie Cohn, The Planning Center, October 5, 1995. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-321 The Kohl Ranch Coachella Valley • CA The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-1, D7-2, D7-3 and D7-4. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Electricity_ Electricity demands will be less for Concept 2 than for Concept 1, generally due to the lesser amount of commercial square footage proposed for Concept 2. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that 174,455,465 kilowatts hours per year will be required for electricity demands. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-5, D7-6, D7-7 , D7-8, D7-9 and D7-10. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 3) Impact: Demand on Tele hone Service Impacts associated with telephone service are the same as identified for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-11 and D7-12. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 4 Impact: Increased Demand on Cable "Television Service Based on fewer residential units associated with Concept 2, cable television demands generated by the land uses proposed will be less than those estimated for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-13 and D7-14. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 5) Impact: Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields [EMF] Under Concept 2, industrial uses are designated for the land to the north of the utility easement beltway, compared with residential uses under Concept 1. Like Concept 1, Concept 2 designates public facilities the land to the south of the beltway. The following mitigation measure is required: D7-15 Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-322 The Planning Center Chapter V e Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) I Impact: Increased Demand on Natural Gas Supplies Natural gas demands for Concept 3 will be less than for Concept 1, generally due to the lesser amount of commercial square footage and residential dwelling units proposed for Concept 3. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that natural gas consumption for Concept 3 will be 35,732,982 cubic feet per month. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-1, D7-2, D7-3 and D7-4. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Electricity Electricity demands will be less for Concept 3 than for Concept 1, generally due to the lesser amount of commercial square footage and residential dwelling units proposed for Concept 3. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that 112,726,735 kilowatts hours per year will be required for electricity demands under Concept 3. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-5, D7-6, D7-7 , D7-8, D7-9 and D7-10. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 3) Impact: Demand on Telephone Service Impacts associated with telephone service are the same as identified for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-11 and D7-12. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 4) Impact: Increased Demand on Cable Television Service Based on fewer residential units associated with Concept 3, cable television demands generated by the land uses proposed will be significantly less than those estimated for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-13 and D7-14. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-323 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 5) Impact: Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMP) Under Concept 3, industrial uses are designated for the land to the north and to the south of the utility easement beltway, compared with residential uses and public facilities, respectively, under Concept 1. The following mitigation measure is required: D7-15 Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) 1) Impact: Increased Deniwid on Natural Gas Supplies Natural gas demands for Concept 4 will be less than Concept 1, generally due to the lesser amount of commercial square footage proposed under Concept 4. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that natural gas consumption for Concept 4 will be 65,103,679 cubic feet per month. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-1, D7-2, D7-3 and D7-4. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Electricity Electricity demands for Concept 4 will be less than Concept 1, generally due to the lesser amount of commercial square footage proposed under Concept 4. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that 168,327,460 kilowatts hours per year will be required for electricity demands under Concept 4. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-5, D7-6, D7-7 , D7-8, D7-9 and D7-10. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 3) Impact: Demand on Telephone Service Impacts associated with telephone service are the same as identified for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-11 and D7-12. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 4) Impact: Increased Demand on Cable Television Service Based on fewer residential units associated with Concept 4, cable television demands generated by the land uses proposed will be less than those estimated for Concept 1. V-324 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-13 and D7-14. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 5 Impact: Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Concept 4 is similar to Concept 1 in that residential uses are proposed for the area north of the utility easement beltway, and public facilities are designated for the land to the south of the beltway. The following mitigation measure is required: D7-15 Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. L Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) 1) Impact: Increased Demand on Natural Gas Supplies Natural gas demands for Concept 5 will be less than for Concept 1, generally due to the lesser amount of commercial square footage and residential dwelling units proposed under Concept 5. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that natural gas consumption for the development will be 63,636,543 cubic feet per month. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-1, D7-2, D7-3 and D7-4. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Electricity Electricity demands will be greater for Concept 5 than for Concept 1, generally due to the greater amount of industrial square footage proposed under Concept 5. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that 209,549,169 kilowatts hours per year will be required for electricity demands under Concept 5. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-5, D7-6, D7-7 , D7-8, D7-9 and D7-10. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 3 Im act: Demand on Telephone Service Impacts associated with telephone service are the same as identified for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-11 and D7-12. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-325 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 4) Impact: Increased Demand on Cable 'Television Service Based on fewer residential units associated with Concept 5, cable television demands generated by the land uses proposed will be less than those estimated for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-13 and D7-14. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. -5 Impact: Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Under Concept 5, industrial uses are designated for the land to the north of the utility easement beltway, compared with residential uses under Concept 1. Like Concept 1, Concept 5 designates public facilities the land to the south of the beltway. The following mitigation measure is required: D7-15 Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) 13 Impact: Increased Demand on Natural Gas Supplies Natural gas demands will be less for Concept 6 than for Concept 1, generally due to the lack of commercial square footage and residential dwelling units under Concept 6. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that natural gas consumption for the development will be 32,102,414 cubic feet per month. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-1, D7-2, D7-3 and D7-4. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 2) Impact: Increased Demand on Electricity Electricity demands will be greater as compared to Concept 1 generally due to more industrial square footage proposed by Concept 6. Based on the land uses proposed, it is estimated that 148,307,273 kilowatts hours per year will be required for electricity demands. The following mitigation measures will be required: D7-5, D7-6, D7-7 , D7-8, D7-9 and D7-10. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. V-326 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 3) Impact: Demand on Telephone Service Impacts associated with telephone service are the same as those identified for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: 137-11 and 137-12. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 4) Impact: Increased Demand on Cable Television Service Based on the lack of residential units associated with Concept 6, cable television demands generated by the land uses proposed will be less than those estimated for Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: 137-13 and 137-14. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 5) Impact: Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Under Concept 6, industrial uses are designated for the land to the north as well as to the south of the utility easement beltway, compared with residential uses and public facilities, respectively, under Concept 1. The following mitigation measure is required: D7-15 Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 8. Solid Waste a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies 1) Waste Haulers Three waste haulers provide solid waste services in Permit Area #6 where the project is located. These haulers are: 1) Waste Management of the Desert; 2) Desert Valley Disposal/Palm Springs Disposal; and 3) Western Waste. Each of these haulers serves different cities and portions of the Coachella Valley. Additionally, the proposed project site is located within the boundaries of the Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District (SCVCSD). SCVCSD may potentially provide solid waste disposal services to the project through its franchise with a private purveyor. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-327 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2 Landfills The Riverside County Waste Resources Management Division operates two small sanitary landfills in the project vicinity which serve the Thermal area. The Oasis Landfill is located on 84th Avenue west of old SR -86 in the unincorporated community of Oasis. As of January 1, 1993, the Oasis Landfill had a remaining capacity of 171,243 tons, and is expected to reach capacity in 2012.52 The landfill is currently permitted to receive a daily maximum of 41 tons of trash. The Oasis Landfill accepted an average of 5.2 tons of trash per day in 1992 and 12.8 tons per day in 1993. The Mecca II Landfill is located on 66th Avenue east of Highway 111 in the unincorporated community of Mecca. As of January 1, 1993, the Mecca II Landfill had a remaining capacity of 49,027 tons, and is expected to reach capacity in 1996. The landfill is currently permitted to receive a daily maximum of 50 tons of trash. In 1992, Mecca II accepted 48 tons of trash per day and in 1993 accepted 15 tons. The Mecca II Landfill is expected to be closed within a few years. The Oasis Landfill has a little longer life expectancy and is expected to be the primary landfill to service the project area. Two additional landfills, the Edom Hill Landfill and the Coachella Landfill, service the Coachella Valley region. The Edom Hill Landfill is located at 70-100 Varner Road, north of Cathedral City in west Coachella Valley. As of March 1991, this landfill was accepting approximately 700 tons of trash per day, with an estimated closure date of 2019.53 The Edom Hill Landfill has the potential for expansion, although it is farther from the site than both the Mecca II and Oasis Landfills. However, due to faulting problems, the Edom Hill landfill may close within five years.54 The Coachella Landfill is located at 87-011 44th Street in the City of Coachella. As of March 1991, this landfill also was accepting roughly 700 tons of trash per day. According to the County of Riverside, Environmental Health Department, the Coachella Landfill will close in 1996.55 A new regional landfill, Eagle Mountain Landfill, has been proposed to service Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The Eagle Mountain Landfill is located approximately 60 miles east of Palm Springs, at the Kaiser Eagle Steel site. The 52 Phone conversation between Carver Chiu, The Planning Center, and Sung Key Ma, Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, December 13, 1994. 53 Proposed Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Draft Environmental Impact Repert, Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority in collaboration with Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., March V.101. 54 Memorandum to Riverside County Planning Department from Riverside County Environmental Health Department (Bermuda Dunes), April 27, 1995. 55 Ibid. V-328 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis landfill could accept up to 20,000 tons of solid waste per day, with a life expectancy of 115 years. This landfill was originally proposed to open in 1993; however, litigation has delayed the opening of the site. The Eagle Mountain Landfill was recently reintroduced to the County Planning Department. However, development of this site is in the preliminary stages and, therefore, cannot be considered a definite disposal site.56 3) General Plan Policies The County is required to update its Solid Waste Management Master Plan every three years. As part of the RCCGP, it is the County policy to implement the programs and recommendations of the Solid Waste Management Plan in order to provide adequate disposal service to existing and developing areas. As stated in the RCCGP, it is the County's objective to encourage waste management strategies to facilitate resource recovery in all new development proposals. The following land use standards apply to the proposed development: a) Solid Waste Adequacy ■ Sufficient solid waste disposal capacity and life expectancy should exist or be planned within a reasonable distance of the project site to accommodate the needs of the development, consistent with the Solid Waste Management Plan. b) Commercial/Industrial ■ All Community and Regional Commercial Centers along with Light, Medium, Heavy Industrial and Industrial Park developments shall have sufficient existing or planned solid waste collection services, capacity and life expectancy available for the development, consistent with the Solid Waste Management Plan. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact. Increased Demand on Solid Waste Facilities a) Impact Analysis Riverside County Waste Resources Management Division does not have standard or official solid waste generation rates for various land uses. The 1989 Riverside County Solid Waste Management Plan estimated that, based on the 1987 population, the Mecca and Oasis region generated approximately 14.46 pounds of solid waste per person per day. This per capita generation rate was estimated based on tonnage of solid waste received at the landfills and therefore represents a per capita disposal rate, rather than a generation rate. 56 Ibid. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-329 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley 9 CA Concept 1 would substantially increase the amount of residential, industrial and commercial development compared to existing uses. This increase in development would incrementally add to the solid waste stream, resulting in the further decrease of local landfill capacities. Using typical solid waste generation factors, development of the site under Concept 1 would generate approximately 63,042.4 tons of refuse per year (Table V-69) at buildout, which is roughly equivalent to 172.7 tons per day. This represents an approximately 521 percent increase over the combined average daily waste loads (based on 1993 levels) for the Mecca II and Oasis Landfills, and a 90 percent increase over the combined maximum permitted daily volume for the two landfills. Table V-69 CONCEPT 1 SOLID WASTE GENERATION Land Use Generation Factor Level of Development Tonnage (Tons/Year) Residential 0.95 tons/du/yr 7,171.0 du 6,812.5 Commercial/Office 18.25 tons/ksf/yr 1,353.6 ksf 24,703.2 Industrial/Air Park 3.65 tons/ksf/yr 8,533.2 ksf 31,146.2 Public Facilities 1.28 tons/ksf/yr 297.3 ksf 380.5 Total Yearly Tonnage of Waste Stream 63,042.4 Source: Riverside County Waste Management Department; Chula Vista Planning Department, Environmental Review Division; City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation; "Economic Practices Manual, A Handbook for Preparing Economic Impact Assessment," State of California, Office of Planning and Research, July 1985; Proposed Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Draft EIR, Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority, March 1991. In addition to typical waste from operations, the project area would generate construction debris (i.e., unusable rock and soil, vegetation). Given existing capacity levels and daily disposal allowances, the Mecca II and Oasis Landfills do not have the current capacity to fully accommodate the volume of solid waste projected for the Kohl Ranch project. The anticipated solid waste disposal needs for the project would likely require revision of the landfill permits to accommodate increased volumes, unless a significant portion of the waste may be diverted to other landfill sites. Given recent seismic activity and the potential closure of the Coachella and Edom Hill landfills earlier than expected, the County's plans to address the need for alternate landfill sites may need to take into consideration the Kohl Ranch project, as well as other future development within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. Overall, the Kohl Ranch project, coupled with the cumulative effect of other new developments in the area, would have an incrementally adverse impact on solid waste disposal capabilities. However, given the lengthy period for project build -out (twenty-five years), it is likely that solid waste planning for the Coachella Valley will address the effects of projected growth and decreasing landfill capacity. In addition, the implementation of recycling programs will reduce the volume of solid waste being disposed of in area landfills. In 1989, the California legislature enacted the California Integrated Waste Management Act (SB 939), a far-reaching law intended V-330 The Planning Center Chapter V a Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis to reduce the volumes of solid waste entering landfills throughout the State. The successful implementation of SB 939 at the county and local levels should result in a 50 percent reduction or diversion of solid waste by the year 2000. Provisions in SB 939 include: ■ Establishes a 25 percent waste recycling/diversion goal by 1995; ■ Establishes a 50 percent waste recycling/diversion goal by 2000; ■ Requires each city and county to conduct a waste characterization study; ■ Requires development of a city and county Source Reduction and Recycling Program; ■ Provides for up to $10,000 per day in fines for failure to submit an adequate plan and meet goals; and ■ Establishes 50 cents per ton (to go up to 75 cents on July 1, 1991) surcharge to provide funding for the California Integrated Waste Management and Recycling Board. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved a phased implementation of curbside recycling, which applies to residential, commercial as well as industrial establishments (Per Resolutions 90-668 and 91-512). Items to be collected from residential areas include, but are not limited to: newspaper, glass, plastic (PET) and aluminum beverage containers. At the development stage, the County encourages project proponents to be aware of this program and work with the permitted refuse hauler to develop curbside collection of recyclable materials on a common schedule set forth in County Resolutions. In 1992, Riverside County adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element and a Household Hazardous Waste Element. b) Mitigation Measures D8-1 As development within the Kohl Ranch project site proceeds, the developer shall coordinate project solid waste disposal requirements with County agencies and area waste haulers, to ensure that adequate landfill capacity is available within reasonable distance of the project site. D8-2 The project applicant shall coordinate with a certified waste hauler to develop curbside collection of recyclable materials within the proposed project on a common schedule set forth in County Resolutions. The applicant shall coordinate with the permitted refuse hauler to identify which materials may be collected for recycling and on what schedule. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-331 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA D8-3 All future commercial, industrial and multi -family residential developments within the project site shall comply with AB 1327, Chapter 18, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. This law requires the provision of adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a site plan which includes the final design for the recyclable collection and storage area to the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District for review and approval. The storage area for recyclable materials shall comply with County standards. D8-4 Golf courses developed on the site shall minimize the generation of "green waste" and the amount of green waste sent to area landfills, through such measures as composting on-site. D8-5 To minimize the generation of construction debris, grading operations shall incorporate existing rock and earth into fill areas to the extent possible under accepted geotechnical practices. In addition, construction wastes shall be diverted through recycling, composting, or using environmentally safe methods of land disposal, to the extent possible. Refer to mitigation measures C11-1 through C11-3 in Section V.C.11., Toxic Substance, regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) Concept 2 results in a shift in land uses from commercial and residential to industrial. As a result, Concept 2 would generate greater quantities of solid waste than Concept 1. Concept 2 would generate approximately 73,369 tons of solid waste per year, which represents a 16 percent increase compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D8-1, D8-2, D8-3, D8-4, and D8-5. In addition, mitigation measures C11-1 through C11-3 regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes shall apply to Concept 2. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) Concept 3 results in a reduction of residential units and a slight increase in industrial square footage as compared to Concept 1. As a result, Concept 3 would generate less solid waste than Concept 1. Concept 3 would generate approximately 47,413 tons of solid waste per year, which represents a 25 percent decrease compared with Concept 1. V-332 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The following mitigation measures will be required: D8-1, D8-2, D8-3, D8-4, and D8-5. In addition, mitigation measures C11-1 through C11-3 regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes shall apply to Concept 3. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) Concept 4 results in a reduction of residential units and an increase in industrial square footage as compared to Concept 1. These land use changes result in similar solid waste generation for Concept 4 as compared to Concept 1. Concept 4 would generate approximately 65,314 tons of solid waste per year, which represents a four percent increase compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D84, D8-2, D8-3, D8-4, and D8-5. In addition, mitigation measures C11-1 through C11-3 regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes shall apply to Concept 4. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. L Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) Concept 5 results in a reduction of residential units and commercial square footage, and an increase in industrial square footage as compared to Concept 1. As a result, Concept 5 would generate greater quantities of solid waste than Concept 1. Concept 5 would generate approximately 84,342 tons of solid waste per year, which represents a 34 percent increase compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: 138-1, D8-2, D8-3, D84, and D8-5. In addition, mitigation measures CI I-1 through C11-3 regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes shall apply to Concept 5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Concept 6 proposes only industrial and business park uses, which would generate less solid waste than Concept 1. Concept 6 would generate approximately 58,385 tons of solid waste per year, which represents a seven percent decrease compared with Concept 1. The following mitigation measures will be required: D8-1, D8-2, D8-3, D84, and D8-5. In addition, mitigation measures C11-1 through C11-3 regarding the storage, use and disposal of hazardous wastes shall apply to Concept 6. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-333 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 9. Health Services a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Hospital and outpatient medical facilities that would provide medical services to the project site are located in the cities of Indio, Rancho Mirage, La Quinta, and Cathedral City. The closest hospital to the project site is the John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital located in Indio. The John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital has 130 beds and an in-patient occupancy of 65 percent based on the 1993 average daily census for the facility. Eisenhower Medical Center located in Rancho Mirage would also provide hospital services to the project site. Eisenhower Medical Center currently has 26 beds and an in-patient occupancy of 65 percent. Hospital staff determines the impact of new developments on health services provided by the hospital by tracking new developments in the region. There are currently no planned expansions for the facility. The Indio Vista Clinic in Indio and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Centers in La Quinta and Cathedral City provide outpatient medical services to the project vicinity. These clinics provide a full range of outpatient services including: urgent care; general medicine; obstetrics and gynecology; x-ray; minor surgery; employer drug screening; and optometry and dental services. The RCCGP recommends that the County coordinate with all health service agencies to ensure that adequate health facilities are available to meet the demands of the population. The County will assist the local Health Systems Planning agency to develop standards that consider demographics to evaluate the adequacy of existing health services and increased health services demand. Both the John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital and the Eisenhower Medical Center are located on the Public Services Map in the RCCGP. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Increased Demand for Health Services a) Impact Analysis Concept 1 would result in the development of 7,171 dwelling units, increasing the need for medical services and facilities. In accordance with the General Plan, the County will coordinate with health service providers to accommodate this demand. In addition, it can be expected that the size of the medical community will increase commensurate with the increase in population in the area. Consequently, no adverse impacts are expected as a result of the increase in demand for health services. b) Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. V-334 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than Significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) Concepts 2 through 5 would generate fewer residences than Concept 1 (2,227 to 5,157 dwelling units), and in the case of Concept 6, no residences are proposed. Thus, Concepts 2 through 6 would result in fewer impacts to health services. Since no adverse impacts were anticipated as a result of the increase in demand for health services for Concept 1, no adverse impacts are anticipated for Concepts 2 through 6. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts will be less than significant. 10. Disaster Preparedness a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies Section IV.C.4., Geology and Seismicity, discusses site conditions with respect to a potential seismic event. Section V.C.1., Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion, addresses the potential for on-site erosion. Section V.C.5., Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage discusses the risks associated with potential flooding of the site. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Diminished Disaster Preparedness a) Impact Analysis Potential impacts associated with seismic safety, slopes and erosion, and flooding are addressed in Sections V.C.4., V.C.1, and V.C.5., respectively. These analyses indicate that the proposed project will not result in diminished disaster preparedness. b) Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures related to seismic safety, slopes and erosion, and flooding are addressed in Sections V.C.4., V.C.1, and V.C.5., respectively. c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) Concepts 2 through 6 would bring new people to the area, like Concept 1. Since no impacts with respect to disaster preparedness have been identified for Concept 1, no impacts are anticipated for Concepts 2 through 6. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-335 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Mitigation measures related to seismic safety, slopes and erosion, and flooding are addressed in Sections V.C.4., V.C.I., and V.C.S., respectively. