SP 218 Rancho La Quinta (1988) EIR 232 Finalrr
RANCHO LA QUINTA
SPECIFIC PLAN
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 218
Prepared for.
County of Riverside
Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner
4080 Lemon St., 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
- (714) 787-6356
Prepared by:
WESTEC Services, Inc.
5510 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, California 92121-1709
(619) 458-9044
Applicant:
Landmark Land Company of California Inc.
P.O. Box 1138
Moreno Valley, California 92337
(714) 795-8941
September .1988
.r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
111LE
LSE
PART 1 BOARD RESOLUTION
PART 2 BOARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PART 3 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE ORDINANCE
PART 4 SPECIFIC PLAN 218
1.0
SPECIFIC PLAN
1-1
1.1
Summary
1-2
2.0
PROJECT -WIDE PLANNING STANDARDS
2-1
2.1
Land Use Element
2-1
2.1.1
Residential Uses
2-1
2.1.2
Commercial Uses
2-1
2.1.3
Open Space and Recreation Uses
2-2
2.2
Circulation Element
2-2
2.2.1
Approach
2-2
2.2.2
Plan Description
2-3
2.3
Drainage Element
2-5
2.3.1
Approach
2-5
2.3.2
Plan Description
2-5
2.4
Water and Sewer Plan
2-7
2.4.1
Approach
2-7
2.4.2
Plan Description
2-7
2.5
Grading Plan
2-9
2.5.1
Objectives
2-9
2.5.2
General Criteria
2-9
2.5.3
Specific Criteria
2-11
2.6
Public Facilities Element
2-12
2.6.1
Approach
2-12
2.6.2
Plan Description
2-12
M
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION
2.6.3
IT . "
Staging Element/Public Facilities
PAGE
2-13
2.7
Open Space/Recreation Element
2-14
2.7,1
Approach
2-14
2.7.2
Plan Description
2-14
2.7.3
Comprehensive Maintenance Plan
2-19
3.0
STANDARDS BY PLANNING AREA
3-1
3.1
Planning Area 1
3-1
3.2
Planning Area 2
3-1
3.3
Planning Area 3
3-4
3.4
Planning Area 4
3-4
3.5
Planning Area 5
3-4
3.6
Planning Area 6
3-4
3.7
Planning Area 7
3-9
3.8
Planning Area 8
3-9
3.9
Planning Area 9
3-9
3.10
Planning Area 10
3-13
3.11
Planning Area 11
3-15
3.12
Planning Area 12
3-15
3.13
Planning Area 13
3-18
4.0
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4-1
4.1
Purpose and Intent
4-1
4.2
The Rancho La Quinta Character
4-1
4.2.1
Project Theme
4-1
4.2.2
Project Setting
4-1
4.3
Residential Development Standards
4-2
4.3.1
Medium Density Residential
4-2
4.3._.1
Concept
4-2
4.3.1.2
Development Standards
4-2
4.3.2
Medium High Density Residential
4-6
4.3.2.1
Concept
4-6
ii
e
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
S-IKUIDA
TrrL
4.3.2.2
Development Standards
4.3.3
Commercial Development Standards
4.4
Community Elements
4.4.1
Project Entries
4.4.2
Streetscapes
4.4.3
Land Use Transitions
4.4.4
Recreation and Open Space
4.4.5
Community Walls and Fencing
4.4.6
Signage
4.4.7
Residential Guidelines
4.4.8
Commercial Guidelines
4.4.9
Landscape Guidelines
4.4.9.1
Landscape Regulations
4.4.9.2
Landscape Regulations
4.4.9.3
Residential Landscape Guidelines
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 4
NUMBER
1.1-1
LIU
Rancho La Quints Proposed Specific Plan
2.1-1
Proposed Circulation Plan
2.3-1
Proposed Drainage Plan
2.4-1
Proposed Sewer Plan
2.4-2
Master Water Plan
2.7-1
Open Space and Recreation
3.1-1
Planning Area 1
3.2-1
Planning Area 2
3.3-1
Planning Arca 3
3.4-1
Planning Area 4
3.5-1
Planning Arra 5
3.6-1
Planning Area 6
Iii
EAG E:
4-6
4-10
4-12
4-12
4-17
4-18
4-31
446
4-50
452
4-48
4-54
454
4-59
459
PAGE
1-3
2-4
2-6
2-8
2-10
2-18
3-2
3-3
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 4 (Continued)
NumiBE$
3.7-1
TITLE
Planning Area 7
PAGE
3-10
3.8-1
Planning Area 8
3-11
3.9-1
Planning Area 9
3-12
3.10-1
Planning Area 10
3-14
3.11-1
Planning Area 11
3-16
3.12-1
Planning Area 12
3-17
3.13-1
Planning Area 13
3-19
4.3-1
Typical Concept Plan - Medium Density Residential (2-5 DU/Acre)
4-3
4.3-2
Typical Illustrative Site Plan - Medium Density Residential
(2-5 DU/Acre)
4-4
4.3-3
Typical Architectural Elevation - Medium Density Residential
4-5
4.3-4
Typical Concept Plan - Medium High Density Residential
(5-8 DU/Acre)
4-7
4.3-5
Typical Illustrative Site Plan - Medium High Density Residential
(5-8 DU/Acre)
4-8
4.3-6
Typical Architectural Elevation Medium High Density Residential
4-9
4.3-7
Typical Illustrative Site Plan - Commercial Area
4-11
4.4-1
Project Entries
4-13
4.4-2
Typical Primary Entry - Plan View
4-15
4.4-3
Typical Primary Entry - Section
4-16
4.4-4
Typical Secondary Entry - Plan and Section
4-19
4.4-5
Typical Neighborhood Entry - Plan and Section
4-21
4.4-6
Typical Commercial Entry - Plan and Section
4-23
4.4-7
Typical Streetscape - Secondary Highway (64' on 88')
4-25
4.4-8
Typical Streetscape - Urban Arterial (110' on 134')
4-26
4.4-9
Typical Streetscape - Arterial Highway (86' on 110')
4-27
4.4-10
Typical Streetscape - Internal Collector (44' on 66)
4-28
4.4-11
Typical Stn. -tscape -•Internal Private Street (40')
4-29
4.4-12
Interface - Medium Density Residential/Golf Course
4-30
4.4-13
Interface - Medium Density Residential/Biological Preserve
4-32
4.4-14
Interface - Medium High Density Residential/Golf Course
4-33
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 4
NUMBER
TITLEPAQE
1-4
4.4-15
Interface - Medium High Density Residential/Park Use
4-34
4.4-16
Interface - Medium High Density Residendal/Biological Preserve
4-35
4.4-17
Interface - Golf Course/Revegetation Area
4-36
4.4-18
Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area Id
4-38
4.4-19
Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area Id
4-39
4.4-20
Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area 4c
4-40
4.4-21
Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area 4c
4-41
4.4-22
Conceptual Plan Biological Reserve - Planning Area 3
4-42
4.4-23
Conceptual Plan Revegetation Area - Planning Area 5
4-43
4.4-24
Typical Walls and Fences
4-47
LIST OF TABLES - PART 4
1.1-1
Land Use Plan Legend
1-4
1.1-2
Planning Area Use Summary
1-5
2.1-1
Residential Land Use Summary
2-1
2.6-1
Projected Rate of Dwelling Unit Development
2-15
2.6-2
Projected Rate of Non -Residential Development
2-16
2.6-3
Summary of Public Facilities and Improvements
2-17
4.4-1
Rancho La Quints Plant Pallete
4-61
PART S FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SECT10bi 11LE PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Proposed Project 1-1
1.2 Location 1-1
1.3 Processing 1-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PART 5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Continued)
SECTION
2.0
Ti.TL4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY
EASE
2-1
2.1
Landform and Topography
2-1
2.2
Seismic Safety/Slopes and Erosion
2-1
2.3
Agriculture
2-2
2.4
Flooding and Water Quality
2-3
2.5
Open Space and Conservation
2-3
2.6
Aesthetics and Visual Quality
2-4
2.7
Air Quality
2-5
2.8
Wildlife/Vegetation
2-6
2.9
Historic and Prehistoric Resources
2-7
2.10
Noise
2-7
2.11
Libraries
2-8
2.12
Water and Sewer
2-8
2.13
Solid Waste
2-9
2.14
Airports
2-10
2.15
Parks and Recreation
2-10
2.16
Fire Station, Sheriff, Police and Emergency Services
2-11
2.17
'Utilities
2-12
2.18
Schools
2-12
2.19
Health Services
2-13
2.20
Circulation
2-13
2.21
Fiscal Impact
2-15
3.0
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM
3-1
3.1
Site Identification Within Open Space and Conservation Map
3-1
3.2
Site Identification With Composite Hazards/Resources Map
3-4
3.3
Land Use Area Profile and Community Policy Area
Identification for Project Site
3-7
3.3.1
Land Use Area Profile
3-7
3.3.2
Community Policy
3-7
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PART S
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Continued)
SECT
111L
SAGE
3.4
Summary of Project Proposal/Site Comparison With
Applicable Land Use Category Policies or Community Plan
3-7
3.4.1
Category I - Heavy Urbain
3-8
3.4.2
Category II - Urban
3-8
3.4.3
Category III - Rural
3-9
3.4.4
Category IV - Outlying Areas
3-9
3.4.5
Category V - Planned Community
3-9
4.0
LAND USE ELEMENT
4-1
4.1
Land Use Planning Area Policy Analysis
4-1
4.2
Community Policy Area Analysis
4-2
4.3
Land Use Category Policy Analysis
4-4
5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT
5-1
5.1
Landform -and Topography
5-1
5.1.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-1
5.1.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-1
5.1.3
Mitigation
5-1
5.2
Seismic Safety/Slopes and Erosion
5-2
5.2.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-2
5.2.1.1
Geologic Setting and Lithology
5-2
5.2.1.2
Stinbct=
5-6
5.2.1.3
Geologic Hazards
5-10
5.2.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-13
5.2.3
Mitigation
5-16
5.3
Agriculture
5-17
5.3.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-17
5.3.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-18
5.3.3
Mitigation
5-19
5.4
Flooding and Water Quality
5-20
Vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PART 5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(Continued)
SECTION
5.4.1
JITLE
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
PAGE
5-20
5.4.1.1
Surface Water
5-20
5.4.1.2
Groundwater
5-23
5.4.1.3
Water Quality
5-24
5.4.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-27
5.4.2.1
Surface Water
5-27
5.4.2.2
Groundwater
5-27
5.4.2.3
Water Quality
5-28
5.4.3
Mitigation
5-28
5.5
Open Space and Conservation
5-29
5.5.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-29
5.5.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-30
5.5.3
Mitigation
5-30
5.6
Aesthetics and Visual Quality
5-31
5.6.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-31
5.6.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-31
5.6.3
Mitigation
5-30
5.7
Air Quality
5-32
5.7.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-32
5.7.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-39
5.7.3
Mitigation
5-44
5.8
Wildlife/Vegetation
5-45
5.8.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-45
5.8.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-53
5.8.3
Mitigation
5-55
5.9
Historic & Prehistorical Resources
5-57
5.9.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-57
5.9.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-58
5.9.3
Mitigation
5-59
viii
r
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PART 5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Continued)
PAGE
5.10
Noise
5-60
5 ,10,1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-60
5,10,2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-63
5.10.3
Mitigation
5-66
6.0
PUBLIC FAC .HIES AND SERVICES
6-1
6.1
Libraries
6-1
6.1.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-1
6.1.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-1
6.1.3
Mitigation
6-1
6.2
Water and Sewer Facilities
6-2
6.2.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-2
6,2,2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-3
6.2.3
Mitigation _
6-5
6.3
Solid Waste
6-5
6.3.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-5
6.3.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-6
6.3.3
Mitigation
6-6
6.4
Airports
6-6
6.4.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-6
6.4.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-8
6.4.3
Mitigation
6-9
6.5
Parks and Recreation
6.5.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-9
6.5.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-10
6.5.3
Mitigation
6-10
6.6
Fire Station, Sheriff, and Emergency Services
6-11
6.6.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-11
6.6.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-11
6.6.3
Mitigation
6-12
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PART 5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Continued)
PAGE
6.7
Utilities
6-13
6.7.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-13
6.7.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-13
6.7.3
Mitigation
6-14
6.8
Schools
6-14
6.8.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-14
6.8.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-14
6.8.3
Mitigation
6-15
6.9
Health Services
6-15
6.9.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-15
6.9.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-15
6.9.3
Mitigation
6-16
6.10
Circulation
6-16
6.10.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-16
6.10.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-18
6.10.3
Mitigation
6-24
6.11
Fiscal Impact
6-27
6.11.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-27
6.11.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-27
6.11.3
Mitigation
6-29
6.12
Other Environmental Issues
6-30
7.0
HOUSING ELEMENT
7-1
7.1
Applicable Housing Policies and Programs
7-1
7.2
Specific Plan
7-3
7.2.1
Project Relationship to the General Plan Policies
7-3
7.2.2
Housing Invento_ y
7-4
7.2.3
Project Compatibility with Existing Housing Inventory
7-5
x
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PART 5 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (Continued)
PAGE
8.0
REGIONAL ELEMENT
8-1
8.1
Regional Growth (SCAG) Forecasts
8-1
8.1.1•
Identification of Regional Forecasts for Project Site
8-1
8.1.2
Land Use Area Profile
8-2
8.1.3
Comparison of Project Growth Forecast with
Regional Growth Forecast
8-8
8.2
Applicable Employment/Housing Balance Policies
8-10
9.0
ADNIINISTRATIVE ELEMENT
9-1
9.1
Land Use Policy/Specific Plan Time Frames
9-1
9.1.1
Project Tine Frames for Development
9-1
10.0
MANDATORY CEQA SECTIONS
10-1
10.1
Cumulative Impacts
10-1
10.2
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts -
10-2
10.3
Alternatives to Proposed Project
10-2
10.3.1
No Project/No Development
10-3
10.3.2
Existing Zoning
10-3
10.3.3
Independent Development
10-4
10.3.4
Alternative Summary
10-5
10.4
Growth Inducing Impacts
10-12
10.5
Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's
Environment in Maintenance/Enhancement of Long -Term
Productivity
10-13
10.6
Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies
and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented
10-14
11.0
ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS
CONSULTED
11-1
11.1
References
11-1
11.2
Organizations and Persons Consulted
11-4
12.0
REPORT PREPARATION STAFF AND CONSULTANTS
12-1
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 5
NUMBER
1.1-2
:"ITLE
Regional Map for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan
PAGE
1-2
1.1-2
Vicinity Map for the Rancho La Quints Specific Plan
1-3
3.1-1
Open Space and Conservation Map
3-2
3.2-1
Composite Environmental Hazards Map
3-5
3.2-1,
Composite Environmental Resources Map
3-6
5.2-1
Simplified Geologic Map (Topsoil Not Shown)
5-3
5.2-2
Regional Fault Map
5-7
5.4-1
Project Site Hydrographic Basin
5-21
5.4-2
Existing Project Area Drainage and 100 Year Storm Runoff
5-22
5.7-1
California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
5-38
5.8-1
Vegetation and Sensitive Biological Resources
5-46
5.10-1
Land Use Compatibility Chart Based on Community
Noise Level
5-61
6.4-1
Project Site's Proximity to Thermal Airport's Interim
Influence Area
6-7
6.10-1
Trip Assignment (Average Daily Trips)
6-17
6.10-2
Average Daily Trips Existing/Existing Plus Project
6-22
8.1-1
Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area
8-3
8.1-2
Coachella Valley Community Policy Area
8-5
8.1-3
Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Community Policy Area
8-7
9.1-1
Phasing for Rancho La Quints Specific Plan
9-2
LIST OF TABLES - PART 5
NUMBER TITLE Pel{
5.2-1 Description of Onsite Soil Properties 5-5
5.2-2 The Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensities 5-8
5.4-1 Summary of Surface Runoff Pollution Coefficients for Various
Land Uses 5-26
5.7-1 Ambient Air Quality Summary Palm Springs Monitoring
Station 5-34
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES - PART 5 (Continued)
NJ r �, ;I ER
T._IT"
5.7-2
Ambient Air Quality Summary Indio Monitoring Station
5.7-3
Air Quality Mobile Emissions for Proposed Project
5.7-4
Power Plant Emissions
5.7-5
Natural Gas Emissions
5.7-6
Total Emissions Produced by Rancho La Quints (2010)
5.7-7
Emissions Inventory (tons/day)
5.10-1
Noise Contour Distances for Roadways Adjacent to the
Rancho La Quints Specific Plan Area
6.10-1
Rancho La Quints Trip Generation
6.10-2
Riverside County Highway Capacity Criteria for General
Plan Roads
6.10-3
Intersection Levels of Service
6.10-4
Phasing of Recommended Traffic Improvements
7.2-1
Rancho La Quints Housing Inventory
8.1-1
- Population and Housing Forecasts for the Lower Coachella
Land Use Planning Area
8.1-2
Population and Housing Forecasts for the Eastern Coachella
Valley Plan Area
10.3-1
Comparative Matrix of Alternatives
LIST OF APPENDICES
(Under Separate Cover)
LETTER
WIL
A
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
B
CULTURAL RESOURCES
C
TRAFFIC
D
FISCAL
E
ENGINEERING SERVICE CORPORATION
F
CORRESPONDENCE
PAGE
5-35
5-41
5-42
5-42
5-43
5-43
5-65
6-20
6-21
6-23
6-25
7-4
8-4
8-8
10-6
PSE
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
F-1
ri
PART 1
BOARD RESOLUTION
m
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218
RANCHO LA QUINTA
ADOPTED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEPTEMBER 13, 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 483
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Board of Supervisors
RESOLUTION NO. 85-483
ADOPTING
SPECIFIC PLAIT NO. 218
(Rancho La Quinta)
I
County of Riverside
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450
et se ., a public hearing was held before the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors in Riverside, California on September 13, 1988, to consider
Specific Plan No. 218 (Rancho La Quinta); and,
I
o EREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the Riverside County Rules to Implement the Act have been met,
and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 232, prepared in connection with the
specific plan, is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant
effects of the project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or
substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the
above -referenced Act and Rules; and,
WHEREAS, the matter was discussed _ fully with testimony and
documentation presented by the public and affected government agencies; now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Riverside, in regular session assembled on October
4, 1988, that the following environmental impacts are associated with the
proposed specific plan and each of said impacts will be avoided or
substantially lessened by the identified mitigation measures:
0—
cc) 26
FO o
' 2
V
G'7 E
4
a,
29,
0
C�
&
c::)
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
Pi
10
21
12,
13
14
15
16
17
is
29
20
21
22
23
24
25'
26
27
28
A. LANDFORM, AHD TOPOGRAPHY
1. Impact:
Construction of the residential, commercial,
golf courses and ancillary -facilities
associated with the proposed specific plan
will not substantially alter the topography
of the site. Minor grading, including
elevation differentials of less than ten (10)
feet, will result in minimal landform
alterations. No significant impact will
occur to either landform or topography.
2. Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are recommended or
required.
B. SEISMIC SAFETY SLOPES AND
EROSION
1. Impact:
Potential impacts associated with geology and
soils are related primarily to seismically'
induced effects, erosion and the stability of
surficial deposits.
2. Mitigation:
Site specific geotechnical investigations
shall be conducted by a qualified consultant
prior to issuance of building permits. The
applicant will incorporate these
recommendations in the final project design,
including all mitigation measures developed
by the geotechnical consultant.