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 11. Libraries a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The Riverside City and County Public Library System would provide library services to the project site. The two closest branches described in Table V-70 are located in the communities of Coachella and Mecca. Table V-70 LIBRARY FACILITIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Facility Characteristics Coachella Branch Mecca Branch Estimated Distance From Project Site 7-8 miles 7 miles Address 1538 7th Street - Coachella 65-250A Coahuilla Street - Mecca Estimated Population Served 24,000 8,000 Square Footage 3,000 sq. ft. 2,160 sq. ft. Collection Size 27,440 items 25,065 items Staff Size 2.6 Full -Time Employees 1.25 Full -Time Employees Hours per Week 28 hours 20 hours Source: Correspondence from Irene Liebenberg, Chief of County Public Services, Riverside City and County Public Library, June, 1994. Services provided at each facility include: ■ On-line circulation system; ■ Book Break program to encourage youth to use the Library for recreational purposes; ■ Adult literacy tutoring; • Participation in special community events; ■ Bookmobile program that currently services the community of Thermal (six locations); ■ Special youth programs (e.g. story -tellers, folk dancers); ■ Inter -library loan and delivery of materials between branches; • Reference/information assistance; ■ Pre-school and family story times; and ■ Visits to schools and class visits to library. Although the Coachella and Mecca libraries are the closest ones to the Kohl Ranch site, future residents of the project would be able to use any of the Riverside City and County Public Library Branches, including the Max T. McCandless Memorial Library in Indio, which is approximately 10 to 12 miles from the site and serves as a regional reference center. The Coachella and Mecca libraries together currently service a population of approximately 32,000. These two branches provide an adequate collection size to meet the current needs of the population. However, the current 5,160 square feet of library space meets only about one - V -336 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis third of the standard. Existing volumes per capita and square feet per capita for the County _library system as a whole are identified in Tables V-71 and V-72. Table V-71 RIVERSIDE CITY AND COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY VOLUMES PER CAPITA' — COUNTY BRANCH LIBRARIES Fiscal Year Ending Population Served Volumes Volumesper Capita 1990 693,995 670,317 .97 1991 773,039 750,936 .97 1992 790,925 848,552 1.07 1993 813,134 933,633 1.14 1994 1 837,000 983,812 1.17 1. County adopted standard is 1.2 volumes per capita. Source: Riverside City and County Public Library Annual Reports, as described in correspondence from Irene Liebenberg, Chief of County Public Services, November 28, 1994. Table V-72 RIVERSIDE CITY AND COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY SQUARE FEET PER CAPITA' -- COUNTY BRANCH LIBRARIES Fiscal Year Ending Population Served Square Feet Library Space Square Feet Per Capita 1990 693,995 89,783 0.13 1991 773,039 91,783 0.12 1992 790,925 109,435 0.14 1993 813,134 109,435 0.135 1994 1 837,000 139,357 0.166 1. Counly adopted standard is 0.5 sq. ft. per capita. A new 20,000 sq. ft. library replaced a small store front building during FY 1994. Source: Riverside City and County Public Library Annual Reports, as described in correspondence from Irene Liebenberg, Chief of County Public Services, November 28, 1994. Planned additions to the existing library resources that would service the project include a 15,000 square foot facility in Coachella. However, funding for this project has not been identified. Possible funding sources include a county library property tax assessment, and varying amounts from the state Public Library Fund. Potential funding is available from a countywide mitigation fee for facilities now in effect. However, the County Library is in competition with other agencies for that funding, and it is unlikely that this source will meet County needs. The RCCGP recognizes the Riverside City and County Library System as providing a focal point of education and community awareness in the County and that adequate library facilities should be planned for and implemented, particularly in urbanizing communities where library facilities do not exist. The RCCGP recommends that the County assist in providing additional library facilities through the provision of development and population information for long range library master plans developed by the Riverside City and County Library System. In addition, the RCCGP recommends that the County assist the Library System in the development of standards that can be used to evaluate the adequacy of existing library services and to meet the needs of new developments. The Riverside City and County Library Systems current standard for the Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-337 The Kohl Ranch 4 Coachella Valley • CA provision of services is .5 square feet of library space per capita and 1.2 volumes of library materials per capita. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 1) Impact: Increased Demand for Library Services a) Impact Analysis Concept 1 would adversely impact existing library services. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the current level of service. However, the current level of service is substantially inadequate (see Tables V-71 and V-72). The fiscal impact for Concept 1 of an additional 19,290 persons (7,171 dwelling units) is stated below in Table V-73 in 1994 dollars in amounts needed to: 1) maintain the current, inadequate level of service only; and 2) provide the desired level of service. The desired level is inclusive of the current level. Table V-73 FISCAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED PROJECT ON LIBRARY SERVICES (1994 Dollars) Maintain Current Provide Desired Level of Service Level of Service Facilities (one-time cost only) $2,353,379 $2,353,379 Collection (volumes) $647,183 $681,245 (one-time cost only) Subtotal for Facilities and Collection $3,000,562 $3,034,624 (one-time cost only) Source: Correspondence from Irene Liebenberg, Chief of County Public Services, November 28, 1994. The per capita costs are: ■ Current Level: Fiscal Year 1994 Ongoing costs $10.00; capital cost $156.00; ■ California State Average Per Capita Expenditure: $18.00 ■ Desired Level per Capita Capital Cost: $157.00 According to the County Library, these costs could be mitigated by: ■ The assessment of a library facilities and collections fee in 1994 dollars at a cost of $418.00 per residential unit to maintain the current level of service; or $423.00 per residential unit to provide the desired level of service. ■ The determination that the project's estimated assessed valuation will provide at least $192,000 per year in 1994 dollars to the County Library District to V-338 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis finance ongoing expenses at the current level of service, or $347,220 per year to finance ongoing expenses at the desired level of service. Estimates of the revenues to the Library Funds total $159,000 per year at buildout (see Technical Appendix F). This is less than the amount needed, according to the County Library. Based on a buildout population of 19,290 persons (7,171 dwelling units), and using the County standards of 0.5 square feet of library per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita, the project would result in the need for 9,645 square feet of library space and 23,148 volumes of library materials. b) Mitigation Measures D11-1 The applicant shall coordinate with the County regarding whether a portion of the recurring fiscal surplus to the County could be used for library costs. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 2) Based on a buildout population of 13,872 persons (5,157 dwelling units), and using the County standards of 0.5 square feet of library per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita, Concept 2 would result in the need for 6,936 square feet of library space and 16,646 volumes of library materials. While Concept 2 generates fewer impacts to library services than Concept 1, the addition of any new residences impacts an existing inadequate library system. The following mitigation measure will be required: D11-1. The impacts to library services remain significant after mitigation. d. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 3) Based on a buildout population of 5,991 persons (2,227 dwelling units), and using the County standards of 0.5 square feet of library per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita, Concept 2 would result in the need for 2,996 square feet of library space and 7,189 volumes of library materials. While Concept 3 generates fewer impacts to library services than Concept 1, the addition of any new residences impacts an existing inadequate library system. The following mitigation measure will be required: D11-1. The impacts to library services remain significant after mitigation. Draft EIR a May 13, 1996 V-339 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA e. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 4) -Based on a buildout population of 13,299 persons (4,944 dwelling units), and using the County standards of 0.5 square feet of library per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita, Concept 2 would result in the need for 6,650 square feet of library space and 15,959 volumes of library materials. While Concept 4 generates fewer impacts to library services than Concept 1, the addition of any new residences impacts an existing inadequate library system. The following mitigation measure will be required: D11-1. The impacts to library services remain significant after mitigation. f. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 5) Based on a buildout population of 7,822 persons (2,930 dwelling units), and using the County standards of 0.5 square feet of library per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita, Concept 2 would result in the need for 3,941 square feet of library space and 9,458 volumes of library materials. While Concept 5 generates fewer impacts to library services than Concept 1, the addition of any new residences impacts an existing inadequate library system. The following mitigation measure will be required: D11-1. The impacts to library services remain significant after mitigation. g. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 6) Concept 6 proposes no residential uses, and thus, no new population in the area. Therefore, implementation of Concept 6 would create no additional impacts to an existing inadequate library system. No mitigation measures are proposed for Concept 6. Impacts will be less than significant. 12. Airports a. Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies The project site is located immediately south of the Thermal Airport, a general aviation transport airport. The Riverside County Department of Aviation prepared the Thermal Airport Master Plan in October 1990. The Master Plan identified the potential for limited commercial air carrier and air cargo service, and evaluated several alternatives for expansion of the airport to meet current and future demands through the year 2010. Plans for both airside and landside improvements were identified. Major airside development plans include: ■ Extension of Runway 17-35 (future Runway 17L -35R) from 5,000 feet to 10,000 feet ■ Strengthening of Runway 17-35 to ultimate strength of 150,000 pounds V-340 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis ■ Precision instrument approach for Runway 35 in long-term future ■ Parallel Runway 17R -35L 5,000 feet long and 75 feet wide ■ Retention of Runway 12-30 at its current length (5,000 feet) to serve as the crosswind runway ■ Several new taxiways Planned landside improvements include: ■ General aviation terminal area through expansion and redevelopment of existing facilities ■ Separate air carrier and air cargo area ■ Additional T -hangars w Expanded aircraft parking apron ■ Heliport State law requires that the County formulate comprehensive land use plans for areas influenced by public use airports. In accordance with this requirement, the County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prepared the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Thermal Airport in August 1992. The Plan designates an airport influenced area and includes land use compatibility guidelines that address airport noise, safety and height restrictions. The "airport influenced area" around Thermal Airport is defined as the composite of the noise and height influenced area. The outer boundary of the noise influenced area corresponds to the 60 CNEL contours for existing and future conditions. The outer boundary of the height influenced area is the edge of the conical surface, plus the outer approach and transitional surfaces. The outer boundary of the safety influenced area is the horizontal surface which lies within the conical surface. New specific plan proposals within the influenced area are reviewed by the ALUC against the plan and a determination of compatibility is made based upon the plan's criteria. A local agency may overrule a determination of inconsistency after a Public Hearing, specific findings that the development plans are compatible with the purposes of the aeronautics law, and a two thirds majority vote of the governing body. Specific land use policies for the Thermal Airport area, based on the Thermal Airport Land Use Plan of 1986, are contained in the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan (ECVP). The 1986 Land Use Plan was determined null and void in court. Therefore, the CLUP indicates that the ECVP needs to be revised to be compatible with the 1990 Master Plan and 1992 CLUP. In general, the ECVP policies state that: l The airport approach surfaces should be kept free of all high risk land uses, such as those which promote high concentrations of people (e.g. places of assembly, high patronage services), those which provide critical facilities (e.g. telephone exchanges, radio/television studios, hospitals) and those with flammable or explosive materials; 2. Residential uses within an identified Area of Significant Concern should be permitted on tracts of no less than 2.5 acres; Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-341 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley - CA 3. Aviation easements shall be required for all land uses within an identified Airport Influenced Area; 4. No additional residential development shall be permitted within the 65 CNEL noise contour; and 5. All proposed development within the identified Airport Influenced Area should be subject to special review procedures to ensure land use compatibility with airport operations as well as to ensure that proposed uses do not pose a hazard to the safety of flight operations. b. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concept 1) 0Imnact. Compatibility with Thermal Airport Master Plan a) Impact Analysis The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the proposed airport expansion and improvement plans described in the Thermal Airport Master Plan. The project also respects the policies contained in the ECVP, to the extent that these policies are consistent with the Airport Master Plan and the CLUP. The project supports the development goals for the Thermal Airport by improving circulation in the project vicinity and through the location of land uses throughout the Kohl Ranch site. Avenue 60 is planned to be closed due to the extension of Runway 17-35 across this roadway onto the Kohl Ranch property. The Specific Plan proposes the elimination of Avenue 60 where it would intersect with Runway 17-35, and proposes a new arterial, "A" Street, connecting Avenue 60 at the northwest corner of the Kohl Ranch with Avenue 62 at the eastern project boundary, to maintain east -west access through the site. In addition, land uses planned for the areas closest to the airport property respond to and support the master planned development intended for the airport. These more intense uses would be clustered around the proposed airport entrance at the intersection of Avenue 60 and "C" Street, as well as along Polk Street, to take advantage of direct access to the airport. b) Mitigation Measures D12-1 Elements of the Specific Plan that relate to proposed airport uses shall be incorporated into individual development projects. c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. V-342 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 2) Impact: Compatibility with Thermal Airport Safety Zones a) Impact Analysis The CLUP for Thermal Airport establishes land use compatibility guidelines for five airport safety zones. These guidelines are depicted in Figure V-75 and are summarized in Table V-74. Table V-74 THERMAL AIRPORT SAFETY ZONES_ Zone Maximum Maximum Lot Coverage by Symbol Name Density Structures Land Use' ISZ Inner Safety 0 0 No petroleum or explosives. No above -grade power Zone (No structures lines. permitted) OSZ Outer Safety Uses in structures': 25% of net area No residential, hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, Zone 25 persons/acre schools, hospitals, government services, concert halls, auditoriums, stadiums, arenas, public utility Uses not in stations/plants, public communications facilities. structures: 50 personstacre No uses involving, as the primary activity, manufacture, storage or distribution of explosives or flammable materials. ETZ Emergency 0 0 No significant obstructions, including but not limited to: Touchdown (No structures large trees, heavy fences and walls, tall and steep Zone permitted) berms and retaining walls, non -frangible street light and sign standards, billboards. ERC Extended 3 du/net acre. 50% of gross area No uses involving as the primary activity, Runway or 65% of net manufacture, storage or distribution of explosives or Centerline Zone Uses in structures': area. flammable materials. Does not apply to service 100 persons/acre. stations involving retail sale of motor vehicle fuel if fuel storage tanks are installed underground. TPZ Traffic Pattern -- 50% of gross area Discourage schools, auditoriums, amphitheaters, Zone (FAR Part or 65% of net area stadiums. 77 horizontal surface) Discourage uses involving as the primary activity, manufacture, storage or distribution of explosives or flammable materials. Does not apply to service stations involving retail sale of motor vehicle fuel if fuel storage tanks are installed underground. 1. The following uses are prohibited in all airport safety zones: a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport. c. Any use which would generale smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which otherwise may affect safe air navigation within the area. d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 2. A'structure' includes fully enclosed buildings and other facilities with fixed seating and enclosures limiting the mobility of people, such as sports stadiums, outdoor arenas, and amphitheaters. Source: Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Thermal Airport, 1992. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-343 ISZ Ir OSZ C ETZ E: ERC E: TPZ Tramc raTTern sone Runway Protection Zone • 150' Maximum Height Limit from Ground Elevation Future Airport Safety Zones and Height Limitations 29._ Coachella Valley, California Source: Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Scale: 1"=1 �t erNiG, Roure V. 75 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The CLUP prohibits particularly hazardous land uses in all designated safety zones. These land uses include uses which would impede the ability of the pilot to see the airfield (see Footnote 1 in Table V-74). Portions of the Kohl Ranch site are located within the five airport safety zones described in the CLUP. The project land uses would be compatible with the requirements for these zones identified in the CLUP. Open space would be concentrated within the most restrictive safety zones, the Emergency Touchdown Zone (ETZ) and the Inner Safety Zone (ISZ). Land uses in the Specific Plan within the Outer Safety Zone (OSZ) would be limited to office, commercial and light industrial land uses. Parking for these land uses would be located within the portion of the planning areas within the ISZ, to help achieve the density requirements. The Extended Runway Centerline (ERC) zone, while less restrictive, limits the density of uses within the zone. Consequently, open space and low density residential uses have been sited within this area. Residential cluster provisions incorporated into the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III) encourage common open space areas to be located within the ERC, with transfer of residential density to areas outside the safety zone. Compliance with the safety zone requirements in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan should reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b) Mitigation Measures D12-2 Individual development projects shall adhere to land uses proposed in the Specific Plan to ensure consistency with the safety zone guidelines and requirements in the Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) (August 1992). c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 3) Impact: Compatibility with Thermal Airport poise Guidelines a) Impact Analysis The CLUP presents noise compatibility guidelines for the Thermal Airport vicinity, as follows: ■ Discourage new single-family dwellings and prohibit mobile homes within the 60 CNEL contour. Where homes are permitted within the 60 CNEL contour, the need for sound insulation should be studied and noise easements should be acquired. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-345 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley • CA ■ Within the 65 CNEL, new residential construction should not be undertaken. New hotels or motels are permitted if the need for sound insulation is evaluated. ■ Institutional uses should be discouraged within the 65-70 CNEL range. If no alternative location is available, the need for sound insulation should be studied. ■ Commercial, industrial and recreational uses are considered compatible with noise levels between the 65 and 70 CNEL. The Kohl Ranch property is impacted by noise from Thermal Airport (See Figure V-74). The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with the land use compatibility guidelines for noise. To address airport noise in the Specific Plan, primarily open space uses would be located within the 65, 70 and 75 CNEL noise contours. A limited amount of airpark/mixed use and industrial uses are within the 65 CNEL contour, consistent with the guidelines. Land uses within the 60 CNEL contour would include open space, industrial, office, commercial, and airpark/mixed use. Some low density and high density residential uses also would be located within the 60 CNEL contour. Cluster provisions have been incorporated into the Specific Plan Zoning (see Section III) so that residential uses can be located outside areas impacted by airport noise. In addition, common walls within high density units would attenuate airport noise within the 60 CNEL contour. Land use compatibility with airport noise impacts is further discussed in Section V.C.8. above. Compliance with airport noise guidelines in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b) Mitigation Measures D12-3 Specific mitigation measures (C8-4 and C8-5) are addressed in the noise analysis in Section V.C.8. above. D12-4 Development projects shall comply with the noise guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Thermal Airport (August 1992). c) Level of Significance After Mitigation Less than significant. 4) Impact: Compatibility with Thermal Airport Height Guidelines a) Impact Analysis The Federal government has developed standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace. Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 define a variety of imaginary surfaces at certain altitudes around airports. The Part 77 surfaces include V-346 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis the primary surface, approach surface, transitional surface, horizontal surface and conical surface. Collectively, the Part 77 surfaces around an airport define a bowl - shaped area with ramps sloping up from each runway end. The Part 77 standards are not absolute height restrictions, but instead identify elevations at which structures may present a potential safety problem. Penetrations of the Part 77 surface generally are reviewed on a case by case basis. The CLUP uses the Part 77 criteria as the basis for height limitations in the vicinity of Thermal Airport. Height limitations are not expected to pose a development constraint for the Kohl Ranch site (See Figure V-74). Based on the Part 77 surfaces identified in the CLUP, structures above approximately 85 feet in height in the vicinity of Avenue 62, 150 feet in height in the vicinity of Avenue 64, and 315 feet in height in the vicinity of Avenue 66 could potentially create a problem. Compliance with the height guidelines in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. b) Mitigation Measures D12-5 Proposed development shall comply with the Thermal Airport Height Guidelines identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for Thermal Airport (August 1992). c) Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. c. Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies (Concepts 2 through 6) Concepts 2 through 6, like Concept 1 could incrementally increase the use of airport services. In addition, Concepts 2 through 6 would be compatible with and would not constrain airport operation. Therefore, Concepts 2 through 6 would result in the same impacts as Concept 1: 1) Compatibility with Thermal Airport Master Plan; 2) Compatibility with Thermal Airport Safety Zones: 3) Compatibility with Thermal Airport Noise Guidelines; and 4) Compatibility with Thermal Airport Height Guidelines. The following mitigation measures will be required: D12-1, D12-2, D12-3, D12-4, and D12-5. Impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-347 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] KOL-OI ADSPEIRMIRNM3 V-348 The Planning Center HOUSING ELEMENT Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis E. HOUSING ELEMENT Housing affordability and jobs/housing balance represent significant housing -related issues in Riverside County. Section F of this EIR, Regional Element, contains a discussion of jobs/housing as it relates to the proposed project. The following section outlines the proposed project's approach to housing affordability issues, and summarizes related impacts and mitigation measures. 1. General Plan Policies and Programs a. Applicable Housing Policies The Housing Element of Riverside County's Comprehensive General Plan sets forth policies intended to guide housing development and address housing affordability needs in the County. The policies that are most applicable to the proposed project are the following: 1) Conservation of Housing and Communities ■ Encourage and facilitate housing and economic development and revitalization in County communities. 2) Affordable Housinz ■ Provide incentives to developers to build a range of housing that is affordable to County residents, including low- and moderate -income households. w Encourage alternative housing ownership opportunities for County residents. ■ Encourage energy conservation in existing homes and new housing developments. ■ Plan residential growth in an orderly manner to make the best and most efficient use of existing and future infrastructure. 3) Housing Opportunity ■ Promote equal housing opportunity. ■ Promote adequate housing opportunity for all population groups. ■ Promote accessibility for the disabled and handicapped in residential developments. 4) Housing Supply ■ Plan and provide for a variety of housing that meets identified housing needs and satisfies the varied price, type and location preferences of County residents. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-349 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b. Applicable Housing Programs The Housing Element of the RCCGP further sets forth programs designed to facilitate the achievement of county -wide housing goals and policies. The following is a descriptive list of the programs that are most applicable to the proposed project: 1) Conservation_ of Housing and_Communities. a) County Redevelopment Agency Protects the health, safety and general welfare of County residents by eliminating conditions of blight, expanding the supply of low- and moderate -income housing, and increasing employment opportunities. Pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law, at least 20 percent of tax increments are set aside for increasing and improving the supply of low- and moderate -income housing. 2 Affordable Housin je a) Redevelopment Funds Commits set-aside funds for the provision of low- and moderate -income housing. The range of housing activities may include the following: ■ Provision of new single- and multi -family units for purchase or rentals; • Rehabilitation of existing single- or multi -family units for purchase or rentals; w Mortgage or rent payment subsidies for single- or multi -family owner occupied units or rental units; ■ Assistance in the provision of housing through write downs on land or acquisition and donation of land; and ■ Construction of off-site improvements directly and specifically related to increasing and improving the supply of low- and moderate -income housing. b) Density and Design Incentives for Lower Cost Housing Development The County both encourages and facilitates the voluntary development of lower cost housing options throughout the County through the provision of developer incentives. Specifically, the County adopted the R-6 Residential Incentive Zone (Ordinance No. 348, Section 8f) which offers the following incentive package in exchange for developer compliance with pricing options that are designed to provide lower cost housing: ■ Increased densities; • Reduced lot size; • Flexible or relaxed design standards; and ■ Priority permit processing. V-350 The Planning Center Chapter V e Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c) Priority Processing for Low -Cost Housing Projects As an incentive for affordable housing projects, the County will provide priority permit processing. Processing procedures are coordinated among all County departments involved in the review and/or issuance of permits related to the project. The program assists developers in meeting agreed-upon permit processing timetables and thereby enables them to meet contract commitments and to reduce carrying costs and other time -related overhead. d) Incentives for Multi -Family Rental Housing Development The County will explore the feasibility of amending existing residential zoning provisions or enacting a new zone to provide increased density or other incentives to developers of multi -family rental housing. Provisions such as increased density, flexible development standards, and priority and concurrent processing represent potential incentives for encouraging development of multi -family rental housing. e) Mobile Homes in Single -Family Zones To provide expanded opportunities for affordable mobile home housing, the County has amended Ordinance No. 348 to allow manufactured homes to be situated on a permanent foundation in any single-family zone. f) Flexible Parking Standards for Multi -Family Housing To reduce construction costs for multi -family housing, the County has amended Land Use Ordinance No. 348 to relax the parking requirements for multi -family development. A typical project may receive an overall reduction in parking space requirements of up to 8.5 percent. A two percent reduction in required parking may also be available to development that locates near a mass transit entryway or that provides additional bicycle parking facilities. g) Building and Design Standards for Residential Energy Conservation Title 24 of the California Administrative Codes set forth new energy standards aimed at reducing housing energy costs. The County currently implements these requirements as they apply to all residential construction. Ordinance No. 460 was amended to provide for future passive or natural heating/cooling opportunities. 