2
fl
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11
12
33
14
15
16
37
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. FLOODING AND {CATER gUALITY
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
D. NOISE
1. Impact:
2, Mitigation:
Change of on-site water quantity and quality
create potential impacts but are not
considered significant. No significant
impacts are expected to occur from the use of
ground water aquifers by the proposed
development. The proposed project would
contribute to the overall regional increase
in the degradation of water quality. These
impacts are not considered significant,
however, due to the relatively small
quantities involved, and the on-site
solutions of the development plan.
The applicant will utilize water conservation
efforts and minimize run-off through project
design.
Certain portions of the project would likely
be exposed to noise levels greater than the
County's noise guidelines of 65dB(A) CNEL
exterior and 45dB(A) CNEL interior.
Mitigation measures will include building
setbacks, earthen berms, masonry walls and/or
a combination of methods. The mitigation
measures shall be subject to review and
approval by the County. Adoption of these
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1+6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23i
24
25
28
27
28
measures will ensure that all on-site noise
impacts are reduced to a level of
insignificance.
E. AIR QUALITY
1. Impact;
The construction -related emissions and
fugitive dust associated with site
preparation and construction are considered
short-term adverse effects. Upon completion
and operation of the proposed project, air
quality in the project area will be directly
affected by motor vehicle (mobile) emissions
from project traffic, and indirectly
influenced by power plant pollutants
(stationary emissions) emitted to service the
project. Total projected emissions from the
Rancho la Quinta Specific Plan would not
significantly contribute to the total
emissions burden within the Riverside County
basin. The project is within the SCAG
population forecasts, which is the basis for
SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan.
Consequently, the proposed project would not
be a significant contributor to air quality
degradation in the project vicinity although
it would incrementally contribute to the
degradation of air quality in the local air
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
91
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Mitigation:
F. WATER AND SEWERUQ ALITY
1. Impact:
basin. Measures will be incorporated into
the project design to further- reduce
projected emissions and comply with County of
Riverside General Plan air quality
guidelines.
Construction produced fugitive dust and other
pollutants will be reduced by watering
surfaces and planting ground cover as soon as
feasible after grading. Project generated
emissions will be reduced through
incorporating transit facilities, energy
efficient buildings, and solar design
features. In addition, efficient traffic
patterns will minimize unnecessary automobile
idling and the associated emissions. For
commercial developments with 100 or more
employees, SCAQMD requires a reduction in
vehicle trips by encouraging employee
carpooling.
The project will require the extension of 9
domestic water facilities from the nearby PGA
West development; an expansion .of the
Midvalley Sewage Treatment Plant; and some
additional on-site and off-site improvements
to adequately provide water and sewer service
E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to the site. Coachella Valley Nater District
(CVWD) does not foresee any adverse impacts,
provided that participation in the fair -share
funding of those additional facilities is
implemented by the developer to CVWD
requi rements.
2. Mitigation. Although no impacts are identified in Phase
One of the development plan, the developer
must financially contribute through
development fees applicable at the time of
construction to increase treatment plant
capacity proportionally to the project's
contribution to the load on the facility. In
addition, the developer must construct all
on-site facilities to standards established]
by the CVWD. Facilities will be constructed
in accordance with identified needs and
phasing of the development.
G. AGRICULTURE
1. Impact: Implementation of the project would remove
710 acres from existing agriculture
production and would result in the loss of
1,140 acres of prime agricultural land. From
a regional perspective, the project site
represents approximately one percent of prime
agricultural land in the Coachella Valley.
6
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. UTILITIES
1. Impact; The proposed project will not have a
significant adverse impact on local
utilities, provided conservation standards
7
Loss of prodOttive agricultural land and
designated prime agricultural land represents
an incremental decrease in agriculture in the
Coachella Valley but does not represent a
significant adverse impact.
2. Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are recommended.
H. WILDLIFE VEGETATION
1. Impact:
Impacts from the project are not considered
significant; however, adverse impacts could
occur to potential flat -tailed horned lizard
and Crissal thrasher habitats in the mesquite
thickets.
2. Mitigation:
A spring survey for the flat -tailed horned
lizard is recommended in potential habitat in
the northwestern portion of the site prior to
development in that portion of the site. If
individuals are located within this area,
contribution to a habitat retention program
would be recommended. Impacts to natural
mesquite thicket will be reduced by
incorporation of mesquite in the landscape
palette where feasible.
I. UTILITIES
1. Impact; The proposed project will not have a
significant adverse impact on local
utilities, provided conservation standards
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r'
are implemented into the design of the
project. _
2. Miti aq tion: Conservation measures will be incorporated
into the design of the project. Further
mitigation measures will not be required.
J. HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC RESOURCES
1. Impact: Potential adverse impacts could occur to
cultural resources on the project site.
Indirect impacts to resources in the vicinity
are potentially adverse, though not
significant.
2. Mitigation: A qualified archaeologist will be retained
for monitoring during grading in areas
identified as a cultural resource within• the
project boundary.
K. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION -
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Mesquite thickets in the undisturbed areas of
the project site are a declining habitat in
need of conservation. Loss of this habitat
would result in an adverse impact.
The loss of open space in the area is
mitigated by designating 32 percent of the
site as open space. Loss of the mesquite
thicket habitat will be mitigated by the
developer through a revegetation plan
utilizing mesquite in the design of the golf
course when the golf course is developed.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
C'
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FA
L. CIRCULATION
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
Potential project -related traffic -impacts are
identified, including unacceptable levels of
service on Monroe Street, and the
intersections of Avenue 58/Madison Street,
Avenue 58/Monroe Street, Avenue 58/Jackson
Street, Avenue 6O/Monroe Street and Avenue.
60/Jackson Street. These traffic impacts
will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance by the phased implementation
of certain roadway improvements which are
itemized in detail in the mitigation section.
Measures are proposed which will mitigate
project -related traffic impacts to below a
level of significance.. These measures
include improvements to Circulation Element
roads as identified in the Riverside County
General Plan Circulation Element, as amended
at the time of building permit issuance,
intersection improvements and signalization
where warranted, appropriate treatment of
entries to the project site to avoid sight
distance constraints, appropriate
construction of internal roads to County
standards, appropriate access for golf carts
and conformance with all applicable building
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
I
15
16
17I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
--1
and construction codes of the County Road
Department.
M. AESTHETICS AND VISUAL
QUALITY
1. Impact:
The project will include residential,
commercial and open space uses. The
development will include similar types of
land uses as are being constructed on the
adjacent PGA West project. Minimal landform
alteration would occur, because of the
limited topographic relief over the project
site. If the project complies with the
design guidelines promulgated in the Specific
Plan, no significant aesthetic or visual
quality impacts will occur.
2. Mitigation:
The developer will be required to implement
the guidelines and policies of the Specific
Plan upon construction of the development.
N. SOLID WASTE
1. Impacts:
The County does not foresee any problems with
accommodating the solid waste to be generated
by the project in the Coachella Valley
Landfil 1; therefore, no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
2. Mitigation:
No mitigation measures are required.
10
1
2i
3
4
5
6
7
EJI
Ell
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0. FIRE AND SHERIFF SERVICES
1. Impact: The proposed project is not expected to
create any adverse impacts to fire services
in the area. Implementation of the proposed
project will not create an adverse impact on
Sheriff services in the area.
2. Mitigation: The project will incorporate all requirements
of the Fire Department, and Sheriff
Department through project design.
P. SCHOOLS
1. Impact: The proposed development will generate
approximately 300 school age children.
2. Mitigation,.* Mitigation measures include developer fees
per square foot for residential development
and commercial development or school sites
designatedL in lieu of the developer's fees.
Developer's fees and/or school site
designation would be required of the
developer prior to building permit issuance
and would reduce impacts to a level of
insignificance.
Q. PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Impact: The proposed project designates approximately
40 acres of the site for public uses.
Approximately 380 acres of golf courses are
also proposed. The County of Riverside Parks
11
11
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
11'
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Department requires a minimum of 61 acres
designated for parks and recreation. The
proposed parks will implement design
standards incorporated in the Specific Plan.
2. Mitigation: The combination of designated parkland and
golf course mitigates impacts to a level of
insignificance, no further mitigation is
required.
R. LIBRARIES
1. Impact:
The new library being constructed in
La
Quinta will serve 59000 to 9,000 people.
The
proposed Rancho La Quinta development,
at
full build -out, is expected to house
approximately 13,260 people creating
an
adverse, but mitigable impact to the library
system. -
2. Mitigation:
To mitigate impacts on library services
by
the proposed project to a level
of
insignificance, a developer fee will
be
required to obtain building permits.
Designation of a library site within
the
proposed development in lieu of development
fees by the developer may alternatively
be
required to mitigate adverse impacts to
the
library system.
12
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28,
S. HEALTH SERVICES
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
T. AIRPORTS
1. Impact:
2. Mitigation:
U. FISCAL IMPACT
1. Impact:
rA
Because the two outpatient clinics, located
in Palm Desert and La Quinta, relieve much of
the dependency on the hospital in Indio, no
health service related impacts are expected
to occur.
No adverse impacts are expected to occur to
health services in the area; therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
In the future, population generated from the
project may contribute to an increase in
Coachella Valley's aviation needs. Expansion
of the Thermal Airport resulting from
regional growth in the Coachella Valley would
likely not affect the project's noise or
safety environment, and no adverse impacts
are anticipated.
No mitigation measures are required.
The projected County costs for the proposed
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan exceed County
revenue because a portion of the revenue
would be provided to the Redevelopment
Project Agency. At build -out, however, the
total revenue is expected to be greater than
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
nine million dollars, whereas the total net
County cost is projected to be less than six
million. Therefore, the Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan is projected to have an overall
positive fiscal impact when the County and
Redevelopment Agency are considered together.
2. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are necessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that Specific Plan
No. 218 will implement applicable elements of the Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan as follows:
A. Land Use Element: The Riverside. County Comprehensive eenerai rian�
recognizes the project area as transitioning from agriculture land uses to
urban land uses and economic base and that this area can be expected To
experience increased urbanization. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan
project is located within the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning
Area. The site is located approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast of the
La Quinta City limits. Desert communities of Cathedral City, Rancho
Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, Indio and Coachella are located within
30 miles of the proposed development. Densities and land uses proposed by
Specific Plan No. 218 are similar and consistent with those in the
development to the northwest of Oak Tree/West and PGA West Specific Plans.
B. Administrative Element: The project provides a fiscal impact report and
time frames for development, pursuant to the land use policies of the
Administrative Element. When the County and Redevelopment Agency are
considered together, the fiscal impact analysis projects a positive impact
on County services at project build -out.
14
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Public Facilities and Services Element: The project contains a
comprehensive public services and facilities program for circulation,
water, sewer, fire protection and other services. An urban level of
infrastructure is presently within reach of the subject site and in those
instances where present capacities of public utility services and
infrastructures are inadequate the applicant and County will cooperate in
the formation of any special assessment district, community facilities
district or alternate financing mechanisms to pay for the construction
and/or maintenance and operation of public infrastructure facilities
required to serve the project. Further, to the extent necessary, the
applicant will build wells, reservoirs, transmission mains and/or booster
stations or dedicate lands for the same to serve the project.
D. Housing Element: The proposed Specific Plan will provide 4,262
residential units with a variety of product types. The project also
includes about 421 acres of parks/recreational uses allowing sufficient
acreage for school site(s), open space, and 35 acres of commercial land.
E. Environmental Hazards and Resources Element: EIR No. 232 assessed the
full range of concerns associated with this project. EIR No. 232 proposed
mitigation of each of the identified impacts. No overriding findings are
required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has
reviewed and considered EIR No. 232 in evaluating Specific Plan No. 218, that
EIR No. 232 is an accurate and objective statement that complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act, that EIR No. 232 is certified, and that
EIR No. 232 is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13'
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
r
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that Specific Plan
No. 218, on file with the Clerk of the Board, including the final conditions of
approval and exhibits, is hereby adopted as the Specific Plan of land Use for
the real property shown in the plan, and said real property shall be developed
substantially in accordance with the specific plan, unless the plan is repealed
or amended by the Board.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that copies of
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of the
Board, in the Office of the Planning Director and in the Office of the Director
of Building ,and Safety, and that no applications for subdivision maps, I
conditional use permits or other development approvals shall be accepted for
the real property shown on Specific Plan No. 218, unless such applications are
substantially in accordance therewith.
RG:mcb
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
s 15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
Board of Supervisors County of Riverside
RESOLUTION 88-521
CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION OF A
LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
AND DIMINISHMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE
WHEREAS, Howard B. and Denise P. Keck entered into a Land Conservation
Contract with the County of Riverside, pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Government Code Section 51200 et seg.) which contract
is dated January 1, 1976, and was recorded on September 39 1976, as Instrument
No. 132447 in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County,
California; and,
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed by Howard B. and Denise P. Keck to
cancel said contract and to diminish the Coachella Valley Agricultural Preserve
No 58, Map No. 300, as amended, pursuant to Section 51200 et M. of the
Government Code, and a public hearing has been held by this Board on September
139 1988; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA, the diminishment and the
alternative land use were environmentally assessed by Environmental Impact
Report No. 232, and EIR No. 232 has been reviewed and considered in evaluating
this petition; and,
WHEREAS, the landowners have proposed, if the cancellation is
approved, that the land be used for the following alternative use:
Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No.136, Specific Plan No. 218, and Change
of Zone No. 5132 (Specific Plan Zone); and,
1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the amount of the cancellation fee; pursuant to Section 51283
of the Government Code, has been determined and certified by this Board to be
$132,769.00; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Riverside, State of California, in regular session assembled on
October 6, 1988, that:
1. The cancellation of the contract, diminishment of the agricultural
preserve, and the use of land for the proposed alternative use is consistent
with the General Plan and the purposes of the land Conservation Act.
2. Cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been
Iserved.
3. Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent
lands from agricultural use.
4. Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with
Ithe General Plan.
5. Cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban
(development.
6. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available
and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put.
7. Resolution No. 88-483 and the findings contained therein are
incorporated herein by reference.
S. The conditions with which the landowners must corVly within one
year following the date of the recording of this certificate of tentative
Icancellation are as follows:
a. Payment to the Treasurer of Riverside County of the total
amount of the cancellation fee of $132,769.00.
//////////
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the amount of the cancellation fee; pursuant to Section 51283
of the Government Code, has been determined and certified by this Board to be
$132,769.00; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND DETERMINED by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Riverside, State of California, in regular session assembled on
October 6, 1988, that:
1. The cancellation of the contract, diminishment of the agricultural
preserve, and the use of land for the proposed alternative use is consistent
with the General Plan and the purposes of the land Conservation Act.
2. Cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been
Iserved.
3. Cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent
lands from agricultural use.
4. Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with
Ithe General Plan.
5. Cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban
(development.
6. There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available
and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put.
7. Resolution No. 88-483 and the findings contained therein are
incorporated herein by reference.
S. The conditions with which the landowners must corVly within one
year following the date of the recording of this certificate of tentative
Icancellation are as follows:
a. Payment to the Treasurer of Riverside County of the total
amount of the cancellation fee of $132,769.00.
//////////
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
! 28
b. That Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. 112 be adopted
by the Board of Supervisors.
c. That Specific Plan No. 218 (Rancho La Quinta) be adopted by
the Board of Supervisors.
d. Change of Zone No. 5132 be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and be effective.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Clerk
of the Board shall file and record copies of this resolution in the Office of
the County Recorder of Riverside County, California, and with the Director of
Conservation, State of California; that the landowners shall have a period of
one year from the date of said recording to comply with the conditions of
approval; and that upon completion of all conditions, the landowner will be
entitled to a final certificate of cancellation which provides as follows:
1. The Coachella Valley Agricultural Preserve No. 58, Kap No. 3009
recorded February 289 1974s as Instrument No. 23554 in the Office of the County
Recorder of Riverside County, California, will be amended by deleting therefrom
the area shown on the map entitled "AMENDMENT NO. 2 (DININISHMENT) TO COACHELLA
VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE NO. 58, MAP NO. 682," and
2. The Land Conservation Contract between Howard B. and Denise P.
Keck and the County of Riverside, dated January 1, 1976, and recorded on
September 3, 1976, as Instrument No. 132447 in the Office of the County
Recorder of Riverside County, California, will be cancelled, thereby removing
from the effect of said contract the real property in the County of Riverside,
State of California, described in attached Exhibit A, which is made a part of
this resolution.
3
1
2
3
4
a
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BE IT MfkR RESOLVED that if the conditions of approval are not
satisfied within one (1) year, the tentative cancellation shall be withdrawn.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon application of the landowners, the
Board may extend the one-year time period for completing all conditions of
approval, upon a finding by the Board that the landowners have proceeded with
due diligence and have been prevented from satisfying the conditions of
approval by circumstances beyond their control. If the Board extends the
period of time for payment of the cancellation fee, the fee shall be recomputed
las a part of the request for extension of the time, and the landowners shall be
required to pay the recomputed fee as.a condition to final cancellation of the
contract.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon application of the landowners, the
(Board may hereafter amend a tentatively approved alternative use if the Board
(finds that such amended alternative use is consistent with the General Plan and
the findings made pursuant to subdivision (a) Section 51282 of the Government
I Code.
BE IT 'FURTMER RESOLVED that an application for extension of the period
lof time to complete the conditions of approval or to amend the approved
laltearnative use shall be made to the Planning Department and in accordance with
any procedures and requirements in effect at the time of the application.
elrr//rif/
l/i///f/r//
I////r/f///
Ir/i////l/r
4
00.1
NO. 2
»0
440
MAP NO. 308
SAN G ORCaONIO PASS
AGRICULTURAL
PRESERVE
NO. 5
AMENDED BY MAP 00. 330, $54
x tS - R iw
T. ?S -R.rw
ADOPTED ON AUGUST 27,1974
BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT "A"
' SAN GORGONIO '
AGRUCULTUP,AL PRESERVE NO. 5
All of that portion of the unincorporated territory of Riverside County, State
of California, described as follows:
Segitnning at the center of Section 51, T3S RlW, S.5.3.& M.; thence. easterly
of waylinethe
creast -crest s idsection line of said Section 5 to the westerly 7
of
Lnterstste Si,ghw&Y 10; thence nortWesterly on said right of way line to the
northerly right of way line of San Timoteo Canyon Road; thence Dortheasterly on
said right of gray line to tic westerly timet of gray Line of the Noble Creek
Storm Mannel right of gray; th�mce r,artheasterly on said storm C-bsnnel right of
wry a distance of 2107.67 feet. -thece northerly 3388.98 feet to a point on the
southerly right of way line of Brookside Avenue lying 1891.90 feet from the east
line of Section 33, T2S RIW, SSB&M; thence westerly on said southerly right of
way lisle to the west line of amid Section 33; thence southerly on said westerly
section line 1290_ feet to the north 1116 section line of Section 32, T2S RIV;
thence westerly on said 1116 section line to its intersection with the north -,south
addsectiarn line of said section 32; thence northerly to the southerly right sof
gray line of Brookside Avenue; thence westerly 1320±feet to the wes[ 1116 section
line of Section 32; thence southerly said section
line olhsoutherly
right of way line of Interstate Highway l; thence nnrthuesterlyacngsaid
southerly right of Way line to the west section lime of said Section 32; thence
southerly to the sou'thw"t corner of said Section 32; thence easterly an said
southerly section line to a point lying on the north -south midsection line of
Section 5, T3S Rl'W, S.E.D.& fl.; thence southerly On said north -south midsection
lire to the point of beginning.