3) Housing Opportunity a) Residential Accessibility The County's review process seeks to ensure the accessibility of residential units to disabled persons. Design review examines exterior circulation and parking needs, Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-351 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA as well as the design and circulation of interior structures to determine consistency with any applicable handicapped accessibility/adaptability standards. b) Shared Housing The County continues to participate in S.H.A.R.E. (Shared Housing, a Riverside Experience), a program developed to promote homesharing opportunities for seniors and others who are unable to afford to maintain safe and suitable housing. 4) Housing Supply a) Jobs/Housing Balance The County encourages and promotes balanced development on a regional and countywide basis. Policies in the RCCGP's Regional Element seek to achieve jobs/housing balance be facilitating a mix of housing and employment opportunities. b) Residential Design Flexibility The land use ordinance and development review process is utilized by the County to facilitate design flexibility in residential developments. The R-2 Limited Multiple Family Residential Zone was amended to allow for lot size determination based on increased project design review and standards for site design. The Specific Plan Zone provides a further alternative for achieving design flexibility by facilitating balanced development that may not conform entirely to traditional zoning classifications contained in Ordinance No. 348. c. Applicable Housing Policies Within Other Elements 1 Noise ■ Project review of noise hazards must be undertaken for individual sites. ■ Single-family and multiple -family residential uses are discouraged in areas with noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL (dBA). ■ Proposed noise sensitive projects within noise impacted areas require acoustic studies and may be required to provide mitigation. 2) Air Quality ■ Major developments must contribute to the mitigation of adverse air quality impacts. 3) Toxic Substances ■ Developments will be reviewed for potential adverse effects from exposure to toxic substances. V-352 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 4) Open Space and Conservation N Urban development adjacent to publicly owned open space lands shall be developed in a manner which is harmonious with the character of the area. 5) Agriculture ■ Mitigation measures may be needed to reduce the impacts of agricultural land conversion. ,6) Energy Resources ■ The use of solar energy for water and space heating in residential development is encouraged. ■ Project layout and design shall facilitate the use of passive and active solar systems. 7) Parks and Recreation ■ Residential Category II will be reviewed for adequate recreation facilities, and mitigation measures may be required to ensure adequate recreational facilities. 8) Utilities ■ Projects which have a major transmission line crossing the site may require setbacks from the edge of the utility easement if analysis shows that this is necessary to assure the public's health and safety. Category II land uses may use agricultural, recreational or open space land use within the required utility setback. 2. Specific Plan - Project Relationship to General Plan Policies a. Project Housing Inventory At buildout, Concept 1 would provide a total of 7,171 residential units, with an overall gross density of 4.98 dwelling units per gross residential acre.57 The project housing inventory for concepts 1 through 6 is contained in Table V-75. The proposed Land Use Concepts would provide a range of residential units and densities, from 7,171 under Concept 1, to no residential units under Concept 6. 57 The overall gross density for residential areas was determined by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage devoted to residential land uses, open space, public facilities and local residential streets. The gross density, if determined by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the residential acreage, is 7.43. This density is reduced to 3.41 if the total site acreage is used. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-353 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA b. Project Compatibility With Existing Inventory The proposed project site is located within the Coachella Valley subregion. Currently, there is limited residential development within the immediate project area. The Kohl Ranch project would provide for a diversity of housing types, which not only respond to market conditions in the area, but promote equal housing opportunities for all segments of the community. V-354 The Planning Center Table V-75 PROJECT HOUSING INVENTORY Land Use Category Acres Density Range Target Density Overall Density Dwelling Units (At Buildout) Concept 1 Residential Low 412.7 1-5.9 3.8 1,569 Residential Medium 382.8 6-11.9 8 3,062 Residential High 169.3 12-18 15 2,540 TOTAL 964.8 3.41'/7.432 7,171 Concept 2 Residential Low 276.9 1-5.9 3.8 1,052 Residential Medium 256.4 6-11.9 8 2,051 Residential High 136.9 12-18 15 2,054 TOTAL 670.2 2.3777.692 5,157 Concept 3 Residential Low 101.6 0-5.9 3.8 386 Residential Medium 108.0 6-11.9 8 864 Residential High 65.1 12-18 15 976 TOTAL 274.7 1.02'/8.112 2.227 Concept 4 Residential Low 311.3 0-5.9 3.8 1,183 Residential Medium 274.8 6-11.9 8 2.198 Residential High 104.2 12-18 15 1,563 TOTAL 690.3 2.27'7.162 4,944 Concept 5 Residential Low 175.3 0-5.9 3.8 666 Residential Medium 148.4 6-11.9 8 1,187 Residential High 71.8 12-18 15 1,077 TOTAL 395.5 1.3577.412 2,930 Concept 6 - No Residential 1. Calculated based on number of dwelling units divided by total project site. 2. Calculated based on number of dwelling units divided by residential acreage only. b. Project Compatibility With Existing Inventory The proposed project site is located within the Coachella Valley subregion. Currently, there is limited residential development within the immediate project area. The Kohl Ranch project would provide for a diversity of housing types, which not only respond to market conditions in the area, but promote equal housing opportunities for all segments of the community. V-354 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c. Project Design Mitigation 1) Concept 1 Concept 1 of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan consists of a balanced array of land uses including residential, business, commercial, industrial, open space and public facilities. Both living and working opportunities would be available within the project neighborhoods. At buildout, the project would provide 7,171 new residential units, accommodating an estimated 21,341 persons. The project also would include approximately 10.2 million square feet of non-residential development (excluding open space and rights-of-way). Based on employment generation rates by use classification, the project would create an estimated 13,822 jobs (see Table V-76). Table V-76 CONCEPT 1 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ESTIMATE Land Use Category Level of Development at Buildout Employment (Sq. R.) Generation Factor' Projected New Jobs Commercial Office 145,926 1/300 486 Commercial Retail 611,801 1 1/500 1,224 Office 595,901 1/300 1,986 Heavy Industrial 3,398,987 1/1000 3,399 Light Industrial 1,370,615 1/600 2,284 Warehousing/Distribution 2,056,032 1/2000 1,028 Airpark/Mixed Use 1,707,600 1/500 3,415 TOTAL 9,886,8682 13,822 1. Employees per Square Foot. 2. Excludes Public Facilities (297,297 square feet). Sources of Generation Factors: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates; Economic Practices Manual, 1984 Revised Edition, State of California Office of Planning and Research. Based on these projections, the project would yield a jobs/housing ratio of 1.92 at buildout, which is significantly higher than both the 1990 (0.69) and the projected 2010 (0.65) performance ratios for the Coachella Valley subregion as identified in the SCAG GME. Consequently, development of the proposed project would be beneficial to the currently housing -rich subregion by improving the overall balance between jobs and housing. To ensure that employment opportunities and adequate infrastructure, services and facilities are coordinated with the proposed residential development, the proposed project would be implemented in five phases over a 25 -year period (residential land uses are expected to build -out over a 17 -year period). Of the 7,171 residential units proposed, approximately 4,631 would be single-family units and 2,540 would be multi -family units. Based on preliminary market studies, the single family units are projected to range in price from $95,000 for townhomes to $190,000 for large, detached units, with a weighted project average of about $110,000 in 1994 Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-355 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley - CA dollars.58 It is anticipated that the proposed housing mix, both in terms of type and price, would provide additional affordable housing opportunities within the subregion. Overall, the project would yield a housing mix that is fairly evenly divided between single family units and attached units. There is the opportunity to reduce housing development costs and, subsequently, improve housing affordability by utilizing the County's Flexible Parking Standards for Multi -Family Housing. Further, residential energy costs may be reduced through the installation of energy efficient devices in all new residential development, as recommended in the RCCGP Housing Element. All project development, including residential development, would comply with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code to promote energy efficiency. In light of these factors, no apparent project design mitigation should be necessary. 2) Concept 2 Concept 2 consists of a mix of land uses including residential, industrial, commercial, business park, office, open space, and public facilities uses. Both living and working opportunities are available within project neighborhoods. At buildout, the project would provide 5,157 new residential units, accommodating an estimated 15,347 persons. The project would also include approximately 16.2 million square feet of non-residential development (including public facilities but excluding open space and rights-of-way). Based on employment generation rates by use classification, the project would create an estimated 19,028 jobs (See Table V-77). Table V-77 CONCEPT 2 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ESTIMATE Level of Development at Buildout Land Use Category (Sq. Ft.) Employment Generation Factor' Projected New Jobs Commercial Office 145,926 1/300 486 Commercial Retail 543,847 1/500 1,087 Office 595,901 1/300 1,986 Heavy Industrial 9,475,607 1/1000 9,476 Light Industrial 1,370,615 1/600 2,284 Warehousing/Distribution 2,056,032 1/2000 1,028 Airpark/Mixed Use 1,707,600 1/500 3,415 TOTAL 15,895,4807 19,028 1. Employees per Square Foot. 2. Excludes Public Facilities (297,297 square feet). Sources of Generation Factors: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates; Economic Practices Manual, 1984 Revised Edition, State of California Office of Planning and Research. Based on these projections, the project would yield a jobs/housing ratio of 3.69 at buildout, which is significantly higher than both the 1990 (0.69) and the projected 2010 (0.65) performance ratios for the Coachella Valley subregion as identified in the SCAG 58 Fiscal Impact Report prepared for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, David Taussig and Associates, Inc., December 19, 1994 (as amended). V-356 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis GME. Consequently, development of Concept 2 would be beneficial to the currently housing -rich subregion by improving the overall balance between jobs and housing. To ensure that employment opportunities and adequate infrastructure, services and facilities are coordinated with the proposed residential development, Concept 2 would be implemented in five phases over a 25 -year period (residential land uses are expected to build -out over a 17 -year period). Of the 5,157 residential units proposed, approximately 3,103 would be single-family units and 2,054 would be multi -family units. Overall, the project would yield a housing mix that is fairly evenly divided between single family units and attached units, although the number of single family residential units exceeds multi -family. As discussed in Concept 1, there is the opportunity to reduce housing development costs. Based on preliminary market studies, it is anticipated that the proposed housing mix, both in terms of type and price, would provide additional affordable housing opportunities within the subregion.59 Concept 2 provides a greater amount of job opportunities than proposed under Concept 1, which has a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion. Although the potential for affordable housing opportunities on-site is diminished from Concept 1, the Concept provides a significant amount of housing on-site to support the employment rich land uses proposed. 31 Concept 3 The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan Concept 3 consists of a primarily industrial mix of land uses including light and heavy industrial, single user industrial, mixed use business park, office, open space, and limited commercial and residential uses. The portion of the project to the south of Avenue 62 is fundamentally industrial in nature. Both living and working opportunities are available within the project neighborhoods north of Avenue 62. At buildout, the project would provide 2,227 new residential units, accommodating an estimated 6,628 persons. The project would also include approximately 10.2 million square feet of non-residential development (excluding open space and rights-of-way). Based on employment generation rates by use classification, the project would create an estimated 14,186 jobs (See Table V-78). 59 Fiscal Impact Report prepared for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, David Taussig and Associates, Inc., December 19, 1994, as amended. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-357 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-78 CONCEPT 3 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ESTIMATE Land Use Category Level of Development at Buildout (Sq. Ft.) Employment Generation Factor' Projected New Jobs Commercial Office 145,926 1/300 486 Commercial Retail 407,722 1/500 815 Office 595,901 1/300 1,986 Heavy Industrial 6,444,044 1/1000 6,444 Light Industrial 509,039 1/600 848 Warehouse/Distribution 385,688 1/2000 192 Airpark/Mixed Use 1,707,600 1/500 3,415 TOTAL 10,195,871 14,186 1. Employees per Square Foot. Sources of Generation Factors: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates; Economic Practices Manual, 1984 Revised Edition, State of California Office of Planning and Research. Based on these projections, the project would yield a jobs/housing ratio of 6.37 at buildout, which is significantly higher than both the 1990 (0.69) and the projected 2010 (0.65) performance ratios for the Coachella Valley subregion as identified in the SCAG GME. The employment opportunities proposed in Concept 3 also significantly exceed those proposd by Concept 1. Consequently, development of Concept 3 would be beneficial to the currently housing -rich subregion by improving the overall balance between jobs and housing. To ensure that employment opportunities and adequate infrastructure, services and facilities are coordinated with the proposed residential development, Concept 3 would be implemented in five phases over a 25 -year period (residential land uses are expected to build -out over a 17 -year period). Of the 2,227 residential units proposed, approximately 1,251 would be single-family units and 976 would be multi -family units. Based on preliminary market studies, the proposed housing mix, both in terms of type and price, would provide additional affordable housing opportunities within the subregion.60 Overall, the project would yield a housing mix that is fairly evenly divided between single family units and attached units. As discussed in Concept 1, there is the opportunity to reduce housing development costs. Concept 3 would provide a comparable amount of new jobs as provided under Concept 1, and would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion. Concept 3 provides 2,227 new housing opportunities, however, the employment opportunities far exceed the housing constructed near the employment center. In terms of providing affordable housing opportunities near the employment center, Concept 1 provides a greater amount of affordable housing opportunities and a more equitable balance of jobs to housing on-site. 60 Fiscal Impact Report prepared for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, David Taussig and Associates, Inc., December 19, 1994, as amended. V-358 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 4) Concept 4 The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan Concept 4 consists of a fairly balanced blend of land uses including residential, a mix of industrial, mixed use business park, limited retail commercial and office, open space, and public facilities uses. Both living and working opportunities are available within the project neighborhoods. At buildout, the project would provide 4,944 new residential units, accommodating an estimated 14,713 persons. The project would also include approximately 16.0 million square feet of non-residential development (excluding open space and rights-of-way). Based on employment generation rates by use classification, the project would create an estimated 18,432 jobs (See Table V-79). Table V-79 CONCEPT 4 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ESTIMATE Land Use Category Level of Development at Buildout (Sq. Ft.) Employment Generation Projected Factor'_ New Jobs Commercial Retail 204,079 1/500 408 Office 406,415 1/300 1,355 Heavy Industrial 9,942,134 1/1000 9,942 Light Industrial 1,370,615 1/600 2,284 Warehouse/Distribution 2,056,032 1/2000 1,028 Airpark/Mixed Use 1,707,600 1/500 3,415 TOTAL 15,686,8272 18,432 1. Employees per Square Foot. 2. Not Inclusive of 297,297 Square Feet of Public Facilities. Sources of Generation Factors: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates; Economic Practices Manual, 1984 Revised Edition, State of California Office of Planning and Research. Based on these projections, the project would yield a jobs/housing ratio of 3.73 at buildout, which is significantly higher than both the 1990 (0.69) and the projected 2010 (0.65) performance ratios for the Coachella Valley subregion as identified in the SCAG GME. Consequently, development of Concept 4 would be beneficial to the currently housing -rich subregion by improving the overall balance between jobs and housing. To ensure that employment opportunities and adequate infrastructure, services and facilities are coordinated with the proposed residential development, Concept 4 would be implemented in five phases over a 25 -year period (residential land uses are expected to build -out over a 17 -year period). Of the 4,944 residential units proposed, approximately 3,381 would be single-family units and 1,563 would be multi -family units. Based on preliminary market studies,61 it is anticipated that the proposed housing mix, both in terms of type and price, would provide 61 Fiscal Impact Report prepared for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, David Taussig and Associates, Inc., December 19, 1994, as amended. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-359 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA additional affordable housing opportunities within the subregion, although decreased from the housing mix proposed under Concept 1. Concept 4 would provide new jobs, as well as new housing and would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion. A greater number of jobs would be created than under Concept 1, although the number of residential units proposed under Concept 4 is slightly less than under Concept 1, resulting in a higher jobs to housing ratio. In addition, the project would yield a housing mix that is more heavily weighted toward provision of single family units, which reduces the potential for affordable housing units. 5) Concept 5 The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan Concept 5 consists of a primarily industrial distribution of land uses with mixed use business park, open space, public facilities and limited residential, retail commercial and office uses. Both living and working opportunities are available within the residential project neighborhoods. At buildout, the project would provide 2,930 new residential units, accommodating an estimated 8,720 persons. The project would also include approximately 22.0 million square feet of non-residential development (including public facilities but excluding open space and rights-of-way). Based on employment generation rates by use classification, the project would create an estimated 24,373 jobs (See Table V-80). Table V-80 CONCEPT 5 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ESTIMATE Land Use Category Level of Development at Buildout (Sq. Ft.) Employment Generation Factor' Projected New Jobs Commercial 136,125 1/500 272 Office 406,415 1/300 1,355 Heavy Industrial 16,018,754 1/1000 16,019 Light Industrial 1,370,615 1/600 2,284 Warehouse/Distribution 2,056,032 1/2000 1,028 Airpark/Mixed Use 1,707,600 1/500 3,415 TOTAL 21,695,4942 24,373 1. Employees per Square Foot. 2. Not Inclusive of 297,297 Square Feet of Public Facilities. Sources of Generation Factors: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates; Economic Practices Manual, 1984 Revised Edition, State of California Office of Planning and Research. Based on these projections, the project would yield a jobs/housing ratio of 8.3 at buildout, which is significantly higher than both the 1990 (0.69) and the projected 2010 (0.65) performance ratios for the Coachella Valley subregion as identified in the SCAG GME. Consequently, development of Concept 5 would be beneficial to the currently housing - rich subregion by improving the overall balance between jobs and housing. To ensure that employment opportunities and adequate infrastructure, services and facilities are coordinated with the proposed residential development, Concept 5 would be implemented V-360 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis in five phases over a 25 -year period (residential land uses are expected to build -out over a 17 -year period). Of the 2,930 residential units proposed, approximately 1,853 would be single-family units and 1,077 would be multi -family units. Based on preliminary market studies, it is anticipated that the proposed housing mix, both in terms of type and price, would provide additional affordable housing opportunities within the subregion.62 Overall, the project would yield a housing mix that is more heavily weighted toward provision of single family units. As discussed in Concept 1, there is the opportunity to reduce housing development costs for the multi -family units. Concept 5 would provide a significant number of new jobs, which significantly exceeds the employment potential of Concept 1 which would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion. Although Concept 5 provides significantly more employment opportunities than Concept 1, and will contribute towards a regional jobs/housing balance, it provides a lesser amount of supporting residential opportunities. This results in a highly jobs rich development which is not supported by housing opportunities on-site. 6) Concept 6 Under Concept 6, no additional housing would be constructed on the project site. Concept 6 would provide 18,724 new jobs, but would provide no housing. While new jobs are needed in this housing -rich subregion, no new affordable housing would be provided under this alternative, nor would any housing be constructed near the major employment center (See Table V-81). Table V-81 CONCEPT 6 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ESTIMATE Land Use Category Level of Development at Buildout (Sq. Ft.) Employment Generation Projected Factor' New Jobs Commercial Office 406,415 1/300 1,355 Heavy Industrial 13,236,137 1/1000 13,236 Light Industrial 315,415 1/600 526 Warehouse/Distribution 385,688 1/2000 192 Airpark/Mixed Use 1,707,552 1/500 3,415 TOTAL 16,051,2072 18,724 1. Employees per Square Foot. 2. Not Inclusive of 297,297 Square Feet of Public Facilities. Sources of Generation Factors: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates; Economic Practices Manual, 1984 Revised Edition, State of California Office of Planning and Research. 62 Fiscal Impact Report prepared for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, David Taussig and Associates, Inc., December 19, 1994, as amended. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-361 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] KOL-01 \ADSPEIR3\EIR-V.E V-362 The Planning Center REGIONAL ELEMENT Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis F. REGIONAL ELEMENT 1. Regional Growth Forecasts a. Identification of Regional Growth Forecasts for Project Site The Coachella Valley Association of Governments has prepared Socio -Economic Projections for population, households and employment in the subregion for the years 1990, 2000 and 2010. Additionally, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) recently adopted the Growth Management Element (GME) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which contains population, housing (dwelling units) and employment projections for the Coachella Valley, as well as for Riverside County and the SCAG Region, for 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2015. The CVAG projections are equivalent to those contained in the GME, with a few exceptions.61 Forecasts contained in the GME update those contained in the SCAG 1989 Growth Management Plan (GMP). The RCP recommends guiding principles for growth and development which are compatible with strategic goals for Southern California. These overall goals are to re -invigorate the region's economy, avoid social and economic inequities and the geographical dislocation of communities, and to maintain the region's quality of life. SCAG regional forecasts provide the basis for development of County growth policies. 1 Population The Kohl Ranch project is located in the Coachella Valley subregion — one of thirteen subregions located within the SCAG Region. As Table V-82 indicates, the CVAG Socio - Economic Projections estimate that the Coachella Valley's 1990 population of 215,000 will increase by 53 percent to 330,000 by the year 2000, and by 132 percent (compared to 1990 levels) to 499,000 by the year 2010. Table V-82 GROWTH FORECASTS: POPULATION' 1990 2000 2010 2015 Total Total % Change Total % Change Total % Change Region Population Population from 1990 Population from 1990 Population from 1990 Coachella Valle/ 215,000 330,000 53.5 499,000 132.1 N/A' N/A Riverside County° 1 1,170,000 1,851,000 58.2 2,556,000 118.5 2,939,000 151.2 SCAG Region° 14,637,000 17,515,000 19.71 20,516,000 40.21 22,000,000 50.3 1. Projections rounded to the nearest 1,000. 2. Projections based on CVAG Socio -Economic Projections. 3. CVAG Socio -Economic Projections do not contain data for 2015. 4. Projections based on SCAG's adopted Growth Management Element. Sources: Coachella Valley Socio -Economic Projections, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, March 1993; Regional Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Element, SCAG, 1994. 63 The CVAG Socio -Economic Projections reflect a slightly higher population projection (499,000) than the GME (497,000) for the year 2010. Additionally, only the GME contains forecast data for the year 2015. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-363 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA 2) Housing In 1990, the Coachella Valley had an estimated 126,000 dwelling units. GME projections indicate that housing opportunities will increase by 33 percent to 168,000 in the Year 2000, and by almost 98 percent (over 1990 levels) to 249,000 by the Year 2010 (see Table V-83). 3) Employment According to both CVAG Socio -Economic Projections and the GME, employment in the Coachella Valley approximated 87,000 in 1990 (see Table V-84). By the Year 2000, total employment in the subregion is expected to increase (over 1990 levels) by 40 percent to 122,000, and by 87 percent to 163,000 in 2010. Additionally, the GME forecasts project that total employment will reach 177,000 in 2015, eclipsing 1990 levels by more than 103 percent. Table V-84 Table V-83 GROWTH FORECASTS: HOUSING' 1990 2000 2010 2015 1990 2000 2010 2015 % Change from 1990 Region Total Housing Total Housing % Change from 1990 Total Housing % Change from 1990 Total Housing % Change from 1990 Coachella VallW 126,000 168,000 33.3 249,000 97.6 293,000 132.5 Riverside County 1 484,000 699,000 44.4 986,000 103.7 1,146,000 136.8 SCAG Region 1 5,328,0001 6,189,000 16.21 7,249,000 36.11 7,820,000 46.8 1. Projections rounded to the nearest 1,000. 2. GME projections used in lieu of "household" data contained in the CVAG Socio-economic Projections. Source: Regional Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Element, SCAG, 1994. 