Assessor's Parcel Fos. 406-070-018 ' '
117.20-
406470-.019
334.90
406-070-020
381-S9
414-090-005
1.59
414-090-006
0.29
414-090-007
1.38
414-090-011
24.50
414-090-012
8.80
414-090-013
31.60
TOTAL ACRFACE
901.85
I
PART 2
BOARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. 218 (Rancho La Quinta)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Specific Plan No. 218 shall consist of the following:
a. Exhibit 'A*: Specific Plan Text
b. Exhibit *80: Specific Plan Conditions of Approval
2. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the specific
plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take prece-
dence.
3. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory
requirements of all Riverside County ordinances including Ordinances Nos.
348 and 460 and state laws; and shall conform substantially with adapted
Specific Plan No. 218 as filed in the office of the Riverside County
Planning Department, unless otherwise amended.
4. No portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change,
waive or modify any ordinance or other legal requirement for the develop-
ment shall be considered to be part of the adopted specific plan.
S. The project shall comply with the conditions set forth in the following
�( agency letters and/or the requirements set forth by these agencies at the
development stage:
a. Road Department:
b. Water Agency:
c. Fire Department:
d. Health Department:
f. County Administrative Office:
February 24. 1988 and July 12, 1988
January 28, 1988
February 25, 1988
July 119 1988
6. Impacts to the Coachella Valley Unified School District shall be mitigated
at the development application stage in accordance with the District
policies in effect at the time of tract submittal.
7. Common areas identified in the specific plan shall be owned and maintained
as follows:
a. A permanent master maintenance.organization shall be established for
the specific plan area. to assume ownership and maintenance responsi-
bility for all comon recreation, open spaces circulation systems and
landscaped areas. The organization may be public or private. Merger
with an area -wide or regional organization shall satisfy this
condition provided that such organization is legally and financially
capable of assuming the responsibilities for ownership and
maintenance. If the organization is a private association then
neighborhood associations shall be established for each residential
• Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan No. 218
Page 2 _
development,whe�sre�lbility forsuch
neighborhood common areasu� ownershipand
maintenance
b. unless otherwise provided for in these conditions of approvalo common
areas shall be conveyed to the maintenance organization as imple-
mnting development is approved or any subdivision is recorded.
c. The maintenance organization shall be established prior to -or concur-
rent with the recordation of the first land division, or issuance of
any building permits for any approved development permit (use permit,
plot plan, etc.).
S. Development applications which incorporate common areas shall be accompa-
nied by design plans
acanriaSuch plans
shall specify
the
location and extent irrigation systems* structures, and
circulation (vehicular, pedestrian and/or equestrian).
y. The following special studies/reports shall accompany implementing
development applications in the planning areas listed below:
5tudygeport Planning Areas
�! Acoustical Study 1-5
Biological Study 1-5
Geological Study - 1-5 -
Archaeological Study 1-5
10. Prior to the recordation of any final map within the project, the land
divider shall submit a flood control facilities design to the Coachella
Valley water 'District (hereinafter referred to as "District'°) for review.
which design shall be subject to the approval of that District. The land
divider shall also establish that the District will operate and maintain
the flood control facilities described in the design by submitting to the
County an agreeemnt to that effect executed by the District. Should the
Board of Supervisors instead authorize a County agency or department to
operate and maintain the flood control facilities described in the design,
the land divider shall submit a flood control facilities design to the
authorizedagency or department for review prior to the recordation of a
final map, which design
ntshall
that�he�authorbject ized agency the approval
of departmenat t is or
a
department. In the eve
County Service Area (CSA), all of the following shall apply:
a. Title toa l common parcels ntended for public use or benefit shall
be conveyedto the
b. As a condition precedent to the County accepting title to such
parcels, the land divider shall submit the following documents to the
r
Conditions of Approval
specific Plan No. 218
Page 3 -
Planning Department fo�review bdivAision map if is recorded: be recorded
at the same time that
1. A Declaration of Convenants, Conditions and Restrictions
containing:
i. A provision creating a dormant hwi eowners association
which shall be activated and unconditionally accept title
to all or any co on parcels at the request of the County;
Ji. A provision indicating that after accepting title to all
or any capon parcels, the homeowners association shall be
continuously maintained e�nd� rave reaso�ableht �costsass
of
individual unit own
as the
Well
rigtainieneflood control facilitesq athe p operty of those iowne sswho default on
right too 1 R
the payment of their assessments;
iii. A provision indicating that an assessment lien shall not
be digdiencumbrance other than
e
ed of
trustsubordinate
ngoofath and forvalueandofrecordprior
to the assessment lien, and;
iv. A provision indicating that the Declaration
of C natedntor
Conditions and Restrictions may
not substantially amended absent the prior written consent for
the Planning 'Director or the County's
successor-in-interst, and;
2. A sample document to convey title incorporating the Declaration of
Convenants, Conditions and Restrictions by reference.
11. Prior to the recordation of any final subdivision MAP or the ante applicant
building permits in the case of use permits and plot plans,
which
shall submit to the Planning Department
the
the Gouty that i div dual
shall demonstrate to the satin
appropriate owners associations will be established and will operate in
accordance with the intent and purpose of the specific plan.
a. The document to convey title;
b. Covenants. Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded;
C. Management and maintenance agreements to be entered into with the
unit/lot owner o project.
• .s
Conditions of Approval
Specific Plan No. 218
{ Page 4
The master proper ge
owners association, commercial property owners
association, and business park aoners association shall be charged
with the unqualified
forigrea an btessmainten own
eiandvman gemenal t cosrs ts whit
individual un
The individual owners
shall be established and ,continually maintained. ro rt of ower who
association shall have the richt to lien
the
Such lein shall not be
defaults in payment of their assessment fees.
subordinate to any encw+brancother
andor good
tfdeed
valuet and,isproofded re ord
deed of trust is made in good faith
prior to the lien of the individual owners association.
12. A land division filed for the purposes of phasing
hasn or financing
shall
nit
be considered ars impl+ ntation development application;
association, the legal
hat
the maintenance organization is a property
documentation necessary to establish the association shall be recorded
concurrently with the recordation concurrently with the final map.
13. The applicant or its successor shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless
the County of Riverside, its agents, officers, and employees from any
claim, action, or proceedingagainst
attack, set aside* void
de or ion
ts
agents, officers, or employees
�
approval of the County of Riverside, its advisory agenncies•,,aapp nboa ds
= C or legislative body concerning Specific Plan No.
2.Riverside will prtlOf
y notify the applicant or its successor of any such
ll
claim, action or
in the defense. or proceeding against the
If the CoCoununty fail si verside to pr omptlnyd roti
cooperate fulfy
tO
the applicant of ar�►r such claim, action, or proceeding sere fter, be
cooperate fully dein fend a defindense, theoaPp oldntharznlessshall notthe County of
responsible to
Riverside.
JM:mp
M
OFFICE OF THE ROAD COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
LeRoy D. Smoot County Administrative Center
Road commissioner and 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
County Surveyor P.O. Boz 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
(714) 787-6554
July 12, 1988
Roger Streeter, Planning Director
County Administrative Center
4080 Lenon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Attention: Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner
RE: Specific Plan No. 218 - Rancho
La Quinta, Reassessment Of
Westside (An Aside Issue)
Dear Mr. Goldman:
The Road Department has reassessed the Comprehensive General
Plan Alignment of Westside per the Planning Commission's
direction given in their regular meeting on July 6, 1988, and has
the following comments.
The Department recommends maintaining the alignment for
Westside as 'currently shown on the General Plan Circulation Study
Area Map 8. (See Attachment) This alignment was selected based on
anticipated future traffic demand and the viability of producing
and maintaining a beneficial regional circulation system within
the Coachella Valley. One critical concern considered was the
feasibility of constructing this facility at its ultimate width
(Urban Arterial 134' R/W) within the affected cities. Staff
within the City Of Coachella and the County both agreed that
Westside should be linked, in the future, with Madison Street;
terminating northerly at 52nd Avenue. Madison Street is programed
to become an Arterial Highway (110' R/W) between 52nd Avenue and
50th Avenue.
If you desire additional information, contact me at (714)
787-1445.
Very truly yours,
/0- xl-px� �,
John Johnson
Associate Planner
JJ:lg
j%k —'I .�iMf�s �
I•
F mop
F
NORTH -
0 sAoD �DpDo
d
nR_
•
one IM r.
ff���
sf�+or
��
rff�ar
BOAR
war
v
ARTERIAL
110•
�
1oumTA1N ARTERIAL
116
i
13••
•
rrR
AMA
YVARIASLE
FREEWAT
•
SKC" ►LAN ROAD
SAIWAL<
j*+ e
SAIDGE
Til#
WHERE OF WFLUENCE
i
STATE 6 FEDERAL LANDS
!
I
i
f+rn rt'v
ti
r
C1TT Of
LA QUINTA
■
i
F mop
F
NORTH -
0 sAoD �DpDo
- 4•0• r �,
N &o
LEGEND
p ASIMMATM
one IM r.