3) Employment According to both CVAG Socio -Economic Projections and the GME, employment in the Coachella Valley approximated 87,000 in 1990 (see Table V-84). By the Year 2000, total employment in the subregion is expected to increase (over 1990 levels) by 40 percent to 122,000, and by 87 percent to 163,000 in 2010. Additionally, the GME forecasts project that total employment will reach 177,000 in 2015, eclipsing 1990 levels by more than 103 percent. Table V-84 GROWTH FORECASTS: EMPLOYMENT' 1990 2000 2010 2015 Region Total Employment Total Employment % Change from 1990 Total % Change Employment from 1990 Total Employment % Change from 1990 Coachella Valley 87,000 122,000 40.2 163,000 87.4 177,0003 103.4 Riverside County° 356,000 527,000 48.0 762,000 114.0 840,000 136.0 SCAG_ Region4 7,076,000' 8,205,000 16.01 9,691,000 37.01 10,257,000 45.0 1. Projections rounded to the nearest 1,000. 2. Projections based on CVAG Socio -Economic Projections and the GME growth forecasts which are equivalent for 1990, 2000 and 2010. 3. Projection based on GME forecast. CVAG Socio -Economic Projections do not contain data for 2015. 4. Projections based on SCAG's adopted Growth Management Element. Sources: Coachella Valley Socio -Economic Projections, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, March 1993; Regional Comprehensive Plan, Growth Management Element, SCAG, 1994. V-364 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis b. RSA/Land Use Planning Area Profile The Kohl Ranch project is located in the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area. The population in this area was 16,835 in 1980. The Land Use Planning Area Profile does not provide population projections. The Eastern Coachella Valley Plan (ECVP) also does not include population projections, based upon the 1990 amendments to the Plan. The project site is located within Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 53. Major communities located within RSA 53 include the cities of Indio and Coachella and the unincorporated communities of Thermal, Mecca, Oasis and Salton. Growth projections for the area based upon 1990 Census data are being prepared by SCAG, but have yet to be released. c. Project Growth Forecast Comparative Analysis with Regional Growth Forecast The RCCGP establishes basic land use policies for the review of projects with the adopted regional population forecasts. These policies include: x Regional planning for public facilities expansions and environmental protection is based on the regional growth forecasts. ■ Those projects which may be of regional significance will be reviewed through the new source review procedures established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1) Population and Housing a) Concept 1 The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan proposes to develop a total of 7,171 residential dwelling units on the project site under Concept 1 and would generate approximately 21,341 additional residents64. This represents roughly 4.3 percent of the housing growth over the period 1990 to 2015 and 7.5 percent of the projected population growth over the period of 1990 to 2010 for the Coachella Valley subregion.bs b) Concept 2 Under this concept, additional housing would be constructed on the project site, although fewer housing units would be developed than under Concept 1. Under this concept, Neighborhoods A, E, F, G, and H are to be developed for industrial use 64 Based on the persons -per-unit generation factor (2.976) for population forecasts contained in the 1994 County of Riverside Fiscal Impact Report Guide. 65 Population and Housing estimates for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are tied to the project's residential land uses, which are expected to build out over a 17 -year period. In light of this timetable, the year 2015 is used for purposes of comparative analysis between the project and the subregion for housing. For population, the year 2010 is used, since these are the only figures unavailable for the subregion. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-365 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA with a significant number of housing units (5,157) to be constructed as part of the project. The project would yield a population of approximately 15,347. This represents roughly 5.4 percent of the projected population growth over the period of 1990 to 2010, and 3.1 percent of the projected housing growth over the period of 1990 to 2015 of the Coachella Valley subregion. c) Concept 3 Under Concept 3, the majority of the site south of Avenue 62 is designated for large scale industrial use. Under this concept, an additional 2,227 housing units would be developed on the project site, yielding a potential population of approximately 6,628, which is significantly fewer housing units than under Concept 1. This represents roughly 2.4 percent of the projected population growth over the period of 1990 to 2010, and 1.3 percent of the projected housing growth over the period of 1990 to 2015 of the Coachella Valley subregion. d) Concept 4 Under Concept 4, a significant number of housing units (4,944) would be constructed on the southern half of the project site in Neighborhoods G, H, I, J, K, L, and M, although this concept proposes fewer housing units than Concept 1. Industrial uses are designated for the northern half of the project site in Neighborhoods A, B, C, D, E, and F. Under this concept, residential development would yield an additional 14,713 residents. This represents roughly 5.2 percent of the projected population growth over the period of 1990 to 2010, and 3.0 percent of the projected housing growth over the period of 1990 to 2015 of the Coachella Valley subregion'. e) Concept S Under Concept 5, a large portion of the site is designated for industrial use. Under this concept, an additional 2,930 housing units would be developed within the southern portion of the site in Neighborhoods I, J K, L, and M, yielding a potential population of approximately 8,720. Fewer housing units would be constructed than are proposed under Concept 1. This represents roughly 3.1 percent of the projected population growth over the period of 1990 to 2010, and 1.8 percent of the projected housing growth over the period of 1990 to 2015 of the Coachella Valley subregion. f) Concept 6 Under Concept 6, there is no housing or residential population proposed. 2) Employment a) Concept 1 As indicated in Table V-76 in Section V.E.2., the Kohl Ranch project under Concept 1 is projected to generate 13,822 new jobs at buildout. This represents V-366 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis approximately 15.4 percent of the anticipated employment growth in the Coachella Valley between 1990 and 2015.66 b) Concept 2 Under this concept, an estimated 19,028 new jobs would be created at buildout, which exceeds the number of jobs proposed under Concept 1. This represents approximately 21.1 percent of the anticipated employment growth in the Coachella Valley between 1990 and 2015. c) Concept 3 Under this primarily large-scale industrial concept, an estimated 14,186 new jobs would be created at buildout, which approximates, yet slightly exceeds the number of jobs proposed under Concept 1. This represents approximately 15.8 percent of the anticipated employment growth in the Coachella Valley between 1990 and 2015. d) Concept 4 Under this concept, an estimated 18,432 new jobs would be created at buildout, which exceeds the number of jobs proposed under Concept 1. This represents approximately 20.5 percent of the anticipated employment growth in the Coachella Valley between 1990 and 2015. e) Concept 5 Under this concept, an estimated 24,373 new jobs would be created at buildout, which significantly exceeds the number of jobs proposed under Concept 1. This represents approximately 27.1 percent of the anticipated employment growth in the Coachella Valley between 1990 and 2015. f) Concept 6 Under this large scale industrial use concept, an estimated 18,724 new jobs would be created at buildout, which exceeds the number of jobs proposed under Concept 1. This represents approximately 20.8 percent of the anticipated employment growth in the Coachella Valley between 1990 and 2015. 66 Employment estimates for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are tied to the overall buildout of the project, which is expected to occur in five phases over a 25 -year period. Given this development horizon, the year 2015 is used for purposes of comparative analysis between the project and the subregion. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-367 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 2. Applicable Employment/Housing Balance Policies The SCAG Region is confronted with a jobs -to -housing imbalance. To meet federally - mandated air quality goals and to reduce congestion within the Region, SCAG has established policies aimed at reducing the regional imbalance between jobs and housing. These policies essentially aim to create additional jobs in "housing -rich" and "jobs -poor" areas, and likewise, to encourage more housing opportunities in areas considered to be jobs -rich but housing -poor. The RCCGP also establishes policies for achieving job/housing balance, and includes a program to promote balanced development on a regional and countywide basis by facilitating a mix of housing and employment opportunities. In furtherance of these policies, the ECVP establishes the goal of developing affordable housing in order to promote a balance of employment and housing opportunities in the ECVP area. The Coachella Valley subregion is a housing-rich/jobs-poor area. In such cases, SCAG regional growth policy calls for the imbalance to be corrected through the provision of additional employment opportunities. In the project area, the establishment of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone is intended to stimulate economic development and attract jobs -producing businesses to the region. a) Concept I The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan under Concept 1 provides for a variety of land uses including residential, mixed use, commercial, office, warehouse/distribution, industrial, public facilities and open space. It is projected that on-site employment opportunities would outpace the number of new residential units, resulting in an overall, project -wide jobs/housing ratio of 1.92 at buildout. This ratio is significantly higher than the jobs/housing ratio of 0.60 projected for the Coachella Valley subregion in the Year 2015. Consequently, proposed development of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan would be consistent with both regional and county jobs/housing balance policies. b) Concept 2 Concept 2 provides for a variety of land uses including residential, mixed-use, commercial, office, warehouse/distribution, industrial, public facilities and open space. It is projected that on-site employment opportunities would outpace the number of new residential units, resulting in an overall, project -wide jobs/housing ratio of 3.69 at buildout. This ratio is significantly higher and more jobs rich than both the jobs/housing ratio for Concept 1 and the jobs/housing ratio for the Coachella Valley subregion in the year 2015, and will have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion by providing more local employment opportunities. V-368 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c) Concept 3 Concept 3 provides for a variety of primarily industrial land uses including airpark/mixed-use, office, single user industrial and open space, as well as limited residential and commercial uses. It is projected that on-site employment opportunities would far outpace the number of new residential units, resulting in an overall, project -wide jobs/housing ratio of 6.37 at buildout. This ratio is significantly higher and more jobs rich than the projected housing rich jobs/housing ratio of .60 for the Coachella Valley subregion in the year 2015, as well as the projected jobs/housing ratio of Concept 1. The project would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion by providing local employment opportunities in a housing rich environs. d) Concept 4 Concept 4 provides for a fairly balanced mix and distribution of land uses including industrial, residential, airpark/mixed-use, limited commercial, warehouse/distribution, open space and public facilities. It is projected that on-site employment opportunities (18,432) would significantly outpace the number of new residential units (4,944), resulting in an overall, project -wide jobs/housing ratio of 3.73 at buildout. This ratio is higher and more jobs rich than the projected jobs/housing ratio for Concept 1, as well as the jobs/housing ratio for the Coachella Valley subregion of .60 in the year 2015. This concept would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion by providing local employment opportunities. e) Concept 5 Concept 5 provides for a variety of primarily industrial and residential land uses including a large amount of heavy industrial, warehouse/distribution, light industrial, limited commercial, and public facilities. It is projected that on-site employment opportunities would far outpace the number of new residential units, resulting in an overall, project -wide jobs/housing ratio of 8.32 at buildout. This ratio is significantly higher and more jobs rich than the projected housing rich jobs/housing ratio of .60 for the Coachella Valley subregion in the year 2015, and far exceeds the jobs/housing ratio of 1.92 proposed for Concept 1. The project would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the subregion by providing a substantial amount of local employment opportunities. f) Concept 6 Concept 6 provides 19,645 new jobs, but would provide no housing. While this does not promote a jobs/housing balance on the project site, it would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance in the Coachella Valley subregion by contributing a significant number of needed jobs in the housing rich subregion in the year 2015, where housing development is forecast to far outpace employment generation. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-369 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] V-370 The Planning Center ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis G. ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT 1. Land Use Policies/Specific Plan Time Frames Riverside County requires the adoption of a phasing plan for each Specific Plan. Each plan must be monitored for reasonable progress toward implementation. The phasing program for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is described in Section IV.6. of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. The project developer will work with the County to adhere to the phasing plan and to ensure the logical and timely completion of the project. 2. Fiscal Impact Summary A fiscal impact report (FIR) was prepared for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan (Concept 1) and is included as Appendix E to this EIR. The following text of the EIR summarizes the results of the FIR. The fiscal impacts identified for the project include recurring impacts from development of the Specific Plan on the County of Riverside, including the General Fund, Library Fund, Transportation Fund, Structural Fire Protection Fund and Redevelopment Agency; the Coachella Valley Park and Recreation District; the Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District; the Coachella Valley Water District Stormwater Unit and the Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District. In addition, the FIR examines the costs of providing street lighting and open space maintenance via a new special district, such as a landscaping and lighting district or a County Service Area (CSA). Where applicable, fiscal impacts have been estimated based on the County's Fiscal Impact Report Guidelines of 1994, and reflect current County service standards. All fiscal impacts are stated in constant 1994 dollars. a. Recurring Fiscal Impacts 1 County of Riverside As shown in Table V-85, development of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is projected to generate a recurring fiscal surplus to the County of Riverside (all funds) of more than $3.3 million at project buildout and beyond. On a base of about $8.6 million in recurring annual costs, the project is projected to generate more than $11.9 million in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue/cost ratio of 1:39. This surplus to the County of Riverside will occur even though approximately 40 percent of the site is located within the Thermal Redevelopment Project Area of the County of Riverside Redevelopment Agency (RDA) which will receive property taxes (in the form of tax increment) from the project. A fiscal surplus to the County is expected to occur from the eleventh year of project development, when the revenue/cost ratio is estimated at 1.10, with the revenue/cost ratio rising gradually between year eleven and project buildout. The cumulative fiscal surplus to the County through project buildout is projected at nearly $27.12 million. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-371 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA Table V-85 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUMMARY OF RECURRING COST & REVENUE PROJECTIONS ($ Millions)' Fund Amount COUNTY GENERAL FUND Annual Expenditure $5,429 Annual Revenue 6,966 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $1,536 COUNTY TRANSPORTATION FUND Annual Expenditure $1,263 Annual Revenue 3,820 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $2_,557 COUNTY FIRE FUND Annual Expenditure $1,668 Annual Revenue 1,049 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($619) COUNTY LIBRARY FUND Annual Expenditure $228 Annual Revenue 125 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($104) COUNTY, ALL FUNDS Annual Expenditure $ 8,588 Annual Revenue 11,959 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) _ $ 3,370 1. At buildout in 2020 (the 25th year of the project). Recurring costs to the County (all funds) at project buildout include over $3.979 million for sheriff and public protection services (46.3 percent of total County costs), $1.668 million for fire protection services (19.4 percent), over $1.263 million for road maintenance (14.7 percent), $540 thousand for general government operations (6.2 percent), and $1.138 million (13.3 percent) for various other cost items. Recurring revenues to the County (all funds) at project buildout include $6.315 million in annual sales and use taxes (52.8 percent of total County revenues) $1.172 million in property taxes (9.8 percent); over $744 thousand in motor vehicle in -lieu fees (6.2 percent); about $464 thousand in state gasoline taxes (a total of 3.9 percent); $421 thousand in structural fire property taxes (3.5 percent); and approximately $2.813 million in other revenues (23.8 percent). 2) County of Riverside Redevelopment Agency A portion of the Project is located within the Thermal redevelopment project area of the County of Riverside Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The areas designated as Phase I and Phase II in the Specific Plan are within the redevelopment area. Phases III, IV and V are outside of the redevelopment area. This circumstance has a significant impact on the V-372 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis fiscal analysis, which necessarily has accompanying advantages and disadvantages to the County of Riverside. Phases I and II represent a substantial portion of the Specific Plan. In total, 2,227 homes and 6.2 million square feet of commercial/industrial development of the Project would be within the redevelopment area. Property taxes from Phases I & II of the project would accrue to the RDA (in the form of tax increment, TI) rather than to the County General Fund, County Structural Fire Protection Fund, County Library Fund, and Coachella Valley Unified School District. However, the Riverside County Regional Park, the Coachella Valley Water District Stormwater Unit, and the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District would continue to receive property tax revenues from Phases I and II of the Project. The fiscal impact study indicates that the project would generate significant financial benefits to the RDA. At buildout, the project would generate $33.02 million in cumulative net TI to the RDA (in 1994 dollars, meaning without market appreciation for new development, without 2 percent re -assessment for developed property, and without turnover with accompanying re -assessment to market values). By fulfilling the objectives of redevelopment, however, the project's fiscal analysis related to municipal services would be affected detrimentally. Property taxes available for services would necessarily be reduced because these funds would now accrue to the RDA in the form of tax increment. Nonetheless, the project would generate a recurring fiscal surplus to the County, as described above. 31 Coachella Vallev Recreation & Park District Given the current level of service and property tax revenue, development of the Specific Plan is projected to generate a recurring fiscal deficit to the Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District (CVRPD) of $494 thousand at project buildout, as shown in Table V-86, assuming the no golf course alternative. On a base of about $627 thousand in recurring annual costs, the project is projected to generate $133 thousand in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue/cost ratio of 0.21. Revenue/cost ratios for CVRPD move from a low of 0.12 in the first year, rising through the last year of project development. Alternatively, if the golf course is developed, the Specific Plan is projected to generate a recurring fiscal deficit to the CVRPD of $200 thousand at project buildout. On a base of $333 thousand in recurring annual costs, the project is projected to generate $133 thousand in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue/cost ratio of 0.40. The revenue/cost ratio for CVRPD reaches a low of 0.22 in the first year, and rises through the last year of project development. Recurring costs to CVRPD at project buildout consist of expenditures on park maintenance and recreation programs. Recurring revenues to CVRPD consist of ad valorem property taxes which are collected by the County and passed through to CVRPD. The redevelopment project area does not affect the ad valorem property tax allocation to the CVRPD. Draft EIR - May 13, 1996 V-373 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Table V-86 SPECIAL DISTRICTS SUMMARY OF RECURRING COST & REVENUE PROJECTIONS ($ Millions)' Agency/Special District Amount RIVERSIDE COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (THERMAL) Annual Expenditure $ 0 Annual Revenue 2,361 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $2,361 COACHELLA VALLEY PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT (WITH GOLF COURSE) Annual Expenditure $333 Annual Revenue 133 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($200) COACHELLA VALLEY PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT (WITHOUT GOLF COURSE) Annual Expenditure $627 Annual Revenue 133 Annual Surplust(Deficit) ($494) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REGIONAL PARK Annual Expenditure $52 Annual Revenue 41 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($11) COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT STORMWATER UNIT Annual Expenditure $ 3 Annual Revenue 412 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $409 SOUTHERN COACHELLA VALLEY CSD Annual Expenditure $932 Annual Revenue 932 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $ 0 NEW SPECIAL DISTRICT (WITH GOLF COURSE) Annual Expenditure $1,353 Annual Revenue 1,353 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $ 0 NEW SPECIAL DISTRICT (WITHOUT GOLF COURSE) Annual Expenditure $1,424 Annual Revenue 1,424 Annual Surplus/(Deficit) $ 0 Note: At buildout in 2020 (the 25th year of the project). V-374 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The projected fiscal deficit from the project developed without the golf course may be mitigated in the following ways: ■ CVRPD currently relies on other agencies, such as cities and school districts, to share the cost of maintaining a number of its community parks. Similarly, it may be likely that with joint -use parks, the Coachella Valley Unified School District would share the cost of maintenance with CVRPD. ■ Some or all of the recurring fiscal deficits could be covered by new parcel charges levied by CVRPD. 4) Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District The project is located within the boundaries of the Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District (SCVCSD). SCVCSD provides supplemental sheriff services on a cost recovery basis and solid waste collection through a franchise. Consequently, development of the Specific Plan is projected to generate no net fiscal impact on the SCVCSD. Projected revenues from the district's parcel charges will be exactly offset by expenses for supplemental sheriff services. Recurring annual revenues and costs for the SCVCSD would total $932 thousand at buildout, for a revenue/cost ratio of 1.00. These revenues would support an additional 11 officers, including 10 deputies and one sergeant, plus provide all necessary support services. These officers represent an additional level of service for the project at a rate of 0.52 officers per 1,000 population. 5) Coachella Valley Water District Stormwater Unit The project is located within the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) Stormwater Unit. The Stormwater Unit would provide canal maintenance for the project. Recurring costs would total $3 thousand and recurring annual revenues are projected to be $412 thousand at buildout, resulting in a net fiscal surplus of $398 thousand per year. 6 Riverside County Relzional Park and O en -S ace District The project is located within the Riverside County Regional Park and Open -Space District and is projected to generate a net deficit of $11 thousand at buildout to the District. On a base of $52 thousand in recurring costs, the project would generate $41 thousand in revenues, for a revenue/cost ratio of 0.79 at buildout. A cumulative deficit of $263 thousand is anticipated at project buildout. 7) New S ial District for Street Lighting & Ogen Space For new development within unincorporated areas, the cost of operating local street lighting and maintaining open space would be the responsibility of the project itself. In order to provide the project with these services, the FIR assumes that a new special district, such as a landscaping & lighting district, community services district, or county service area, would be required. The special district would contract with an existing local Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-375 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA agency or a franchisee to provide the actual services. The special district would operate on a cost recovery basis; that is, parcel charges for street lighting and landscape maintenance would directly offset the cost of providing these services. Recurring annual revenues and costs for the special district would total $1.424 million (without a golf course) or $1.353 million (with a golf course) at buildout, for a revenue/cost ratio of 1.00. The assessment necessary to pay for all costs of the special district would total approximately $140 per equivalent dwelling unit per year. b. One -Time Fiscal Impacts The County of Riverside assesses development fees to mitigate the impact of new development on County infrastructure. Applying the County's fee schedule to the land uses included in the Specific Plan results in the potential one-time revenues to the County shown in Table V-87. These revenues total nearly $11.8 million—$8.2 million from new residential land uses and $3.6 million from commercial/industrial land uses. Table V-87 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE & AFFECTED SPECIAL DISTRICTS POTENTIAL ONE-TIME FISCAL IMPACTS Commerciall District Residential Industrial Total COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Riverside Transportation Fund' $1,050,250 $1,159,785 $2,210,035 Riverside County Regional Park & Open Space2 4,374,310 N/A 4,374,310 Riverside County Structural Fire Protections 2,779,800 2,410,785 5,190,585 Subtotal, County of Riverside $8,204,360 $3,570,570 $11,774,930 COACHELLA VALLEY PARK & RECREATION $2,560,920 N/A $2,560,920 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICr $31,014,575 $534,893 $31,549,468 COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: Schools Fees $22,201,416 $2,603,648 $24,805,064 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS: TUMF Program' $5,168,169 $7,279,039 $12,447,209 TOTAL, ALL DISTRICTS $69,149,4401 $13,988,150 $83,137,591 1. Pursuant to the 1994 Riverside Fiscal Guidelines, Transportation Fund projections are based on signal mitigation fees of $140 per dwelling unit for multi -family, and $150 per dwelling unit for single-family residential units, $1,750 per acre for industrial use, and $2,500 for commercial uses. 2. Development fees assessed for new development are $350/residential unit for regional parklands and $260 per residential unit for natural parklands. Calculation is based on buildout residential units of 7,171. 3. Based on Fire Mitigation Fee Program of $400 per dwelling unit except for 443 Phase I High Density units which are calculated at the commercial/industrial rate of $0.25/sq. ft. and assuming 800 sq. ft. per unit. Commercial/Industrial estimate is based on non-residential cumulative square footage of 9,643,139. 4. Fees were calculated based on 2.976 persons per dwelling unit and 7,171 dwelling units at buildout. The district requires dedication of 3 park land acres per 1,000 persons or 64 acres for the project. Impact fees are $40,000 per acre of park requirement. These fees may be waived in lieu of land dedications. 5. Coachella Valley Water District Impact Fees are estimated based on residential fees for sanitation of $1,925 per dwelling unit and for water of $2,400 per dwelling unit. Commercial/industrial fees are based on $180 per EDU. DTA has estimated the total EDU count for non-residential properties to be approximately 2,970 EDUs. In addition, there are additional capital facilities costs for Flood Control improvements which must be bome by the developer. These impacts are non -quantifiable at this stage in planning. 6. The Coachella Valley Unified School District impact fees are calculated based on 1,800 square feet per dwelling unit and a fee rate of $1.72 per square foot. For non-residential uses, the fees have been projected based on a $0.27 per square foot rate. 7. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) are calculated based on $838.30 per single-family detached unit and $506.30 per attached multi -family unit. Fees for non-residential uses are based on a retail industrial factor of $3,418.80 per acre for light industrial, heavy industrial, and warehouse uses, a factor of $2,136.68 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for commercial uses and airpaNmixed use; and a factor of $2,197.14 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for office uses. V-376 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The CVRPD levies park fees equivalent to $40,000 per acre of required parkland. As the _project would require approximately 64 acres of parkland, impact fees would total $2.56 million. All or a portion of these fees, however, may be waived in -lieu of land dedication under the Quimby Act. CVWD levies one-time impacts for domestic water systems and sewage treatment and delivery. These revenues exclude master planned flood control storm drains, which are assumed to be a responsibility of the developer. Applying the District's fee schedule to the project's land uses would result in one-time revenues to the District of approximately $31.5 million—$31.0 million from residential uses and an estimated $0.5 million from commercial/industrial uses. The developer may agree to supplement state funding resources available for construction of new school facilities required to serve the Specific Plan area. However, the one-time cost impact of these school facilities has yet to be determined. In the absence of alternate school financing mechanisms, the one-time revenue impact of the project based on currently authorized school fees is estimated at nearly $24.8 million—$22.2 million from residential land uses and $2.6 million from commercial/industrial uses. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) levies an impact fee, the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for regional roadway improvements. Applying CVAG's current fee schedule to the Specific Plan land uses results in one-time revenues of approximately $12.5 million—$5.2 million from new residential land uses and $7.3 million from commercial/industrial land uses. In summary, impact fees from the project to the County of Riverside and all local districts would total $83.1 million, including $69.1 million from residential land uses and $14.0 million from commercial/industrial land uses. Some of the capital facilities covered by these fees may be financed by other means (e.g. a Bridge and Thoroughfare District, a Mello -Roos Community Facilities District, etc.), especially if adequate fee revenues are not available. To insure that the capital facilities required to serve future residents and tenants of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan will be provided, the developer will work with the County to set up and implement a capital financing plan that is comprehensive, timely, and equitable. 3. Land Use Concepts 2 through 6 The EIR prepared for Concept 1 represents a "worst case" analysis in terms of the project's fiscal impacts. Concepts 2 through 6 increase the industrial land uses on the site, which would reduce the fiscal impacts of the project. Thus, the fiscal impacts of Concepts 2 through 6 are contained within the "envelope" of impacts created by Concept 1. KOL-MADSPEIRMIRNT&G Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-377 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA [This page intentionally left blank.] V-378 The Planning Center MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS Chapter V - Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis H. MANDATORY CEQA TORICS 1. Cumulative Impacts The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR identify any significant cumulative impacts associated with a project (Guidelines, Sec.15130, [a]). When impacts are not deemed significant, the document should explain the basis for that conclusion. "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" (Guidelines, Sec. 15355, [a]). Thus, a legally adequate "cumulative impact analysis" is an analysis of a particular project viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future impacts whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. CEQA notes that the discussion of cumulative impacts should be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness (Guidelines, Sec. 15130 (b). Only those projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand require evaluation. CEQA does not require as much detail in the analysis of cumulative environmental impacts as must be provided for the project alone. Since the proposed project identifies potential impacts only for specific categories, it is reasonable that the analysis of cumulative impacts considers only those categories of potential impact, as well. These categories include: • Land Use ■ Landform & Topography/Slopes & Erosion ■ Soils & Agriculture ■ Biology ■ Geology & Seismicity ■ Hydrology, Flooding & Drainage ■ Air Quality ■ Water Quality ■ Noise ■ Energy Resources ■ Open Space & Conservation ■ Toxic Substance ■ Cultural Resources ■ Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light & Glare ■ Public Facilities and Services ■ Housing Element ■ Regional Element ■ Administrative Element The most appropriate region for addressing the context of the project's potential cumulative impacts is the Coachella Valley subregion, one of thirteen subregions located within the SCAG Region. Section F, Regional Element, presents the socioeconomic projections prepared for this subregion by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). These projections anticipate an increase in Coachella Valley's 1990 population of 215,000 to Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-379 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 330,000 by the year 2000, an increase of 53 percent. The population is projected to increase 132 percent to 499,000 by the year 2010. Employment is projected to increase from 87,000 in 1990 to 122,000 in 2000 (a 40 percent increase) and to 163,000 in 2010, (an increase of 103 percent). These projections are presented in Tables V-80 and V-82 in Section F. The CVAG projections provided the basis for determining the future cumulative conditions for the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study Model (CVATS), which was employed in the project traffic study. The CVAG projections are also the source of the cumulative air quality and noise conditions, since the air quality and noise analyses were based on the traffic modeling. Cumulative conditions for certain other environmental issues focus on a smaller project vicinity. The expansion plans for the Thermal Airport, the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone and the Thermal Redevelopment Area are used for the analysis of these other topics. Unless otherwise noted, impacts are the same for all Land Use Concepts. a. Land Use Areas adjacent to the project site include vacant land, farms and related uses, scattered residences and a former sludge -processing facility, which halted operations by federal court order. Land use issues related to Thermal Airport are addressed in other sections. The primary issue related to cumulative land use changes relate to conflicts with ongoing farming operations. The cumulative losses of farmland and open space are acknowledged as significant in other portions of this section. The conflicts between new urban uses and ongoing farming can be minimized by appropriate mitigation measures. Such impacts are not considered significant. b. Geology and Seismicity Combined with areawide development, the project would increase the population within seismically -active Southern California. All such development is required to satisfy building codes appropriate for the region. This impact is not considered extraordinary and does not constitute a significant impact. c. Landform and Topography/Slopes and Erosion The project site is flat, sloping from the northwest to the southeast at less than half of one percent. The project area is part of a large structural block, known as the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough includes the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, the Salton Sea, and the Colorado River Delta region in Mexico. The formation of this trough has occurred as a result of complex movements along the San Andreas Fault System, which slices through the foothills of the Little San Bernardino Mountains. Sediments of both marine and non -marine origin have been deposited in the Salton Trough since at least Pliocene time (approximately two to five million years before present), and in places the deposits reach a depth of nearly four miles. The mountainous areas surrounding the valley are composed of granitic rocks dating from the Cretaceous Period, plus older Precambrian- and Paleozoic -aged metamorphic rocks. Foothill areas, such as the Indio and Mecca Hills, area composed of coarse grained terrestrial conglomerates and sandstones of Pleistocene age. V-380 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Since the project site and surrounding areas have little topographic relief, on-going - development of the area would require minimal grading. No significant cumulative impact is anticipated. Cumulative erosion impacts would be controlled through standard mitigation measures and significant cumulative impacts are not anticipated. d. Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage The project incorporates extensive retention capability in its open space and drainage network. Based on Riverside County Flood Control District and Coachella Valley Water District standards, the project must be designed to retain any increase in stormwater flow on-site. Hence, the proposed project and others developed according to the same standards would not impact storm flows on a cumulative basis. e. Water Quality Surface water and groundwater quality has deteriorated in the region due to a number of activities. Development in the Valley has resulted in an increase in the concentration of chemical constituents in the groundwater. The groundwater of the semi -perched aquifer is generally poor and is not useable for municipal supply. Influences on the water quality of the semi -perched aquifer include: importation of Colorado River water, agricultural practices, domestic and municipal waste disposal practices, and reuse of treated waste water. The upper aquifer water quality is generally good and appropriate for most beneficial uses. Available data indicate that water quality of wells extracting from approximately 100 to 400 feet below ground surface has been degraded. Concentrations of TDS, nitrate, sulfate, and total hardness have increased over the 40 -year period between the 1930s and 1970s. The cause of the degradation was speculated to be seepage of water from the overlying semi -perched aquifer due to excessive groundwater extractions from the upper aquifer. The lower aquifer is of excellent quality and TDS concentrations are generally less than 300 mg/L. The Coachella Canal, the Coachella Valley Agricultural Drains and the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel each have beneficial uses of the surface water designated by the RWQCB. The Coachella Canal which delivers Colorado River Water to the Coachella Valley is rich in calcium sulfate and moderately high in dissolved solids. The relatively high calcium concentration is beneficial to the agricultural soils; however, the importation of the relatively higher total dissolved solids (TDS) water from the Colorado River has tended to degrade the overall quality of the groundwater in the region. The interaction of Colorado River water (agricultural irrigation) and groundwater is minimal because of the perched water table in the lower valley. The statewide NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity would prevent significant cumulative impact from areawide development. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-381 The Kohl Ranch v Coachella Valley a CA Potential groundwater contamination from the former sludge processing facility on Torres - Martinez Indian lands has been investigated by the RWQCB and EPA and is not anticipated to adversely affect water quality at the Kohl Ranch site. L Noise The noise increase generated by project -related traffic and cumulative development levels would expose certain existing residential units to noise levels exceeding the 65 CNEL standard. This impact is considered cumulatively significant. g. Air Quality Short-term air quality impacts are assumed to be significant, since on-site grading is likely to exceed threshold levels (177 acres over a three-month period). The long-term emissions associated with the project under Concept 1 are anticipated to be 11,555 pounds of carbon monoxide, 646 pounds of reactive organic gases, 1,353 pounds of NOx and 343 pounds of particulate matter on a daily basis. Air pollutant emissions of this magnitude exceed the criteria for significance suggested by the SCAQMD. Regional project impacts are considered significant and impact of this project and additional development in the region is considered cumulatively significant. Localized carbon monoxide levels were evaluated in the project vicinity under year 2010 cumulative conditions. The increase in carbon monoxide from cumulative traffic would not be significant, because the 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards would not be exceeded at any receptor location. h. Toxic Substance The majority of the project site is currently in agricultural use. The agricultural users of the site, and the farming operations adjacent to the site, are all permitted as generators of hazardous materials, as a result of their use of petroleum hydrocarbons and incidental use of pesticides. Potential problems resulting from this use are avoided through routine inspection and education. Existing contamination due to pesticide and fertilizer application is limited. Cumulative development anticipated in the area would increase the potential exposure of new residents to farm -related materials, but this impact is not significant. There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area. However, several sites in the project vicinity handle hazardous materials, and have the potential to impact the proposed Kohl Ranch development. These include the former sludge processing operation at the Tomes -Martinez Indian Reservation, the Golden Acres Produce Cooling Facility and Wastewater Reclamation Plant No. 4. Cumulative development would increase the number of residents potentially exposed to these facilities, but this impact is not considered significant. i. Open Space and Conservation The project site occupies 2,177 acres with a majority of the site in agricultural production. Implementation of the proposed project would ultimately result in the removal of the 2,177 acres from undeveloped open space. The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan incorporates a variety of V-382 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis open space uses, including natural open space, trails, local parks and golf courses. Implementation of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan results in the creation of open space that is accessible to residents and employees within the project and the surrounding area, as opposed to the present situation of undeveloped open space used primarily for agriculture. The open space uses within the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are a beneficial impact of implementing the project. General growth of the region would result in additional loss of undeveloped open space. j. Soils and Agriculture The proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 1,468 acres of Prime Farmland. In Riverside County, between 1988 and 1990, approximately 32,127 acres of agricultural land (Important Farmland plus grazing land) were converted to nonagricultural use. During the same period, approximately 13,068 acres of nonagricultural land were added to the inventory of agricultural land for a net loss of 19,059 acres of agricultural land. This trend appears to have slowed between 1990 and 1992 when approximately 15,474 acres of agricultural land were converted from agricultural use, and 7,753 acres were converted to agricultural use, for a net loss of 7,721 acres of agricultural land. There are no Williamson Act lands within the project boundary. However, lands under Williamson Act contracts are located immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the project site and throughout the project vicinity. The cumulative loss of farmland from areawide urbanization of farmland is a significant, unavoidable environmental impact. k. Biology The Salton Sea is an important resource for migratory birds and represents the most important biological resource in the Coachella Valley. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan designates most of the Valley for continued agricultural use and focuses most development within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, which surrounds the Thermal Airport. Given the limited impact on natural habitat expected under the County's growth policies, the cumulative impact on biological resources is not considered significant. 1. Energy Resources and Conservation Electricity is provided in the project vicinity by Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and natural gas is provided by Southern California Gas Company. Both utilities have indicated they have sufficient capacity and that service will be made available without resulting in an adverse impact to future energy supplies m. Cultural Resources The project site and vicinity contain known archaeological, historical and paleontological resources. While cumulative development anticipated in the area raises the potential for a loss of such resources, mitigation measures such as those provided for the Kohl Ranch would render this impact less than significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-383 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA n. Public Facilities and Services Future, cumulative traffic conditions would generate significant impacts at four intersections during peak hours. However, with the mitigation identified, these intersections would operate at acceptable levels and no significant cumulative impact would occur. Development of Kohl Ranch and other developments within the area would increase the demand for water, wastewater treatment, police protection, fire suppression services and schools. Individual projects would be responsible for constructing utility systems and contributing toward public services. In the case of water use, the project will contribute financially toward efforts to mitigate the impacts of development on groundwater supplies. o. Housing Element Currently, there is limited residential development within the project area. Under all but Concept 6, the Kohl Ranch project would provide for a diversity of housing types, which not only responds to market conditions in the area, but promote equal housing opportunities for all segments of the community. With little additional development currently proposed within the project vicinity, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. p. Regional Element The Kohl Ranch project would yield a jobs/housing ratio of 1.92 at buildout under Concept 1, which is significantly higher than both the 1990 (0.69) and the projected 2010 (0.65) performance ratios for the Coachella Valley subregion as identified in the SCAG GME. Consequently, development of the proposed project would be beneficial to the currently housing -rich subregion by improving the overall balance between jobs and housing. Of the 7,171 residential units proposed, approximately 4,631 will be single-family units and 2,540 will be multi -family units. Based on preliminary market studies, the single family units are projected to range in price from $95,000 for townhomes to $190,000 for large, detached units, with a weighted project average of about $110,000 in 1994 dollars. It is anticipated that the proposed housing mix, both in terms of type and price, would provide additional affordable housing opportunities within the subregion. This would be the case for Concepts 2 through 5 as well. No housing would provided under Concept 6. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. q. Administrative Element Development of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan is projected to generate a recurring fiscal surplus to the County of Riverside (all funds) of more than $3.8 million at project buildout and beyond. On a base of about $8.6 million in recurring annual costs, the project is projected to generate more than $12.4 million in recurring annual revenues, for a revenue/cost ratio of 1.45. This surplus to the County of Riverside will occur even though approximately 40 percent of the site is located within the Thermal Redevelopment Project Area of the County of Riverside Redevelopment Agency (RDA) which will receive property taxes (in the form of tax increment) from the project. V-384 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis The potentially significant cumulative environmental effects of relevant development in the —area would be mitigated by a combination of local government action through the development and implementation of appropriate plans and policies and the mitigation measures described above. 2. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts This section contains a summary of the significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot feasibly be avoided or reduced to less than significant levels should the project be implemented. Without mitigation, the proposed project would generate several significant environmental effects. However, sufficient mitigation has been identified and will be required of the project to reduce such impacts to a less than significant level, except in the following areas: a Soils and Agriculture; • Air Quality; ■ Noise; and ■ Libraries a. Soils and Agriculture 11 Impact: Loss of Prime Agricultural Land Implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 1,468 acres of Prime Farmland, 171 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and 480 acres of Farmland of Local Importance. Between 1990 and 1992, 7,721 acres of agricultural land was lost in the County. The proposed uses would preclude any return of the land to agriculture use in the foreseeable future. The conversion of non-agricultural uses is considered a significant, unavoidable and irreversible impact of the proposed project. 2) Impact: Decline in Economic Viability of Agricultural Lands in the_Praiect Vicinity A total of approximately $1,861,805 per year in crop production is generated within the Specific Plan project area. This represents the gross amount of revenue lost to the conversion of this agricultural land to urban uses. A multiplier of 3.0 is often used to indicated the "ripple effect" of this loss on associated support industries, such as chemical companies, farm equipment, etc. This would bring a total loss of $5,585,415 per year to the general economy (local, regional and national activities inclusive), which is less than two-tenths of one percent of the total agricultural valuation in 1993 for Riverside County. 3) Imyact: Increased Conversion of Agricultural Land Due to the Cumulative Impacts of Development Implementation of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan, as well as any future developments within the Thermal Airport Redevelopment Area and the Coachella Valley Enterprise Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-385 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Zone will facilitate the continuing loss of agriculture in the Coachella Valley and Riverside County. While several plans propose development in the area, the existence of land under Williamson Act Contracts will serve to protect agricultural lands in the area. The majority of the Williamson Act Contract preserves that have not filed Notice of Non - Renewal are located south, east and northeast of the Kohl Ranch project site. Agricultural lands that remain under Williamson Act Contracts reduce the impact of converting agricultural lands to urban uses. In summary, the conversion of agricultural lands, both at the project specific level and the cumulative level, are unavoidable and significant impacts. b. Air Quality lam) Impact: Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Fugitive dust generated during construction activities would significantly increase particulate levels in the project vicinity. If particulate levels are increased during high wind conditions, adverse impacts would result from particulate transport to downwind areas. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies that grading in excess of 177 acres over a three month period has the potential to result in a significant impact. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed the screening levels identified; therefore, impacts are considered significant. 2) Impact: Long -Term Regional Air Quality Impacts The emissions associated with the project under Concept 1 are anticipated to be 11,555 pounds of carbon monoxide, 646 pounds of reactive organic gases, 1,353 pounds of NOx and 343 pounds of particulate matter on a daily basis. Impacts for Concept 1 are shown in Table V-20. Impacts for Concepts 2 through 6 are shown in Tables 22 through 26. Air pollutant emissions of the magnitude indicated exceed the criteria for significance suggested by the SCAQMD. Regional project impacts are considered significant. 3) Impact: Air Quality Management Plan Conformity According to the AQMP, there are three tests for conformity to the AQMP for general development projects. They are as follows: (1) the project is improving jobs/housing balance; (2) the project must demonstrate that vehicle trips and vehicle miles have been reduced to the greatest extent feasible; and (3) the project's Environmental Impact Report demonstrates that the project will not have a long-term negative impact on regional air quality, that all AQMP control measures are used to the greatest extent possible and that the project impact is analyzed on a local and regional level. The emissions associated with the project for all Land Use Concepts would result in a long-term regional impact. All feasible measures and design concepts have been identified to reduce the emissions to the lowest levels possible. On a local level, the CO modeling analysis demonstrates that state and federal standards would not be exceeded, with or without the project (see Table V-21). Due to the regional significance of the project, the third criteria has not been met by the project. V-386 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c. Noise 1) Impact. Long -Term Off -Site Traffic Impacts Off -Site Impacts Future year 2010 noise levels after project implementation are provided in Table V-29. Noise levels in the project vicinity would range from 54.3 to 73.2 CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The highest noise levels are projected along 62nd Avenue, Harrison Street and the new Highway 86S (east of the project site). Noise levels with and without the addition of project -related traffic are provided in Table V-30. The noise increases related to the project identified in Table V-30 range up to 7.0 dBA along existing links. Twelve of the analyzed links would experience noise increases of 3.0 decibels or greater. This noise level is considered "audible" to the human ear and therefore has the potential to create significant impacts. Additionally, there is an increase in noise greater than 1.0 dBA but less than 3.0 dBA along twenty-seven roadway links. These noise increases are considered "potentially audible." The determination of impacts is based on the compatibility between existing and proposed land uses with the projected noise environment. The majority of the noise levels at 100 feet from the roadways analyzed does not exceed the 65 CNEL standard for sensitive uses. This standard is derived from the Riverside County Land Use Compatibility Chart for Community Noise (See Figure V-27). Exceedances of 65 CNEL are expected to occur along 18 of the 54 links analyzed. Many of these roadways and adjacent uses have been and will continue to be designed to accommodate high traffic volumes and the related noise generation. For instance, seven of the links exceeding 6.5 CNEL are located along SR -86S or Grapefruit Boulevard (SR -111) which serves regional traffic. Noise generated along Highway 86S would exceed 65 CNEL at 100 feet with or without the addition of project traffic. Similarly, Grapefruit Boulevard would experience fairly high levels regardless of the project. Noise increases along links of Airport Boulevard, 60th Avenue, 62nd Avenue and Harrison Street would cause or contribute to an exceedance of 65 CNEL. This results in the potential for significant noise impacts directly from the long-term use of the project. Several of these roadways have little or no adjacent sensitive receptors such as along 60th Avenue and Airport Boulevard. d. Libraries The proposed project would adversely impact existing library services. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the current level of service. However, the current level of service is substantially inadequate (see Tables V-69 and V-70). Based on a buildout Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-387 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA population of 19,290 persons (7,171 dwelling units), and using the County standards of 0.5 square feet of library per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita, the project would result in the need for 9,645 square feet of library space and 23,148 volumes of library materials. Estimates of the revenues to the Library Funds total $159,000 per year at buildout (see Appendix E). This is less than the amount needed, according to the County Library. The applicant will coordinate with the County regarding whether a portion of the recurring fiscal surplus to the County could be used for library costs. However, in the absence of an agreement to this effect, this impact is considered to be significant. e. Project Benefits The California Environmental Quality Act requires that the Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that will generate a significant impact on the environment. In the first set of findings, the Lead Agency identifies significant impacts; presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis; makes one or more of three specific findings for each impact; and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. These findings will be presented under separate cover in the "Statement of Facts and Findings." In the second set of findings, the Lead Agency sets forth its specific reasoning by which the project's benefits justify its approval despite the adverse impacts. These findings will be presented under separate cover in the "Statement of Overriding Considerations." The project's benefits to support a Statement of Overriding Considerations are listed below: ■ The project will increase the market potential and attractiveness of the Thermal Airport and vicinity. ■ The project will support the County's planning, economic development and redevelopment efforts for the Eastern Coachella Valley, in accordance with the goals of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Redevelopment Plan for Supervisorial District No. 4. and Master Plan for the expansion of Thermal Airport. ■ The project will create a balanced, living and working environment that provides a mix of land uses including a variety of housing products and employment opportunities. ■ The project will create cohesive, balanced, neighborhoods relating to overall project phasing, which can be developed separately or together. ■ The Specific Plan incorporates the flexibility to accommodate large scale industrial development if such facilities can be attracted to the area. V-388 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 3. Proposed Project Alternatives This section addresses the environmental effects of various alternatives to the 2,177 -acre Kohl Ranch project. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the relative advantages of each can be weighed. State CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, "governed by a 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126[d]). The CEQA Guidelines require that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant adverse impacts or reducing them to a level of insignificance. The five alternatives addressed in this section are the: 1) No Project; 2) Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative; 3) Mid -Range Residential Density; 4) Alternative Site 1; and 5) Alternative Site 2. The first alternative, the No Project Alternative, is required by CEQA. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative proposes reducing the residential density and primarily developing the remainder of the site as light industrial. The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative proposes an increased residential density as compared to the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative, but less density than that of the Preferred Alternative. Alternative Site 1 and Alternative Site 2 propose developing the preferred alternative at another location. Table V-88 on the following page highlights the differences between the Preferred Alternative (using Concept 1 as the base land uses), the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity and the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternatives. Alternative Site 1 and Alternative Site 2 assume the same land use distribution as the Preferred Alternative. It is assumed that all alternatives would incorporate provisions for the Industrial Overlay Designation (IOD) in a manner similar to the proposed project. Throughout the following analysis, impacts of alternatives are examined for each of the issues areas examined in Sections B through E of this EIR. In this manner, each alternative can be compared to the proposed project on an issue -by -issue basis. Objectives of the Proposed Project Section II.B, Project Summary, of the Specific Plan discusses the purpose and intent of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan. In addition, this section of the Specific Plan provides an overview of the project. Section IV.A, Project -wide Planning Standards, highlights the objectives of the specific plan. The planning objectives of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan are as follows: ■ Increased market potential and attractiveness of the Thermal Airport and vicinity. a Support for planning, economic development and redevelopment efforts in the Eastern Coachella Valley, in accordance with the goals of the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Redevelopment Plan for Supervisorial District No. 4. and Master Plan for the expansion of Thermal Airport. ■ Flexibility to respond to changing market conditions, through designation of golf course as a secondary land use. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-389 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA ■ A balanced, living and working environment that provides a mix of land uses including a variety of housing products and employment opportunities. ■ Cohesive, balanced, neighborhoods relating to overall project phasing, which can be developed separately or together. An overlay designation designed to accommodate a large industrial user and/or multiple industrial uses, that will provide a minimum level of entitlement and will outline a process for obtaining full entitlement. V-390 The Planning Center Table V-88 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES' Preferred Alternative Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative Land Use Acres DU/SF Acres I DU/SF Acres DU/SF RESIDENTIAL Residential Low (RL) 412.9 1,569 DU 1200.0 120 DU 740.6 2,814 Residential Medium (RM) 382.8 3,062 DU 174.9 1,399 Residential High (RH) 169.3 2,540 DU 29.5 443 Total Residential 965.0 7,171 DU 1200.0 120 DU 945.0 4,656 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial (LI) 89.9 1,370,615 SF 330.8 3,530,974 SF 89.9 1,300,615 SF Heavy Industrial (HI) 173.4 3,398,984 SF 173.4 3,398,984 SF Warehouse/Distribution (W/D) 94.4 2,056,032 SF 94.4 2,056,032 SF Total Industrial 357.7 6,825,634 SF 330.8 3,350,974 SF 357.7 6,825,634 SF BUSINESS Air Park/Mixed Use (AP/MU) 112.0 1,707,600 SF 112.0 1,707,600S Office (0) 45.6 595,901 SF 58.4 763,171 SF Total Business 157.6 2,303,501 SF 170.4 2,470,771 SF COMMERCIAL Total Commercial 62.3 757,727 SF 40.0 304,920 SF 62.3 304,920 SF OTHER Open Space (OS) 411.6 411.6 411.6 Public Facilities (PF) 27.3 292,297 SF 49.7 541,233 SF Right -of -Way (ROW) 195.5 195.5 180.3 Total Other 634.4 292,297 SF 606.2 641.6 TOTAL 2,177.0 7,171 DU 2,177.0 10,177,156 SF 120 DU 3,835,894 SF 2,177.0 4,656 10,142,558 SF 1. Alternative Site 1 and Alternative Site 2 assume the same land use distribution as the Preferred Alternative. V-390 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis a. No Project Alternative 1) Description of the No -Project Alternative In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the "No Project" Alternative was evaluated as a potential project option. This Alternative assumes that neither the land use designation nor zoning would be changed, that the Kohl Ranch project site would remain in its current condition, and that no development occurs. Agriculture and undeveloped land would continue to be the primary land uses, and there would be no additional uses constructed and no additional population added to the project area. a) Land Use Element Under the No Project Alternative, the site would not be converted to a mixed use development as proposed by the project. Instead, the existing agriculture and open space uses on the site would remain. These uses are consistent with the County Open Space and Conservation Map which designates the site as Agriculture. Potential conflicts between the industrial, commercial, business and residential uses proposed for the site and existing agricultural uses would not occur. b) Environmental Hazards and Resources (1) Landform & Topography/Slopes and Erosion The No Project Alternative would not result in construction -related grading and earthmoving on the site that would be associated with the proposed project. However, potential erosion resulting from agricultural activities on the site would not be abated. (2) Soils and Agriculture The site is currently in agricultural production. The No Project Alternative assumes these uses will continue, which is consistent with the land use policy for agricultural lands in this area of the County. Because important agricultural lands are rapidly disappearing in favor of urbanization, a project that preserves agricultural resources may be considered environmentally superior to an urban project. (3) Biology Although the impacts to plants and wildlife are not considered significant under the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would eliminate all such impacts. In this regard, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-391 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (4) Geology and Seismicity The No Project Alternative would not involve additional development on the site. Consequently, no new structures would be subject to seismic hazards such as liquefaction and groundshaking. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior. (5) Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage Under this alternative, flood control improvements may not be installed as quickly as they might be if development were to occur. Improvements, such as on-site collection and dispersal basins, and a catch basin and storm drain system, would protect the project site and downstream properties from flood hazards. The proposed project may be considered environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative, since it will facilitate a needed flood control project. (6) Air Quality Since no construction activity would occur, this alternative would not have any significant, short-term impacts on air quality. Also, no new long-term sources of air pollution would result from increased traffic and increased use of energy resources. Relative to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior. (7) Water Quality Under this alternative, agricultural activities on the site would continue. These activities currently contribute to poor groundwater quality. Urbanization has the potential to improve groundwater quality by reducing the percolation of nitrates, sulfates, TDS or other chemicals associated with agriculture, and allowing for recharge with better quality than current groundwater. While urban development would introduce new types of pollution such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals and bacterial contaminants, the proposed project incorporates a catch basin and storm drain system designed to intercept and convey runoff through the site. The on-site runoff would be detained on-site and allowed to percolate into the ground, instead of impacting surface waters. Graded drainage channels throughout the site, with native desert vegetation, would transport water and filter organic and inorganic materials. The proposed project may be considered environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative. (8) Noise Since no construction activity would occur, this alternative would not have any short- term noise impacts. Also, the noise increases created by project -related traffic would not occur under the No Project Alternative. Relative to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior. V-392 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (9) Energy Resources The No Project Alternative would not result in the consumption of non-renewable energy resources above current levels. In this regard, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (10) Open Space and Conservation Under this alternative, current open space areas remain undeveloped. The existing uses are consistent with the existing General Plan Open Space and Conservation Map designations. This alternative is consistent with current County open space land use policy. However, the No Project Alternative does not provide any natural or developed open space which can be used for passive or active recreation. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor environmentally inferior. (11) Toxic Substance Toxic substances currently are not a concern on the site. The No Project Alternative would not introduce any new hazards. No significant toxic concerns are associated with the proposed project, although planned industrial and commercial uses could involve the storage and/or use of hazardous materials, increasing the risk of upset. Thus, the No Project Alternative may be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (12) Cultural Resources Since no development activity is associated with this alternative, it does not have the potential to disturb existing cultural resources. However, existing sites identified as significant or potentially significant may not be the subject of further study in the near future. These future studies could produce additional knowledge of peoples who have lived in the area. Also, any additional subsurface artifacts may not soon be discovered and studied, although they would be preserved for future study. Relative to the proposed project, impacts are considered neither superior nor inferior. (13) Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare The visual character of the site, which is undeveloped and primarily in agricultural production, would remain the same. Views of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains would not be altered. In addition, lighting impacts would be eliminated, as no new light sources would exist on the site. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-393 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley o CA c) Public Facilities and Services (1) Circulation and Traffic The No Project Alternative would not increase site -generated traffic above current levels, would not create a direct need for new roads through the project site, and would not result in new trips on the regional road system. In this regard, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, the County Transportation Department will require the ultimate improvement of roads in the vicinity of the project site, which would be consistent with circulation master plans. If the site were developed, the project developer would facilitate both on- and off-site improvements and improve circulation in the area. In particular, the project would facilitate improvements that are consistent with the Master Plan for Thermal Airport. In this regard, on a long-term regional basis, the proposed project may be considered superior to the No Project Alternative. (2) Water and Sewer The proposed project at buildout has the potential to increase daily water use over current levels. In light of recent overdraft conditions and concerns over increased water usage throughout California, the No Project Alternative may be considered environmentally superior to the project. The No Project Alternative would not increase sewage generation. Future treatment capacity is a concern to the Coachella Valley Water District. Impacts associated with the No Project Alternative are considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (3) Fire Services The current uses on the site generate minimal demand for fire protection services. The No Project Alternative would not further stress currently strained resources. The proposed project would contribute fees and/or dedication to cover the costs of providing fire service to the site. Thus, compared to the proposed project, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (4) Sheriff Services The current uses on the site generate minimal demand for law enforcement services. The No Project Alternative would not further stress currently strained resources. Under the proposed project, the applicant would contract with the Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District for supplemental sheriff services. Thus, compared to the proposed project, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor environmentally inferior. V-394 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (5) Schools The No Project Alternative would not generate additional school children and would not place demands on the school district serving the site. Thus, the No Project Alternative would not further stress currently strained resources. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior. (6) Parks and Recreation Since no new residents would be generated by this alternative, no new demands would be placed on limited park resources in the area. While the proposed project includes adequate recreational facilities, a deficit is projected in the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District's budget. Since the deficit would not occur under the No Project Alternative, it is considered environmentally superior. (7) Utilities The No Project Alternative would not demand utility services beyond existing levels. Utility companies have indicated that they will be able to provide service to the project site. This alternative would not expose residents to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) associated with the 161 kV power line traversing the site. The No Project Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (8) Solid Waste The No Project Alternative would not generate additional waste volumes. Given the fact that regional landfill capacity is diminishing and that the proposed project has the potential to generate up to 162.5 tons of solid waste per day, the No Project Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (9) Health Services The No Project Alternative would not increase the use of existing health services. However, no significant impact on these resources is associated with the proposed project. Thus, the No Project Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (10) Disaster Preparedness The No Project Alternative would not introduce new people or uses into the area. Disaster preparedness at existing levels could thus be maintained. No impacts with respect to disaster preparedness have been identified for the proposed project. Thus, the No Project Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-395 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley a CA (11) Libraries The current uses on the project site generate minimal demand for library resources and services. Thus, the No Project Alternative would not further stress currently strained resources. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior. (12) Airports The No Project Alternative would not increase the use of existing airport services. However, no significant impact on these services is associated with the proposed project. Thus, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. d) Housing Element Under this alternative, no additional housing would be constructed nor any new jobs generated on the project site. All of the Land Use Concepts under the proposed project would provide employment opportunities. The proposed project under Concept 1 has a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance by providing 13,822 new jobs in a housing -rich subregion. In addition, the project proposes 7,171 residential units, including 4,631 single-family and 2,540 multi -family units. The proposed housing mix would provide additional affordable housing opportunities in the subregion. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is environmentally inferior in comparison to the proposed project. 2) reasons the No Proiect Alternative is Rejected as Infeasible The No Project Alternative is considered infeasible and less desirable than the proposed project. The Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, Thermal Airport Master Plan and Thermal Redevelopment Area Plan are all designed to address a need to promote economic development and create employment opportunities. The No Project Alternative would continue the trend toward an imbalanced pattern of land uses in the region. The region continues to attract housing development without much needed employment opportunities and economic development. b. Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative 1) Description of the Very Low Densitv Residential/Low Intensity Alternative Under the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative, it is assumed that the Kohl Ranch site would be developed with very low density residential, light industrial and commercial uses (see Figure V-76). Residential densities would be developed to be consistent with the underlying zoning of A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, and A-1-10, Light Agriculture. Both zoning designations have a minimum parcel size of ten acres. Using this requirement, the residential portion of the site (1,200 acres) would yield 120 dwelling V-396 The Planning Center Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative Er. &C THE KOHL RANCH[ Coachella Valley, California States 1E=20W 0 SP CO Figure V 76 V 397 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA units. It is envisioned that these would be estate lots. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative also proposes light industrial uses on the northern portion of the site (approximately 330.8 acres) and approximately 40 acres of commercial uses. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would generate 120 dwelling units, and 3,835,894 square feet of light industrial and commercial uses. a) Land Use Element Under this alternative, the residential density has been reduced to reflect current zoning on the site, but the light industrial uses have been increased and would cover a larger portion of the site, resulting in an intensification of existing land use, as well as a small decrease in the amount of acreage devoted to commercial uses. As with the proposed project, potential conflicts between the industrial, commercial, and residential uses proposed for the site and existing agricultural uses would occur. b) Environmental Hazards and Resources (1) Landform & Topography/Slopes and Erosion As with the proposed project, on-site grading would be required for this alternative. Since no significant impacts regarding on-site grading, wind erosion, or increased erosion are associated with the proposed project, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered neither superior nor inferior. (2) Soils and Agriculture Under this alternative, the entire 2,177 -acre site would be developed with rural uses. Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar loss of prime farmland acreage, compared with the proposed project. In this regard, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (3) Biology The conversion of agricultural lands and the few biological resources on-site would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (4) Geology and Seismicity Under this alternative, a small number of people living in residences would be exposed, but a larger number of employees for the commercial and industrial uses would be exposed to seismic hazards. The seismic hazards for this alternative are similar to those for the proposed project. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. V-398 The Planning Center Chapter V ® Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (5) Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage The project site is subject to off-site sheet flows originating in the Coachella Valley, which enter the site along the northwesterly and westerly project boundaries, as well as off-site flows from the south. Because of the extensive development under this alternative, runoff and flooding problems would have to be resolved before development could occur. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative, like the proposed project, would facilitate local and regional flood control improvements. In this regard, this alternative is neither superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (6) Air Quality Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar levels of construction activities. Local impacts associated with the proposed project were not identified as significant. This alternative generates 61 percent fewer a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips, which would create fewer impacts at the local level. In addition, this alternative would result in 65 percent fewer daily trips, and thus result in fewer regional air quality impacts. Since this alternative would result is fewer local and regional air quality impacts, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (7) Water Quality Like the proposed project, this alternative has the potential to improve groundwater quality by reducing the percolation of nitrates, sulfates and TDS, and allowing for recharge with water of better quality than current groundwater. Relative to the proposed project, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (8) Noise Long-term noise levels associated with vehicular traffic under this alternative would be less than the noise levels under the proposed project. Thus, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (9) Energy Resources The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would require approximately 36,000,000 kilowatt hours per year and would consume approximately 8,700,000 cubic feet per month of natural gas. These figures represent an approximately 28 percent decrease for electrical usage and a 77 percent decrease in natural gas consumption as compared to the proposed project. Relative to the proposed project, impacts on energy resources are environmentally superior. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-399 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley - CA (10) Open Space and Conservation Approximately 411 acres of open space are provided under this alternative. Open space uses are located in airport safety zones and on-site drainage areas. As with the proposed project, this alternative results in the loss of undeveloped open space. No developed open space areas are included in this alternative, which would be available to the general public. There is the potential for natural, undeveloped open space in the residential portion of the site, since the density for the dwelling units is one unit per ten acres. Although a rural setting is proposed for the residential portion of the project site, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (11) Toxic Substances Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would involve similar levels of commercial and industrial development. In terms of the potential increase in risk of upset associated with the use and/or storage of hazardous materials, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (12) Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would involve grading and construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing archaeological, historic and paleontological resources. Relative to the proposed project, impacts of the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative on these resources are neither superior nor inferior. (13) Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare While the project proposes a lower density for the residential portion of the project, the light industrial and commercial uses would be built at a similar density. In essence, the entire project site would be developed. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would result in a less aesthetically pleasing development, since more industrial and less residential uses would be constructed. In addition, fewer visual amenities, such as open space, landscaped buffers, parks or golf courses would be installed. Overall, the visual, lighting and glare impacts associated with the alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Thus, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. c) Public Facilities and Services (1) Circulation and Traffic The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would generate 3,646 a.m. peak hour trips, 4,784 p.m. peak hour trips, and 38,482 daily trips. Under V-400 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Concept 1, the proposed project would generate a total of 110,000 daily trips, with 9,270 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 12,430 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative results in 61 percent fewer a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips, and 65 percent fewer daily trips. Given that the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would generate fewer a.m. and p.m. peak hour and daily trips, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (2) Water and Sewer This alternative would consume approximately 2,300 gallons per minute of water and generate approximately 0.8 million gallons per day of wastewater. These figures represent an approximately 83 percent reduction in water use and a 72 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to Concept 1 of the proposed project. Thus, this alternative is considered environmentally superior. (3) Fire Services Given the residential density of this alternative, demand for fire protection services would be substantially less than the proposed project. The proposed project would contribute fees and/or dedication to cover the costs of providing fire service to the site. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (4) Sheriff Services Implementation of this alternative would demand a much lower level of police protection services than the proposed project. Under the proposed project, the applicant would contract with the Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District for Supplemental Sheriff Services. Thus, compared to the proposed project, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (5) Schools Under this alternative, 120 dwelling units would be constructed, which is substantially less than the 7,171 residences for the proposed project under Concept 1. The school district facilities are currently operating above capacity. This alternative creates a substantially smaller burden on the school district than the proposed project. Thus, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-401 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (6) Parks and Recreation The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative includes no local parks or other recreational areas, and thus creates additional demand on an already overburdened parks and recreation system. In this respect, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. (7) Utilities Since the project site is currently undeveloped, utility lines will have to be extended to the site. The utility companies have not identified any problems in providing service to the proposed project. Thus, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (8) Solid Waste This alternative would generate approximately 18,600 tons of solid waste per year, which is approximately 71 percent less than for Concept 1 of the proposed project. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project. (9) Health Services The demand placed on health service facilities would be less under this alternative than for the proposed project. However, no significant impact on these resources is associated with the proposed project. Thus, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (10) Disaster Preparedness The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would bring new people to the area. Since no impacts with respect to disaster preparedness have been identified for the proposed project, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (11) Libraries Implementation of this alternative would demand a much lower level of library services than the proposed project. In this regard, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered environmentally superior. V-402 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (12) Airports This alternative would incrementally increase the use of existing airport services. Since no significant impact on these services is associated with the proposed project, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior. d) Housing Element The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would result in the addition of 120 dwelling units, and significantly fewer (6,495 compared to 13,822 for Concept 1 of the proposed project) employment opportunities with the light industrial and commercial uses. The project site is located in a housing -rich subregion, so the provision of new employment opportunities is a beneficial impact. But this alternative proposes substantially fewer dwelling units, and the ones that are proposed are estate lots and homes. This alternative does not propose a mix of housing types, nor does this alternative provide affordable housing. Also, this alternative does not provide an adequate supply of housing near major employment centers. For these reasons, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. 2 Reasons the VerLow DensityResidentiaMow Intensity Alternative is Rejected as Infeasible The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative is considered infeasible because it would require that infrastructure and improvement costs be distributed among a significantly lower number of residential units and commercial and industrial uses; According to estimates prepared by J.F. Davidson Associates, the backbone infrastructure for the project would cost approximately $73.9 million. The Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative would result in development of 120 dwelling units and approximately 3.8 million square feet of developed use. In contrast, the Preferred Alternative proposes 7,171 dwellings and approximately 10.7 million square feet of developed use. Regardless of how costs are distributed between residential and non- residential uses, clearly the per unit/square foot cost for infrastructure would be higher under this Alternative. As infrastructure costs are primarily passed through to future property owners, the result is that prices for residential and non-residential use would not be competitive in the area in terms of housing, specifically, few, if any, units could be considered affordable. Although environmentally superior, the Very Low Density Residential/Low Intensity Alternative has been rejected for these reasons. c. Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative 1) Description of the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative Under the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative, it is assumed that the Kohl Ranch site would be developed with 4,656 residential units, light industry, business and commercial uses (see Figure V-77). The majority of units proposed under this alternative Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-403 Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis would be Residential Low, which provides for a density of 3.8 units per acre. An additional 1,399 units would be developed under the Residential Medium designation and 443 units developed under the Residential High designation. This alternative also proposes slightly more business use (170.4 acres), as compared to the Preferred Alternative (157.6 acres). Specifically, under the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative, the area between A and C Streets would be designated as Office; under the Preferred Alternative, a portion of this area is designated Residential High. a) Land Use Element Under this alternative, the residential density has been reduced to provide an approximate mid -point between the current zoning on the site and the Preferred Alternative in terms of residential density. Office uses have been increased in the northern portion of the planning area relative to the Preferred Alternative, by 28 percent. As with the proposed project, potential conflicts between industrial, commercial, and residential uses proposed for the site and existing agricultural uses would occur. b) Environmental Hazards and Resources (1) Landform & Topography/Slopes and Erosion As with the proposed project, on-site grading would be required for this alternative. Since no significant impacts regarding on-site grading, wind erosion, or increased erosion are associated with the proposed project, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is considered neither superior nor inferior. (2) Soils and Agriculture As with the proposed project, the entire 2,177 -acre site would be developed with urban uses, although these uses would be substantially less than under the proposed project. Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar loss of prime farmland acreage. In this regard, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (3) Biology The conversion of agricultural lands and the few biological resources on-site would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (4) Geology and Seismicity Under this alternative, a smaller number of people living in residences and a similar number employees for the commercial and industrial uses would be exposed to seismic hazards. The seismic hazards for this alternative are similar to those for the Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-405 The Kohl Ranch a Coachella Valley • CA proposed project. The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (5) Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage The project site is subject to off-site sheet flows originating in the Coachella Valley, which enter the site along the northwesterly and westerly project boundaries, as well as off-site flows from the south. Because of the extensive development under this alternative, runoff and flooding problems would have to be resolved before development could occur. The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative, like the proposed project, would facilitate local and regional flood control improvements. In this regard, this alternative is neither superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (6) Air Quality Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar levels of construction activities. Local impacts associated with the proposed project were not identified as significant. This alternative generates 2 percent fewer p.m. peak hour trips, which would create fewer impacts at the local level. In addition, this alternative would result in 4 percent fewer daily trips, and thus result in fewer regional air quality impacts. Since this alternative would result fewer local and regional air quality impacts, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (7) Water Quality Like the proposed project, this alternative has the potential to improve groundwater quality by reducing the percolation of nitrates, sulfates and TDS, and allowing for recharge with water of better quality than current groundwater. Relative to the proposed project, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (8) Noise Long-term noise levels associated with vehicular traffic under this alternative would be less than the noise levels under the proposed project as the alternative generates fewer trips. Thus, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (9) Energy Resources The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would result in development of fewer dwelling units, and a slight increase in office development. Under the alternative, electric usage and natural gas consumption would be reduced and thus the project is environmentally superior in terms of energy resources. V-406 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (10) Open Space and Conservation Approximately 411 acres of open space are provided under this alternative. Open space uses are located in airport safety zones and on-site drainage areas. As with the proposed project, this alternative results in the loss of undeveloped open space. There is more potential for undeveloped open space in the residential areas of the site, since the overall residential density has been reduced under this alternative. However, because formal components of open space are the same under the alternative and proposed project, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (11) Toxic Substances This alternative proposes the same levels of commercial and industrial development, with the exception of an increase in Office uses. In terms of the potential increase in risk of upset associated with the use and/or storage of hazardous materials, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (12) Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would involve grading and construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing archaeological, historic and paleontological resources. Relative to the proposed project, impacts of the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative on these resources are neither superior nor inferior. (13) Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare While the project proposes a lower density for the residential portion of the project, the entire project site would be subject to development. The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would not alter the aesthetic impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. The visual, lighting and glare impacts associated with the alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Thus, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. c) Public Facilities and Services (1) Circulation and Traffic The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would generate 9,630 a.m. peak hour trips, 12,219 p.m. peak hour trips, and 105,392 daily trips. The proposed project would generate a total of 110,000 daily trips, with 9,270 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 12,430 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would result in a 4 percent increase in a.m. and a 2 percent Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-407 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley - CA decrease in p.m. peak hour trips, and 4 percent fewer daily trips. Given that the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would generate fewer p.m. peak hour and daily trips, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (2) Water and Sewer This alternative would consume approximately 1,322 gallons per minute of water and generate approximately 2.12 million gallons per day of wastewater. These figures represent an approximately 3 percent reduction in water use and a 23 percent reduction in sewage generation compared to the proposed project. Thus, this alternative is considered environmentally superior. (3) Fire Services Given the residential density of this alternative, demand for fire protection services would be less than the proposed project. The proposed project would contribute fees and/or dedication to cover the costs of providing fire service to the site. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (4) Sheriff Services Implementation of this alternative would demand a much lower level of police protection services than the proposed project. Under the proposed project, the applicant would contract with the Southem Coachella Valley Community Services District for Supplemental Sheriff Services. Thus, compared to the proposed project, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (5) Schools Under this alternative, 4,656 dwelling units would be constructed, which is substantially less than the 7,171 residences for the proposed project. The school district facilities are currently operating above capacity. This alternative creates a substantially smaller burden on the school district than the proposed project. Thus, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (6) Parks and Recreation The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative provides the same amount of open space as does the Preferred Alternative. This alternative is neither environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. V-408 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (7) Utilities Since the project site is currently undeveloped, utility lines would have to be extended to the site. The utility companies have not identified any problems in providing service to the proposed project. Thus, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (8) Solid Waste This alternative would generate approximately 64,012 tons of solid waste per year, which is approximately 1.5 percent more than that generated by the proposed project. In this regard, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. (9) Health Services This alternative would generate fewer residences in the project area, and thus demand placed on health service facilities would be less under this alternative. However, no sigificant impact on these resources is associated with the proposed project. Thus, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (10) Disaster Preparedness The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would result in population growth in the Coachella Valley. Since no impacts with respect to disaster preparedness have been identified for the proposed project, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (11) Libraries This alternative would result in fewer residences as compared to the proposed project, and hence also result in lesser demands for library services. Consequently, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is considered environmentally superior. (12) Airports This alternative would incrementally increase the use of existing airport services. Since no significant impact on these services is associated with the proposed project, this alternative is neither environmentally superior nor inferior. d) Housing Element The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would result in the addition of 6,656 dwelling units, and slightly more employment opportunities with the business uses. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-409 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The project site is located in a housing -rich subregion, so the provision of new employment opportunities is a beneficial impact. The majority of units proposed under this alternative would be designated as Residential Low. As market housing prices generally tend to increase as density increases, under this alternative there is less potential for development of market -rate affordable housing compared to the proposed project. For these reasons, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. 2) Reasons the Mid -Ranee Residential Density Alternative is Rejected as Infeasible The Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative is environmentally superior in terms of traffic, noise, air quality, and demand for libraries, schools and water and sewer services. However, in the long term, the intensification of residential areas may prove environmentally superior as the concentration of people in one area makes transportation alternatives such as mass transit feasible, thus mitigating traffic and related air quality and noise impacts. Moreover, higher density development is considered a more efficient use of land resources. In addition, because of the infrastructure costs required to develop the project site, the Mid -Range Residential Density Alternative would not be financially feasible. While there is a slight increase in Office use under this Alternative, the number of dwelling units is reduced by 35 percent. In other words, costs borne by residential uses would be 35 percent higher under this alternative, rendering the alternative infeasible. d. Alternative Site 1 1) Description of Alternative Site 1_ Alternative Site 1 reviewed in this section assumes that the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan remains as currently described, but that it is developed at another location (See Figure V-78). The project description remains the same, a mix of residential densities, commercial uses, light and industrial uses, as well as open space. Although no alternative site plans have been developed, it is assumed that this alternative would have similar characteristics compared with the current site plan in terms of site access, density, and site coverage. The region surrounding the project site was reviewed for potential sites providing the same characteristics and advantages of location presented by the proposed site. The basic site characteristics and location factors used in selecting an alternative site include: ■ Approximately 2,200 acres in size; • Located within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone; ■ Located within an area under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Regional Airport Authority; ■ Close proximity to the Thermal Airport; ■ Lands not under Williamson Act Contracts; and ■ Good access to local arterial road network. V-410 The Planning Center Alternative Site 1 JL t r 1 •ctr l,l•• t` •, 1' N r r• �.--� r�+.,.,_.� " ,.. '1!' � �.•�`i` r —°Sys 23 �-�-_-- tl� � I; THE .•� Y '. .. '• � ' }•.p •'" - _ •, �r—r. KOHL ' I RANCH • i � 4 gy F. n Ns 'w� � � �� Is , ....,,..�� _ I 1+. J',;� L + r I .. •. v.,rx� � �• µ.'^o ' u r t � r •b`' N I I 'e r r —I ! 9 L� I k t Alternative I Site Location .... OHIO` � Coachella Valley, California Not to Scale Q,G?k Figure V 78 V 411 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA The following analysis focuses on the environmental impacts that are unique to Alternative Site 1 and compares it with the proposed project site. This section acknowledges that many impacts derive directly from the characteristics of the project itself, and are not altered as a result of changing the project's location. Where impacts are reduced or increased as a result of changing the project's location, these differences are identified. a) Land Use Element Under this alternative, as with the proposed project, adequate public services would be provided, and thus ensure consistency with the policies of the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan. The current zoning designations for Alternative Site 1 are A-1-20, Heavy Agriculture, Minimum Parcel Size 10 acres; A-1-10, Light Agriculture, Minimum Parcel Size 10 acres; and W-2, Controlled Development Area. Uses permitted within the W-2 Zone include residential and light agricultural uses subject to lot size, as well as public utilities. Zoning for Alternative Site 1 is similar to that for the proposed project: A-1-20 and A-1-10. As with the proposed project, Alternative Site 1 would require changing the zoning to be consistent with the uses proposed for the project. Thus, Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. b) Environmental Hazards and Resources (1) Landform & Topography/Slopes and Erosion Under this alternative, similar construction -related grading and earthmoving impacts would result. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (2) Soils and Agriculture Agricultural uses are in production within the project area for Alternative Site 1. This alternative would result in the loss of a similar amount of agricultural acreage. Two Williamson Act Contract preserves are located within Alternative Site 1: 342 and 460. Notices of Non -Renewal have been filed for both preserves. The Williamson Act Contract for Preserve No. 460 expired in 1992 and the contract for Preserve No. 342 will expire in 1998. This is not an impediment to developing urban uses on Alternative Site 1. Thus, Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (3) Biology Although detailed biological surveys have not been conducted for Alternative Site 1, based on what is known about the site and a review of aerial photos, the biological resources impacted on Alternative Site 1 would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. V-412 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (4) Geology and Seismicity Under this alternative, the number of people exposed to seismic hazards would be the same as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (5) Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage Since the project under this alternative would result in the same amount of development as under the proposed project, this alternative's impact on stormwater flows would not be substantially different from the proposed project. The Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (6) Air Quality Since the project under this alternative would result in the same amount of development as under the proposed project, the regional air quality impact would be unchanged and would remain significant. Short-term construction -related impacts also would be significant, as with the proposed project. Local air quality concerns would be similar to those for the proposed project (less than significant), since Alternative Site 1 is within the same general area. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. (7) Water Quality Like the proposed project, this alternative has the potential to improve groundwater quality by reducing the percolation of nitrates, sulfates and TDS, and allowing for recharge with water of better quality than current groundwater. Relative to the proposed project, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (8) Noise The traffic volumes generated by this alternative would be the same as the proposed project, since the same amount of development is involved. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. (9) Energy Resources This alternative would result in the same amount of electrical and natural gas consumption on a daily basis as the proposed project. Thus, in terms of energy resources, Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-413 The Kohl Ranch . Coachella Valley • CA (10) Open Space and Conservation Under this alternative, the same amount of natural and developed open space would be provided. In this regard, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (11) Toxic Substance Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would involve similar levels of commercial and industrial development. In terms of the potential increase in risk of upset associated with the use and/or storage of hazardous materials, Alternative Site 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (12) Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would involve grading and construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing cultural, historic and paleontological resources. Relative to the proposed project, impacts of Alternative Site 1 on these resources are neither superior nor inferior. 13. Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare While the amount of development proposed for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan would be the same for Alternative Site 1 and the proposed project site, the visual, lighting and glare impacts associated with the development would be similar. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. c) Public Facilities and Services (1) Circulation and Traffic Since the amount of development is the same under this alternative as the proposed project, the traffic generation would remain the same. The difference is the circulation pattern associated with development on Alternative Site 1. (2) Water and Sewer The amount of wastewater generated and the amount of water consumed under this alternative would be the same as under the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (3) Fire Services The demand placed on fire protection services would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. V-414 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (4) Sheriff Services The demand placed on police protection services would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (5) Schools The demand placed on school facilities would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (6) Parks and Recreation The demand placed on parks and recreation facilities would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (7) Utilities The demand placed on utilities (gas, electricity, telephone and cable) would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (8) Solid Waste The amount of solid waste generated under this alternative would be the same as under the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (9) Health Services The demand placed on health service facilities would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (10) Disaster Preparedness Alternative Site 1 introduce the same number of people and uses into the area. No impacts with respect to disaster preparedness have been identified for the proposed project. Thus, Alternative Site 1 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-415 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (11) Libraries The demand placed on library facilities would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (12) Airports The demand placed on airports would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. d) Housing Element Under this alternative, the same amount of jobs and housing units would be provided. As with the proposed project under Concept 1, Alternative Site 1 would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance by providing 13,413 new jobs in a housing -rich subregion. In addition, 7,171 residential units, including 4,631 single-family and 2,540 multi -family units are proposed under this alternative. The housing mix proposed under this alternative, as with the proposed project, would provide additional affordable housing opportunities in the subregion. Therefore, Alternative Site 1 is neither environmentally inferior nor superior in comparison to the proposed project. 2) Reasons Alternative Site 1 is Rejected as Infeasible Alternative Site 1's characteristics are similar to the project site. Its selection would not reduce the project's significant impacts (farmland, air quality, noise and libraries). This alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project and is rejected for this reason. e. Alternative Site 2 1) Description of the Alternative Site 2 Similar to Alternative Site 1, this alternative assumes that the general land use concepts behind the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan remain as currently described, but that it is developed at a location within the Coachella Sphere of Influence (See Figure V-79). While the project description remains the generally the same in terms of the mix of residential densities, commercial uses, light and industrial uses, as well as open space, the selected site is smaller, consisting of approximately 1,930 acres. The site is located east V-416 The Planning Center Alternative Site 2 .1 J, 26 Alternative 2 Site Location Coachella Valley, California 12 Not to Scale a Figure V- 79 V- 417 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA of the SR -86S Freeway, north or Airport Boulevard, west of Pierce Street and south of 52nd Avenue. Approximately half of the site is located within the City limits of Coachella. The same basic location factors as discussed under Alternative Site 1 were used in searching for this alternative site. However, in this instance, the search was concentrated on areas that are within or adjacent to existing municipalities that would achieve many of the established site characteristics. The selected site is within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Coachella, which places it nearer to urban services. Although Alternative Site 2 is large and undeveloped, it is smaller than the current project. Approximately one-third of the site is located within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. The site is located across the SR -86S Freeway from the Thermal Airport, but it is nearby. The majority of the site is constrained by Williamson Act contracts, but notices of non- renewal have been given on a small portion of the site. The following analysis focuses on the environmental impacts that are unique to Alternative Site 2 and compares it with the proposed project site. This section acknowledges that many impacts derive directly from the characteristics of the project itself, and are not altered as a result of changing the project's location. Where impacts are reduced or increased as a result of changing the project's location, these differences are identified. a) Land Use Element It is assumed that under this alternative, the remaining unincorporated portions of the site would be annexed to the City of Coachella and that the project would be developed under the City's control. The current land use designations for this site are General Industrial and Agriculture. A City -adopted Specific Plan and a General Plan Amendment would be required. The project may be consistent with the industrial designation, but the project would require conversion of land designated for long-term agricultural production. The project would also require nonrenewal actions for the remaining Williamson Act properties. Since Alternative Site 2 is not entirely within the within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone and most of the site is designated for long-term agricultural production, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior. b) Environmental Hazards and Resources (1) Landform & Topography/Slopes and Erosion This alternative site is flat and similar construction -related grading and earthmoving impacts would result. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. V-418 The Planning Center Chapter V e Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (2) Soils and Agriculture More than half of Alternative Site 2 remains under Williamson Act contracts and over 70 percent of the site is designated as Agriculture in the Coachella General Plan. Alternative Site 2 is considered environmentally inferior to the proposed project. (3) Biology Although detailed biological surveys have not been conducted for the Alternative Site, based on what is known about the site and a review of aerial photos, the biological resources impacted on the Alternative Site would be similar to the proposed project. This alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (4) Geology and Seismicity Under this alternative, the development would be exposed to similar seismic hazards as the proposed project. Although the number of people exposed would be less due to the smaller site size, Alternative Site 2 is not considered environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (5) Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage Since the project under this alternative would result in a similar amount of development as under the proposed project, this alternative's impact on stormwater flows would not be substantially different from the proposed project. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (6) Air Quality Since the project under this alternative would be approximately 12 percent smaller than the current project, the regional air quality impact would be improved. This site is marginally closer to the SR -86S Freeway and to existing urban development, which may further reduce emissions. Alternative Site 2 is considered environmentally superior to the current project. Local air quality concerns would be similar to those for the proposed project, since Alternative Site 2 is within the same general area. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. (7) Water Quality Like the proposed project, this alternative has the potential to improve groundwater quality by reducing the percolation of nitrates, sulfates and TDS, and allowing for recharge with water of better quality than current groundwater. While urban Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-419 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA development would introduce new types of pollution such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals and bacterial contaminants, the proposed project incorporates a catch basis and storm drain system designed to intercept and convey runoff through the site. The on-site runoff would be detained on-site and allowed to percolate into the ground, instead of impacting surface waters. Graded drainage channels throughout the site, with native desert vegetation, would transport water and filter organic and inorganic materials. Relative to the proposed project, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior. (8) Noise The traffic volumes generated by this alternative would be the same as the proposed project, since the same amount of development is involved. Alternative Site 1 is outside the area impacted by airport operations. However, since the current project incorporates only noise -compatible uses near the airport, this alternative is neither environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. (9) Energy Resources Because of the reduced size of the project on this site, this alternative would result in approximately 12 percent less consumption of electrical and natural gas on a daily basis compared with the proposed project. Thus, in terms of energy resources, the Alternative Site is environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, the impact under the current project is not considered significant. (10) Open Space and Conservation Under this alternative, a roughly similar amount of natural and developed open space would be provided. In this regard, this alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (11) Toxic Substance Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would involve roughly similar levels of commercial and industrial development. In terms of the potential increase in risk of upset associated with the use and/or storage of hazardous materials, Alternative Site 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (12) Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would involve grading and construction activities that have the potential to disturb existing cultural, historic and paleontological resources. Relative to the proposed project, impacts of Alternative Site 2 on these resources are neither superior nor inferior. V-420 The Planning Center Chapter V e Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis (13) Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light and Glare While the amount of development proposed for the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan would be roughly the same for Alternative Site 2 and the proposed project site, the visual, lighting and glare impacts associated with the development would be similar. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. c) Public Facilities and Services (1) Circulation and Traffic Since the amount of development would be approximately 12 percent less due to the smaller site, the traffic generation would be reduced a similar amount. Alternative Site 2 is adjacent to the SH -86S Freeway, which provides it with more direct access to the regional transportation network. However, travel between the project site, and facilities and services located to the west of the freeway would require additional freeway crossings compared with the current project. This alternative is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (2) Water and Sewer Since Alternative Site 2 is 12 percent smaller than the current project, the amount of wastewater generated and the amount of water consumed under this alternative would be reduced a similar amount. Alternative Site 2 is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. (3) Fire Services The demand placed on fire protection services would be similar under this alternative. Alternative Site 2 is not considered superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (4) Sheriff Services The demand placed on police protection services would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. However, the service would be provided through the City of Coachella. The Alternative Site is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (5) Schools The demand placed on school facilities would be similar under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. Draft EIR a May 13, 1996 V-421 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA (6) Parks and Recreation The demand placed on parks and recreation facilities would be similar under this alternative as for the proposed project. The Alternative Site is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (7) Utilities The demand placed on utilities (gas, electricity, telephone and cable) would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (8) Solid Waste The amount of solid waste generated under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (9) Health Services The demand placed on health service facilities would be similar under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (10) Disaster Preparedness Alternative Site 2 would introduce the roughly the same number of people and uses into the area. No impacts with respect to disaster preparedness have been identified for the proposed project. Thus, Alternative Site 2 is considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (11) Libraries The demand placed on library facilities would be similar under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. (12) Airports The demand placed on airports would be the same under this alternative as for the proposed project. Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project. V-422 The Planning Center Chapter V 4 Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis d) Housing Element Under this alternative, it is assumed that the new jobs and housing units would be generated in the same proportion as the current project. As with the proposed project, Alternative Site 2 would have a beneficial impact on the jobs/housing balance. The housing mix proposed under this alternative, as with the proposed project, would provide additional affordable housing opportunities in the subregion. Therefore, Alternative Site 2 is neither environmentally inferior nor superior in comparison to the proposed project. 2) Reasons Alternative Site 2 is Rejected as Infeasible Alternative Site 2's characteristics are similar to the project site. Its selection would marginally reduce the project's significant impact on air quality, but it would worsen the significant impact on farmland. This alternative's impact on the other significant impacts of the project (noise and libraries) is neutral as compared to the current project. This alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project and is rejected for this reason. 4. Growth -Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action The project site is located within the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone, which is intended to "stimulate growth in economically distressed areas" through commercial and industrial development. The Coachella Valley subregion is a housing-rich/jobs-poor area. In such cases, SCAG regional growth policy calls for the imbalance to be corrected through the provision of additional employment opportunities. The EIR for the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone estimated the maximum development permitted within the zone has the potential to generate 91,157 new jobs. Based on a regional multiplier of 1.13, the EIR further estimated that the new economic activity within the zone had the potential to generate an additional 83,553 jobs within the SCAG region. The EIR further acknowledged that the construction of infrastructure and provision of utilities within the zone would have the potential to induce urban growth. The Kohl Ranch Specific Plan provides for a variety of land uses including residential, mixed use, commercial, office, warehouse/distribution, industrial, public facilities and open space. It is projected that on-site employment opportunities would outpace the number of new residential units, resulting in an overall, project -wide jobs/housing ratio of 1.87 at buildout. This ratio is significantly higher than the jobs/housing ratio of 0.60 projected for the Coachella Valley subregion in the Year 2015. Consequently, proposed development of the Kohl Ranch Specific Plan would be consistent with both regional and county jobs/housing balance policies. Based on the County's planning policies that direct development to the Enterprise Zone, any induced growth that occurs in the project vicinity is expected to occur within this zone. Since the project and any indirect growth that occurs is consistent with the County's planning policies for the area, this impact is not considered significant. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-423 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA 5. Any Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Should it be Implemented The transformation from agricultural land to residential, recreation, commercial and industrial uses is, in essence, an irreversible commitment of the land. After the structural life span of the buildings is reached it would be feasible to redevelop portions of the project site to alternative land uses. However, it is probable that once developed for urban uses, the developed portions of the project area would not be returned to their original agricultural use. The potential for such a reversion of the study area becomes highly infeasible due to the large capital investment that will have already been committed. There will be a permanent commitment to provide additional energy sources, particularly natural gas and electricity. The fossil fuels consumed during construction, and those which will be consumed during the project's life are irreplaceable. There will be a permanent loss of natural resources for building materials used in the construction of the proposed structures. The project will result in increased vehicular traffic. There will be an incremental increase in air pollution as a result of the emissions from vehicles, power -generated equipment, and grading activities. The increased traffic will also result in increased noise levels. There will be a permanent commitment to provide community services, such as water, sewer, police, fire, school and library services. The visual character of the site will be altered by new construction and landscaping. 6. Project Correspondence The agencies and persons who commented on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Environmental Assessment are listed below. The full text of the letters received is included in Technical Appendix A of this EIR. ■ California Department of Conservation ■ CALTRANS - Division of Aeronautics ■ City of La Quinta ■ Coachella Valley Housing Coalition ■ Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District • Imperial Irrigation District ■ Riverside City and County Public Library ■ Riverside County Administrative Office ■ County of Riverside Agriculture Commissioner's Office ■ Riverside County Department of Environmental Health ■ Riverside County Department of Transportation ■ Riverside County Waste Resources Management Division • San Bernardino County Museums Division ■ Southern California Association of Governments ■ Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District V-424 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis 7. Organizations, Persons and Documents Consulted a. Report Preparation Personnel The Planning Center Principal -in -Charge Dwayne S. Mears, AICP Project Manager Stephanie M. Cohn, AICP Environmental Analysis Phil Brylski, Ph.D. Brenda Chase Carver Chiu Collette Morse Christine Payne Lynelle Scheid Graphics Craig Ramella Word Processing Pamela Fahy J. F. Davidson & Associates, Inc. President John Canty Engineer Tech Loh Project Engineer James Oravets Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates Principal -in -Charge John M. Kain, AICP Traffic Engineer Carl Ballard David Taussig & Associates Principal -in -Charge David Taussig Project Manager Andrew Schmerl Analyst Christopher Martinez Natural Resource Consultants Biologist Dave Levine RMW Paleo & Associates Principal -in -Charge Ron Bissell Archaeologist Ken Becker Historian Ann Duffield -Stoll Chambers Group Principal Roger Mason LSA Lead Paleontologist Steven W. Conkling Paleontologist Stewart E. Clay, Jr. Paleontologist Brooks Smith Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-425 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA b. Organizations and Persons Consulted 1) Federal Agencies U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Sam Aslam U.S. Department of the Army, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers Robert Smith U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Area Office, North Palm Springs Joanne Schiffer U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Art Davenport U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Shelly Rosenblum U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Management Division Lauren Fondahl 2) State Agencies Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation Emily Kishi Jason Marshall, Environmental Analyst Department of Education, School Facilities Planning Division Duwayne Brooks, Director Department of Fish and Game, Indio Kimberly Nichol, Biologist Department of Health Services Alvin Leonard, M.D., M.P.H. Department of Transportation, District 11 Mark D. Parra, Project Manager Dave Pound, Project Engineer John Chisholm, Environmental Analysis Tim Vasquez, Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch A V-426 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics Sandy Hesnard, Environmental Planner Public Utility Commission, Commission Advisory and Compliance Division Bruce Kaneshiro 3) Regional and Local Agencies California Archaeological Inventory, Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside Ayse Taskiran, Information Officer Kyle Mofiit City of Coachella Susan Williams City of La Quinta Jerry Herman, Community Development Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Diana Beck, Director of Planning Jerry Mechanick, Regional Planner Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority John Stiles, Executive Director Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District Laura McGalliard, Parks and Recreation Superintendent Don Martin, District Manager Coachella Valley Unified School District Tut Pensis, Asst. Superintendent, Administrative Services Elsa F. Esqueda, Facilities Analyst Coachella Valley Water District Steve Bigley John Corella Tom Maddox Steve Robbins Michael Schaefer Bob Meleg Joe Cook Regional Water Quality Control Board Ken Colton N.J. Khilnani Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-427 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Riverside City and County Public Library Irene Liebenberg, Chief of County Public Services Riverside County Administrative Office John Johnson Denise Harden Riverside County Agricultural Commission John Snyder, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner Carolyn Brown Riverside County Economic Development Agency Lori Moss, Desert Liaison Eileen Dalton Riverside County Auditor/Controller Jeff Ashbaker Riverside County Emergency Services Division Steven Rathbone Riverside County Environmental Health Department Lori Holk Don Park Riverside County Environmental Health Department, Hazardous Materials Division Robert Lehmann, Supervising Hazardous Materials Management Specialist Jim Ray, Supervising Hazardous Materials Specialist Riverside County Fire Department Tom Hutchison, Fire Safety Specialist Ray Regis Riverside County Geology Division Steve Kupferman, County Geologist Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Brian Loew Riverside County Health Services Agency Hazardous Materials Management Department Jana Ryan Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District Jeff Weinstein, County Trails Coordinator V-428 The Planning Center Chapter V . Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Riverside County Sheriff's Department Ron Dye, Captain Riverside County Transportation Department Ruthanne Taylor Berger Sian Roman Edwin D. Studor, Transportation Planning Manager Keith Downs, Aviation Unit Riverside County Waste Resources Management District Katherine M. Gifford, Planner III San Bernardino Museum, Department of Community and Cultural Resources Bob Reynolds, Curator - Earth Sciences South Coast Air Quality Management District Mark Laybourn, Air Quality Specialist Southern California Association of Governments Eric Roth, Manager of Intergovernmental Review 4 Private Or anizations/Utilities Coachella Valley Housing Coalition Gary Boyse, Land Acquisition Manager Eisenhower Medical Center Eugene Wiskowski, Vice President & Chief Financial Officer Eisenhower Immediate Care Centers Ed Randall, Office Manager Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Power District Ron Cox Tom King Thomas F. Lyons, Jr., P.E., Senior Engineer Indio Vista Outpatient Clinic John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital Harris Koenig, Asst. Administrator Southern California Gas Company Michael Fryke Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-429 The Kohl Ranch - Coachella Valley a CA Southern California Edison Customer Technology Application Center Mark Judy Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District Glenn Crowson, General Manager Torres -Martinez Indians Mary Ballardo, Chairperson Michael Kelnor V-430 The Planning Center Chapter V a Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis c. Documents Consulted Available at the City of Coachella [619/398-32021 City of Coachella. December, 1992. City of Coachella General Plan Land Use Map. City of Coachella and Urban Plan. January, 1987. City of Coachella Final General Plan Update. Available at the City of Indio [909/276-83441 Chambers Group, Inc. October, 1993. Volume I: City of Indio General Plan - 2020. Available at the City of La Quinta F619/777-71251 BRW, Inc. October 6, 1992. City of La Quinta General Plan. Available at the Coachella Valley Association of Governments !619/346-112.71 Coachella Valley Association of Governments. April 15, 1994. Scoping Study Report Regarding Development of a Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Coachella Valley Association of Governments. February 2, 1993. Summary of 1980 Census Data on Housing and Demographics for the Coachella Valley. Available at The Planning Center 714/851-9444 AeroVironment, Inc. February 1992. PM10 Emission Control Measure Demonstration Projects in the Coachella Valley. California Agricultural Statistics Service. 1992. Summary of County, Agricultural Commissioners' Reports. California Air Resources Board. 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993. Air Quality Data Annual Summaries. California Air Resources Board. January, 1990. Climate of the Southeast Desert Air Basin. California Air Resources Board. 1983. The Impact of Transport from the South Coast Air Basin on Ozone Levels in the Southeast Air Basin. California Department of Conservation. 1986. Riverside County Important Farmland Map, Acreage Table and List of Soil Units Qualifying for Prime and Statewide Status. Draft EIR 9 May 13, 1996 V-431 The,Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley * CA California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. April, 1984. Advisory Guidelines for Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program. California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation. Publication No. FM 92-02. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation. Publication No. FM 94-01. Farmland Conversion Report 1990 to 1992. California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation. Publication No. FM 90-01. Farmland Conversion Report 1986 to 1988. California Department of Education. 1989. School Site Selection and Approval Guide. California Department of Health Services, Special Epidemiological Studies Program. 1992. Electric and Magnetic Fields: Measurements and Possible Effects on Human Health from Appliances, Power Lines, and Other Common Sources. What we know, What we don't know in 1992. California Department of Transportation. September 1994. State Route 86 Expressway Construction Riverside County, Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. California Energy Commission. November, 1993. Sacramento Ethanol and Power Co - Generation Project Staff Report. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. May, 1991. Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin Region. Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Engineering and Public Policy. 1989. Electric and Magnetic Fields from 60 Hertz Electric Power: What do we know about possible health risks? CH2M Hill, Resource Integration Systems (RIS) and Recovery Sciences, Inc. (RSI)_ November, 1991. Volume I. Source Reduction and Recycling Element. CH2M Hill, Resource Integration Systems (RIS) and Recovery Sciences, Inc. (RSI). November, 1991. Volume II: Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Coachella Valley Enterprise 'Lone Authority in collaboration with Cotton Beland Associates, Inc. March, 1991. Proposed Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Draft Environmental Impact Report. Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority in collaboration with Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. May, 1991. Proposed Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Final Environmental Impact Report. V-432 The Planning Center Chapter V Q Comprehensive General Plan and Environmental Analysis Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan Steering Committee. June, 1985. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. Coachella Valley Water District. Updated through December, 1990. Urban Water Management Plan. Coffman Associates, Inc. October, 1990. Airport Master Plan for Thermal Airport. Coffman Associates, Inc. April, 1991. Proposed Development of Thermal Airport in Riverside County, California, Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment. Coffman Associates, Inc. June, 1991. Volume II. Proposed Development of Thermal Airport in Riverside County, California, Final Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Assessment. Coffman Associates, Inc. August, 1992. Thermal Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Cornett, James W. November 5, 1990. Biological Analysis and Impact Assessment of The Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Located Within The County of Riverside, CA. Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. et. al. November, 1990. Cultural Resources Sensitivity Overview for the Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone. J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc., J.F. April 22, 1994. Encumbrance Map of the Kohl Ranch Property in the County of Riverside, California. J.F. Davidson Associates Inc., J.F. April, 1991. Drainage Study for Kohl Ranch. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. January 24, 1991. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Kirkpatrick, David. December 31, 1990. Fortune Magazine, "Can Power Lines Give You Cancer?" Lau, Sabrina; Boehm, Claude et. al. November, 1991. A Distribution Survey of Desert Pupfish (Cyprinodon Macularius) Around the Salton Sea, California. Leighton and Associates, Inc. 1990. Agricultural Zones and Pesticide Use of Approximately 27,000 Acres, Addendum to Summary Input for EIR. Leighton and Associates, Inc. September 28, 1990. Coachella Valley Enterprise Zone Authority Summary Input for Environmental Impact Report: Water Quality and General Historical Review for Hazardous Materials/Waste of Approximately 27,000 Acres, Riverside County, California. Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-433 The Kohl, Ranch ® Coachella Valley * CA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.: 1992. California Climatological Data Annual Summary. Nolte and Associates. May, 13,'l 99,2,,,', Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal Study/Report for Kohl Ranch, Coachella Valley, California. Psomas and Associates. September 26., 193,1. Del "Webb's Sun City Palm Springs Specific Plan and EIR. Riverside County, State of California. October, 1993. Land Use Ordinance of the County of Riverside, State of California. Cr Riverside County. April 17, 1986:_,; Ordinance No: 625, An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Providing a Nuisance Defense for Certain Agricultural Activities, Operations, and Facilities and Providing Public dVotification Thereof. Riverside County. July 7, 1988. Ordinance No. 655, An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Regulating Light Pgllytioq,, Riverside County; September '12,,J994— Riverside County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Riverside County Fire Department, Emergency Services Division. 1992. Multi -Hazard Functional Plan. Riverside County Planning Departmgnt. Amended through December 17, 1991. Eastern Coachella Valley Plan (ECVP) Community Policies. Riverside County Planning Departmeni. Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Land Use Map. Riverside County Planning Department. October 29, 1991. Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Trails Map. Riverside County Planning Department. 1989. Housing Element: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Riverside County Planning Department. July 27, 1993. Menifee North Specific Plan Response to Draft EIR Comments. Riverside County Planning Department. Updated through 1992. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. Riverside County Planning Department. 1990 - 1992 . 1990 - 1992 Addendum to the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. V-434 The Planning Center Chapter V • Comprehensive General Plan,and Environmental, Analysis Riverside County Planning Department.'A. 1992. 'Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan Open Space and Conservation Map: Western Half �� ` Riverside County Regional Park- and'Opeh",-Space District. Parks Guide. Riverside County Waste Management Department. June 1992, Riverside County Source Reduction.; and Recycling Elenient;an4Household Hazardous Waste Element. Riverside County Waste Management Department. Amended through July, 1989. Riverside County Solid Waste Management Play: `-'School Planning Seryices. December; 1993. Development Fee Justification Analysis for Residential Development, CommerciaYIndustrial Development and Senior Housing. Southern California Edison. May, 1994. `0 eestions & Answers: EMF (Electric & Magnetic Fields). Southern` California Edison. May, 1994: "Ohderstanding EMF (Electric & Magnetic Fields). State of California Census Data'Center..- 1990 Census'of Population and Hbusing Summaries. State of California, Riverside County, Kohl Ranch Company, et. al. July 8, 1993. Fort Howard, California. Propo'sa1. Stewart 'Title Company of Riverside County. October 23, 1990. Preliminary Report Issued for the Sole Use of Regent Properties.' -' Stewart Title of the Inland Empire. April, 1994. Preliminary Title Report for Kohl Ranch. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District. 1980. The California Desert Conservation Area Plan. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California Desert District. June, 1993. 1989/1990 California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendments Decision Record. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. December, 1992. EMF in Your Environment: Magnetic Field Measurements of Everyday Electrical Devices. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. December, 1992. Questions & Answers About Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs). Draft EIR • May 13, 1996 V-435 The Kohl Ranch • Coachella Valley • CA Van Horne, David M. et. al. November, 1990, Cultural Resources Sensitivity Overview for the Coachella Enterprise Zone. WESTEC Services, Inc. . September, 1988. . Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Available at the Riverside County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner fLO9/275,3000] Riverside County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. .1993. Agricultural Production Report. Available at, the Riverside County -Redevelopment Agency [619/863-8331.1 Riverside County Redevelopment Agency. December 22, 1986. Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment: Project No. 4; Supervisorial District 4. Available at the Souther California Association -of fxovernments 2131236-1800] Southern California Association of Governments. S6ptember,1993. Housing Market Profile. Southern California Association of Governments. 1994. Regional Comprehensive Plan, Growth .Management Element: Fersonal Communication Bradshaw, Tim. June 30,, 1,994. Personal Communication. Available at the South Coast Air Quality Management District 909/396-2000 South Coast Air Quality Manageinent District. 1991, 1992, 1993. Air Quality Tables. South Coast Air Quality Management District. November, 1990. Final State Implementation Plan for PMIO in the Coachella Valley. South Coast Air Quality Management District. July, 1994. State Implementation Plan for PM10 in Coachella Valley: 1994 BACM Revision. South Coast Air Quality Management District. November, 1990. PM -10 Control Measure Demonstration Projects in the Coachella Valley. South Coast Air Quality Management District and CVAG. Steps to Healthful Air: Controlling Fine Particle Pollution (PM10) in the Coachella Valley. KOL-Ol ADSPEIRMEIRNM V-436 The Planning Center