S"dwL
SE>r{1MD ARr
��
rff�ar
BOAR
war
v
ARTERIAL
110•
1oumTA1N ARTERIAL
116
URHN ARTERIAL
13••
•
ExIRESSrAT
AMA
YVARIASLE
FREEWAT
•
SKC" ►LAN ROAD
SAIWAL<
j*+ e
SAIDGE
Til#
WHERE OF WFLUENCE
i
STATE 6 FEDERAL LANDS
- 4•0• r �,
N &o
WE
T"MML
i
r
MIIMIT
�'r
v
s
s
i
f if l�M7riitMfii
orf"fffsf� iff -
i
\1Nr�r
-
Til#
f+rn rt'v
ti
r
torr J --1
cbt•xrr ►•V
W. .�, , OFFICE OF ROAD COMMISSIONER 6 COUNTY SURYE-YOR
R/1'ERSID+I.,•
ROAD PLANNING DIVISION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING SECTION
CNMT♦ a0r1/11/T,1 Wrive CtMT[¢
LaRoy D. $mom :&#LIMO ■oORs/,, r.0. molt Ns0
WAD COMAUS510"ItACOU"Tyil1 "Y" w1v[+111109. CaL1ro"041•9i08
ttL.90"0649
1,1 1 98440
February 24, 1
(February 1. 1988
Rescinded)
TO: Roger Streeter. Planning Director
ATTN: Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner -Specific Plans
RE: Specific Plan No. 218 - Rancho La Ouinta
The Road Department has reviewed the above referenced
concur with the analysis relativg•to
proposal. We generally
traffic and circulation, however, we are concerned about the
projected impacts of this project when analyzed cumulatively with
other development proposed in the area. The plan indicates
substantial imp-ovement of the area circulation system is needed.
The traffic study clear!y shows that even with the proposed
improvement, traffic impacts may not be acceptably mitigated.
Assuming that adequate mitigation can be provided, the Road
Department recommends the following conditions of approval in
addition to any measures which may be needed to address
cumulative impacts.
1PONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1,
All road improvements within the project boundaries
shall be constructed to ultimate County Standards in
accordance with Ordinance No. 460 and 461 as a
requirement of the implertenting subdivisions for the
Specific Plan. subject to approval by the Road
Commissioner.
2. The project proponent small participate in the Traffic
Signal Mitigation Program as approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
3. Any landscaping within public road rights of Nov will
require approval by the Road Commissioner and assurance
of continuing maintenance through the establishment of
a landscape maintenance district or similar mechanism
as approved by the Road Commissioner.
4. The Comprehensive General Plan specificize a network of bike
trails. This project shall include bike trails. All bike
Planning Director
Rancho La Quinta SP 218
February 24+ 1988 (February 1. 1488 -Rescinded)
Page 2
lanes or paths proposed within publicly maintained R/W snail
be approved by the Road Commissioner. Class I Bike To -ails
(outstde R/W) are preferred.
5. All proposed road improvements shall be completed prior to
the issuance of permits for the construction of Phase II o�
the project.
C PO shall be in accordance with
6. The number of access P roved by the Road Commissioner.
County Standard and app
Access points .,shall be provided for future connectivity to
abutting prc)perties.
has expressed c�oncei n5 . relative to cumulative
7, CalTrans need to implement demand management
impacts and the ment of additional
strategies or provide for the development
that Caltrans is
highway corridors. It is our understanding that
to address
t•equestirlg a studv Of new highway anticipate in said
increasing demand. This projeGt shall P
study in a manner as Prescribed by CalTrans.
John Johnson
Associate Planner
JJ:
r1i ATER lSTASL1SIlED p/ IYl• AS A PJOLIC Nur
r
`'18 T fat I COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT .
rosT oFFlce sox ion • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 9?238 • naP++a+E Aga 39&MI
oFnCERs
THOU"E LEVYDr*CTORS.GENSM IAAK04Eli-CHfM
IEF ENNEER
PAYE OND R �. PPS lER�E SLI4TQN_ S£+ TRiiY
it" CODEKA& VICE PFIVUDW yg4v4o IT'H,AS&VANT OEW PAL WANA6ER
RiE AND TiF4ERR0.I, ATiOFOFY'S
THEODORE J. MM
January 28, 1988
Pik l �� 2
5.
FEB 1 1988
Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Riverside County Planning. Department PLANNING DEPARTMENT
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
Dear Mr. Goldman:
Subject: Draft EIR No. 232, Rancho La Quints
specific Plan No. 218
We have reviewed subject plan and offer the following cammcuts:
f
1. Page 7-4: The plan does not address the impacts that the project will have
on local groundwater supplies. Water demand is discussed and the Coachella
Valley Water District's (District) physical facilities. however, prior to
serving water. the impacts upon groundwater sources must be considered. The
project should recognize the District's Water Conservation plans and water
supply recharge activities that are being developed to provide source supplies
to the project.
A. Specifically, the project shall utilize the existing Coachella Canal
for golf course and co=on area irrigation in order to mitigate impacts to
groundwater.
B. Landscape and irrigation plans for both the golf course and common
area shall be submitted to the District for a water conservation analyses
and review.
C. The draft should mention that preconetruction conferences shall be
coordinated with the District's Water Management Specialist in order to
maximize water conservation efforts.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Aon Goldman, Supervising Planner -2- January 28, 1988
D. Additionally, the draft should mention that a continuing effort toward
emphasizing water conservation and irrigation efficiency shall include
using the District's Nater Management Specialist.
If you have any questions please contact Warren Ponied, Vater Resources
Engineer.
VAN:lmf
c�
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
PLzanicg & W� Ofee
46-209 Oasis Sheet, Suite 405
Indio, CA 92201
(619) 342-886
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FO(
AND FIRE PROTECTION
RAY HEBRARD
FIRE CHTFP
September 9, 1988
9/12/88
Note: FAX sent 9/12/88
2:00 p.m.
Its,
Mr. Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner 4 '_"
Riverside County Planning Department''..:,
4080 Lemon Street, Ninth Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: Specific Plan 218 r QTY
Rancho La Quinta
.�.�•.;, !:�-:=r:r� � '•rim
Dear Mr. Goldman:
With respect to the review and/or approval of the above referenced document, the
proposed project will have a cumulative adverse impact on the Department's ability
to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are due to the increased
number of emergency or public service calls generated by additional buildings
and human population.
A portion of the impacts associated with capitol improvements or rine-time costs
such as land, buildings and equipment can be mitigated by developer participation
in the fire protection' impact mitigation program. However, the annual costs
necessary for an increased level of service may only be partially off -set by the
additional county structure tax and could require an increase in the Fire Department's
annual operating budget.
Fire protection impacts can be mitigated by use of the impact mitigation program
and an increase in the Fire Department's budget. Therefore, the Fire Department
recommends the approval of the Specific Plan subject to the following conditions
and/or mitigations:
1. All water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire flows shall be constructer
in accordance with the appropriate sections of Riverside County Ordinance
No. 460 and/or No. 546, subject to the approval by the Riverside County Fire
Department.
2. The project proponents shall participate in the fire protection impact mitigation
program as adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.
3. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing material as
described in Section 3203 of the Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles
or shakes shall have a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the Fire
Department prior to installation.
r 4. Flag access strips shall not be allowed in residential areas.
Mr. Ron Goldman, Sup. Planner 9/9/88
Riverside, CA Page 2.
5. Highways constructed with raised medians shall provide median cuts designed
for use by emergency vehicles spaced at intervals of 660 feet.
6. Preliminary studies of fire station response times indicate a fire station
site will be required either in or adjacent to the southeast portion of this
project. To allow an option until the study is complete, the Fire Department
requests the identification of a minimum 1.25 acre site with not less than
225 foot street frontage for use as a fire station. Once the study is completed
the Fire Department will either enter into negotiations to purchase the site
or will notify the owner it is not needed.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Department Planning S Engineering Staff.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
f Fire De rt�aent Planner
By
ennis D. Dawson
Deputy Fire Marshal
( to
-- RIVERSIDE COUNTY
e•w- 1=1 FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN CoopERATtON WrrH THE
i_jip
CAUFORNIADEPARTMENTOFFORESTRY
RAY HEBRARD
FIRE CHIEF
L
February 25, 1988
TO: PLANNING DEPAFMUW
AM: SPECIFIC PW TEAR I
RE: SPECIFIC PLAN 218
RANCHO Ia1 QUINTA
Pkaniag & EeK nftd [ office
4060 Leawn Street. Suite 11
Rhentde. CA 92501
(714) 7676606
The Fire Department staff bas reviewed the specific plan document, however, is
unable to prepare a response dere to insufficient text material. We recomend
additional information be provided for the following items:
1. Road circulation and access to the site.
2. Existing public facilities (fire stations) and distance to project.
3. Fiscal analysis of county costs for services.
4. Revenue generation to off -set cost of providing fire protection.
5. Additional information about tract configuration and internal circulation.
Ali questions regarding the meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the
Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
4DIs-L&Jim, Planning fficer
C
C
County Admbsistrative Office
July 11, 1988
Mr. Ron Goldman
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California, 92501
Subject: Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan - No. 218, Revised
Dear Mr. Goldman;
The following summarizes our fundings regarding the fiscal
Impact analysis for the project identified above. The appendix
attached summarizes the basic assumptions used in analysis. Please
note that these results reflect the current levels of service
provided by the County based on Fiscal Year 86-87 actual costs (per
capita factors) and Departmental and Auditor -Controller review of
operations and facility costs for services reviewed using case
study analysis. Staff to the Growth Fiscal Impact Task Force and
Departments are currently reviewing service levels provided and the
need to increase the levels of service. Current findings are that
existing levels of service are not adequate in most cases. should
the desired level of service be incorporated to the fiscal analysis
performed, it would significantly increase the casts associated
with this development.
COUNTY FUND
(Operations and
Maintenance)
Co. General
Structural Fire
Free Library
SUBTOTAL COUNTY
Road Fund
FISCAL IMPACT
AFTER BUILDOUT
($1,675,163)
($ 475,881)
($ 102,131)
($2,253,175)
($ 42,398)
CUMULATIVE FISCAL
IMPACT AT BUILDOUT
($17,046,404)
($ 5,126,931)
($ 1,084,017)
($23,257,352)
($ 550,239)
GRAND TOTAL ($2,295,573) ($23,807,592)
Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center
nnQn T rurn+.i c mrr-r . 19rrN P1 rV )R . PTvFRCInF r'AI IFORNIA 92501 • (714) 787-2544
Mr. Ron Goldman Page 2
July 11, 1988
The following CAPITAL FACILITY needs were identified:
FACILITY FUNDING SOURCE
1. Library (See Note Two)
2. Fire (See Note Two)
3. Flood Control (See Note Four)
4. Parks (See Note Five)
The following special circumstances apply to this project:
1. This project is within County Redevelopment Project Area no. 4.
As a result, property taxes normally accruing to the County General
Bund, Structural Fire Fund and Free Library Fund for annual
operations and maintenance costs will be generated to the
Redevelopment Agency instead. Therefore, this project is projected
to result in a significant negative impact to those funds, as
summarized on page one.
2. Library Staff has identified a significant impact on their
ability to provide service as a result of this project. Impacts and
suggested mitigation measures are identified in the attached letter
dated December 23, 1987.
The Redevelopment Plan for this area includes funding for
County Library facility needs from a portion of the tax increment
Creceived. If the project proponent's estimates of property value
increases from this project are correct, the project should provide
an approximate total of $1,434,000 (cumulative at buildout) for
library construction projects within the Redevelopment Project
Area.
Fire facility construction projects will also receive a
portion of the tax increment financing from the project, estimated
to be approximately $3,074,000 cumulative at buildout. In both
cases noted, these funds cannot be used for annual operations and
maintenance of facilities.
3. Using..the project proponent's estimates of the property value
increases from this project, it is estimated that the project would
result in the following revenues to the County Redevelopment Agency
at buildout:
Annual Revenues at Buildout: $ 3,683,000
Cumulative Revenues at Buildout: $40,978,000
These revenues include the amounts identified as accruing to Fire
and Library facility construction within the Redevelopment Project
Area in item 2, above. These revenues are not available for County
annual operations and maintenance costs to provide services which
will be needed for this project.
4. This project is within the Coachella Valley Water District,
which will be responsible for flood control facilities needed for
the project. A pass through arrangement was made with the District
Mr. Ron Goldman
July 11, 1988
Page 3
whereby 6.85% of the tax revenue generated will accrue to the
District. This pass-through arrangement provides the District with
100% of the tax revenue they would receive if the area were not a
redevelopment project. Using the estimates of value provided by the
project proponent, this should equate to approximately $350,000 per
year at project buildout. Information was not provided indicating
the cost of facility construction or annual maintenance costs,
therefore it is not possible to comment on the fiscal effects of
this project on the flood control function.
a. This project is within the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation
District. The Parks District also has a 100% negotiated pass-
through of 1.9% of the tax increment generated. This should provide
approximately $98,000 per year to the District at project buildout.
With the information provided, it is not apparent whether this
will be adequate to fund the District's needs to serve this
project.
Review By . /• 7.-
T1
FISCAL 1116 '011"LAIE@ RESIDC74TIfIL INR NE -r OUNiY GOS1 nnu LU _�( v@w • .��.cnvc
IIODIFIEU )FI7 'f0 ASSESS PER CAR TA ANO RSE S IUDY DL•F:114LLt Or 1 (111.0 I N11E5
n5 CURRENTLY Cr." GRATEDI TOTAL PER TA REVENUES 4
TOTAL PER CAPI?A UpE11D2-rueES ib9. a PROtECTt RfWW10 LA W114TA - SP NO 21x0 F:6V1__0
ENTER THE FOLLOIJING DATA@ SALES Tnx/INC Es fI11A•IL DnTA I
BGGIIMING YCnR 1909 X DOtJNPAY11EW 15.00.:
COIIPLETION VL(IR t010 MRI REAEIL 11 •Ob•:
1Nf LA BI ON •.00X IAj)jRnSSOCI LIVES Is '
VEPSONS/IIOUSEHOLD 6.69 Y. INS/IISNG SS3.OMr:'
X PLHIn UNI IS 0.00% X Trlx SALES t2.1v:t
X TU COON rY 0.095:1.
nH IIAGE INCR O •ON
NOOITES PRICE REQUIRED CUI1UUAESVE VROPEERft11RV;RET11iLU5 F.
REMILAS tFE• REI@m11L SF• Cu1r LiFIIIL LANES 111 LES Line: RULES IIOTAWE 00"S 140
1989 257 114.023 33,19• L57 1.621:639 • 0 0 6 4.65 4.65
1990 257 11 ,023 33,190 514 6.381.•647 76.360 76.3£0 0 1i9 7.05
1991 257 112,023 33.190 771 0 7 ;4
1992 257 11 ,023 33,170 1.OgLg8 0 T4.3ze 0 0 ��= SS.96 0
1994 663 11.01 63s3.64 10350 16,'70/0107 101,27 17/.591 0 9 4.06 13.04 0
1995 65 lit.113 '33.616 1,115 0 177.59? O 0 O•t5 13 •129 0
1996 69 112.321 33.278 1,404 0 0 177.597 0 • C6 13. 3
1997 69 112.511 33.334 1.533 e 0 177,597 0 0 R•t6 13. 1 e
1998 69 112.685 33,386 1.626 0 0 177,597 0 e 0•t6 14. 7 0
1999 411 110.624 32.657 1.033 9,961.736 91.476 269.075 0 6 1.57 15.64 •
2600 411 108.570 32.173 1,444 0 0 269.073 0 e 1•t3 16.07 •
2601 411 107,427 31.020 6,(155 0 0 269 OIs 0 • 1-t5 18.1 O
2602 411 106.557 31.570 3.266 0 0 26').073 0 • 1.63 19.35 0
2001 411 1x5.001 31,370 677 0 0 269.073 0 0 1.1 01.3•6 ¢Op
'004 108 106.221 31.47 .193 14.175,4)6 112.167 381.140 0 ! 1.4z =t�=7 O
2003 108 106.544 31.56665 1.893 0 0 SOl.t4• oQ
2801 100 187.13 31.71 108 106.*40 31 411 4 x09 0 0 391.1140 0 • •:45 63.1 •
2608 110 107.244 31.773 4.219 0 0 381.240 • • 0.45 63.6
1909 1990 1991 1796 1993 1994 1977 1996 1997 190 1999
OE110GRAF411cS - DIRECT
TOTAL POPULATION 691.3 1382.7 1074•0 976J.3 3456.7 3631.5 3806.3 39".0 4177.6 4363•t 7460.0
GCIIERFIL GOVERNNEF17 )- DIRECT 7799 �j • s s ��7� 7
CEL Inn UfnSL 0000) S 21 14323 1;343 11423 114313 131319 13131 131310 131319 131314 X4 75
RCIIEMUES
PROPLRTV Tnx 42707 41"7 44787 442707 4276 42707 4 16707 # Ts7 412 7
O I HE1 7AxL5 618• 1336} 10341 L4 J5 3097 3.:421 S 6129 3� 57347 307 417TP
1
1NIERGOVI 9077} 41349 6LSL3 8311 1030 2 1891 7 1 4381 11 SJR 153347 131117 144331
IC.N U 511447 'fAx !■ r S 141 3 = 41 •30L0 ■■1 ••
1cIII SC i_ 4 543 s 7 # '� 9• {� 5 4� 7614 7001 R 73 Ore.
44 6
DIRECTRHr1LE5n TAX 91584 91384 91' 4 9 02 91.31 6 t 3110 213110 E1311� t1311� 312 �I)
TRANS OCCUP Inx 0 0 0 0 �i�eeeeee ss
SUOTOfAL 113013 2441'99 101939 346332 369339 401377 4!0153 301609 511760 59304• 730343
EXPENDITURES
GENLRf%L GVVT 20491 40905 61473 0Ei6# 101433 107638 114860 110321 1130!3 199363 169094
PUBLIC PROTECT. 68634 136436 1104?$3 27 937 3411271 356449 '37'5607 14486 422516 430646 5'9?60
I9479
IL'III/SANT I All ON 11363 11 21 1 " 9 4x1334 Sl ' 34X43 6 R 69320 g 07 6b039 a 4f
IJIlYS/I AC1LI IlL'S 10460 111 gqj�pp ® SS
SIIEKII'F 5_394 1.7057se 656159 16183 t113178 969443 683366 9'P 89' 31= �5 3t5317& 34499459 1L+G+S�jts2
rFIRE LiHI11�fILYGONTROLN 1444 140!1 19339 145396 130.#3z 13 S..57 134912 136641 1}g350 1.003; rOZ03
'*7113 1iGtt8 11847 13466 1416[ 1477'9 13435 19347
SUBTOTAL t03880 443971 629830 035730 1041610 1109005 1161)36 19171231 1276506 1327101 1671664
x@rRBHFawl xIIxa" IIsw-t.awM&Rx-aaM*»*:wa6axzawxI>rxxrr:xa•a;ar=XVaI@sI@xA1W*1110*10arsar***W-* M****A**SRM`ra9r0as6666""@I09a411t9
1•RO3•EC7 YEAR 1909 1990 1991 1991 1793 1994 1993 1996 1997 199)6 1999
GL•IIERAL FUND • �.� ��} 7 gg 31 6 s 4 4 s� 1 ? ii'' 1111
Cxran�ililur-a 173.# ] '347.667 3L1.54A 613.!133 (69.143 4113.1 SL 957.9!9 1.•93.7`! 1.036.419 1.0!4.111 1.3!3.1•!
ualanea <6 ,134y g+7`.1 4� < 0 . 41 <440,"95 < 7 , C911•i9ayy <J46.706> 4'372,370)
Gurw.latia•a Cralanea <69,154> 0101.4359 0439,17•) <O•i.1543 <1.313.�t39 C1.755.695> <t.231,'l'Jl> <t, • 45} C3. 09.'r30> C3.e 1.1 0 C4, 1'!, )
II:UC'IUF.nL FIFE FUND 7
Raver" u 7.014 7.017 7.017 7.017 7,017 ,014 7.817 ?.017 0.217 6.3ij
CxI•er,Jatur o 25.70 .61:601117 09.311 115.011 140.711 163.416 16 .91 1776,016 103.711 194. 16 1146.
Ual.ncc <18.603) <56.594> 609.994) t]�07.994> 337.694) C136.390> 0765.0903 C169.79D> <176.6903 C303.590� Ct�9, ��
Currulali@•a DalanCa !10.68 ) C/5.271) (137.5'71) < 65.565) < 9 0Z5» C353.650> 1 .356 J10.lSS> 01.063.033 C1.248.G39 CS O4 7,
r'REE LI8? MY FUND
Ravenna 2.054 034 11.054 6.054 11.054 2.054 1.354 it 2,(r71 2.034 L.�
CxI•enditure 6.346 11.693 19.03•) 15. 3.6 31.732 33.337 34. 41 36,644 30.333• 40.034 ,
Blanca C40 93) (10.639) C16.9B5)) 023.33 ) (t9,``778> 12311.683) <3ii.ss••�> <34. ) 436,t96> (38.0418) (`40.1
Cura0ll.tiva Ualanca (40193) <14.93t> <31.?17) (35.1245) COZAD> C11i.211> 0149.099) 0103.993) 0919.900) <257.900> 070101 0>
. - ._ ._._ 11 ..._o ...♦ tYIO./0f1% <+"a.f4`> C063.91P61) 09311.10t> '
�E
i5
0
A
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
€081
ZOO€
L603
1944
lois
2106
1007
t0 GS
7679.9
4703.3
9991.1
10101.6
1047t•t
10764.7
11053.2
11349.1
•4
13
313895
3596;0
4032:7
414?[
414679
3344/
4€6146
53.14?
437716
53447
449€96
33.147
461093
33447
�t
4127€
41Z t
4Z797
4Z797
43riLI
7
9628
4Z797
9w. 16
491461
68639
130702
741343
t64o05
994€7
t97tt8
91024
395959
31.1609
SZ34L99
35Z14g
341071
G0
146413
167633
177tS7`i
14
13 9
1314$
67
1 14
33
•7
150175
721
739TS
793€=
45,'•196
45
437.44
1
444«
57
45 .0488
45'149:
88
5€Z808.48
SZZ$06
31194
A
9
933111
1119277
3133437
1132330
1169939
4197639
Z4
867P7€
64
A67133
4990306
19'1929
103-1443
lOd.tt07$
17 17
090•)3':
7
11201379
TSpv11
152923
9rr6Z'S3
14
13IN48
13011424
16L83'�3
16T.
14171[
D0
46
4106+498
6.69
8139€
633
�S►►uu�6A5
1'54"11
lll►+'F•14C1
1714:.
1A1304
4"39$1'5
1A 0.:-61
661eL
1131,31 38
0 Tl
77
5:•7^66
3t853Z
685336
36965€
7:18915
410731
794474
439490
450€90
461'+78
�S06Q�
471898
15!
4
'•101"9
SL
31400
r4�99t
34019
S�OAI
4S
.S8
•lt
€0164
[350159
Z6594t7
2960654
309311• 3179636
rn r r4 wr
3[66153 335t471 3440791
r0 M r3 sr r-r+c ■r4iwx-r x r -:r -r Wri rar x r R-29 raw
• x rrtrra�Z33 a r r ri-r rwax r rxalfw�ww++faawraa�
/Ew•rar rer
r ra s
toot
1903
1004
[003
to06
too:
toss
X00
tool
410
058,658
9g,99
909.3 Z
t.44t7.139Z9�
1.110.164
1.116.124
1.14 .44--4
Z.l`OU,'13
11. 6f.7t6
4.7/9.304
1.179.345
4.6833.707
00
11.931.106
CIE o164
CJ. s3.•ti7>
1t.36y0.1St 32.6.33.2033
C9.63t.766><1i.641.7Si>Clt.1 9.�3.1'CIS."*2.663>C15
31:.341>CA7.046.{oiy
:o l}
CG.A•71�.•i�l>
X17
7.b17
7.017
7.917
7.017
439.490
7.017
459.€10
7.917
461.099
7.017
471.090
7.917
44ۥ899
52
t35>
328.532
569.634
410.731
>
6>
73P.0
1
e464,0191>0>
N5>
CIPSI ff1>
<31:6.931>
C2.OII7.'7�G>
!€.452.370)
32
tom+
2.05.1
4.054
[.034
1.454
93.464
[•054
96.133
t.654
9 . 3
[.454
101 .4•.ss4
4.453
1i4.SY
�y5
70.501
80.651
90.0 1
<901.640> �6>
C1�93G.017>
iR9>
!•i�t.A05>
<313.40t>
0003.449)
(611.643)
<7BS.AtS>
(9�L.•7171>
- _
_ .. _ ...
.� ... ..w♦
♦. -. •0 .0941
w
31 (6 454.31
443.2
447100
4.114 49010 64
'tf0
4)
3.77
.er416
�iture 16851
153131
24876
t80II1
nca (0.547)
C1A,341)
C1t.816>
414.468) 414.119) <23.407>
6t•231> <03.637>
(13.436;
<10?•S13
tt4•.F2'k."�
<133••35
Ct4.71t9> (15.154)
<130.6Z4> <103.080>
Ctes,•74)
CU. 1+'s34>
C30.2f
CZ42.t3
tativa 8alanca (8,347)
<10:94•
C31 o664>
`46.131)
lRLtlr.rw (150.456)
'TO'fAL1ra<
C190.Li3)
<36•+651))
C631.3LL>
CSL1.9••> <688.t33> (631.718)
C1.17S.t38> (!,•61.463) <t.513.t 1>
<695.6")
(3+298.919)
94 •MB
<3. 0. L6
Cj784.3% CA11.23t>
t4. 33.3 C3,3 1,610)
(961.136)
C6.St .8.4)
<l'.ttfl.71
t .751.55
Ln71UE (100.456)
C REDEV REV 123.351
10 TIRE 18,556
(298.671)
43 .•70
3 .r14
643.492
Sjj 47S
BL;.}>14 1.01.5$ 1.144.t�63
6 , 3 • • 1.7499
S.Lls.74
1 .6 I��
1.14.7
1 • 1
1.389.440 1.311,179
598.533 1 c. 34
31.336 3. 08
1.71=.�51
147.243
i
1.114.
163.6!
74.z!
lU LIDf:ARV S.
1•.026
85.113
32,411 3 .610 45.636
47.4
4 •3
.014
REDEU 159,619
314.41••
?11.108
41'8,164 1.134.544 1.396.649
3.331.31• 4.838,167
111x)t1►r1tr0wrrIrir>t•arrtlwril>tx�siaKrasw
4.57•.811
6.216.979
11♦4a4• �
7,634.17
y,4s !•437 11 ,311
9.101.124 1•�6�.436
3.#t1,M1
18,�547.'rt7
t.t4l+3:
14,708.21
11UE REDEV 230.G10
■ LOr•a DEV saa:w•xaarar•IF>rtlaww117661>taa((rwwalaa�t:0rxi►1(1rwtr+sr.a��1�raIl+rxa
764."TLO 1+4$8,9?8 t.ii.7.174
a�+FilfwaFw+Fa�twwt+rrtra4sawrttwr�a+rs�swuss��s
GUVt:RNftEM'r un111 r
LIDPARY 0 f. ff/FACIL1 fY iCOST M PROTECT DUILDOU'f rOR CURIt[NT
ANO LIf1RARY REQUESTED SERVICE LEVELS
nulin REVEFIUES
nL TnXES
ER GOVT AID
0.94
30.03
•
,
O CURRENT I�RVICE LEVEL
Library Pace 9 *"7.031
4 L.IBRFRY REQUESTED SERVICE LEVEL
n�1two" 1'-�P+ee r Ops
ES TnX
C
46.93
Val :nosf 12t6,SJA
let al Cwri t al Coast s f a544,4ti
i
Tota Ca�ltal Cestst
Crst spa. D.U. r
1395
01.813 Ail
fes!
nmin EXPENDITURES
est Per D.U.1 11 L9
LF71L GOV I
LIG PRO'1ECTION
t 64
7
Annual O f. It *204,105
A1x1ua1 O S. h 1
!214.41=
LTf1 nNu SAt11113110N
C1 C nSSi Sl (INCE
16.44
13 -37
AVG RoQII Or-UPRNCY RRTE I
0 • `mss
9 1
TA)UMUM SALES/S.F• COMM
lt•
LOCnL GOVERNMEN7 DATA
EVELOI`ftEM'f nGLfICV III LLAGE
6.17 9
nRmnL. CONMEPUTY 1
5+1860
FIRE WYAS. Oon/Iltor
DU Ff 2 S)'f1TION r
RM L Os:! IIRE STfl'TION:
•• 6
31 0
310000
ESSIIEMI RATIO
UU11JI /10 0 POPULATIONf
L 6ItnR COST/Cnt°17A1
0.15
9.18
tfNNUAL FIR C0.'7 bur
lip .00
SI
110DELL CONSTRNTS
•
M fiD CQS 1 lLAin1C iti E 1
S4y 4
RM11 M 01" R •O9 t
Ai1N• G05TfC11 RL Off iI ER t
• . •3
74731
E110DEb L:
01= SnLI: FACTOP.
•
ROnu I:UfIL RLM/LANE IIILE t
1GY9
74
433060 16 71631 715ii1 �7�`.f09 79136 it0� OLL9L
L32,490> C34,697> C36.903> 039+16 C39.47S> C4 �t> C4 •3391r> C4L•390p
:74,725> <349,4=> <346.327> <303.494> <4L5.46�> <466.195B <58 41> <5501t39>
04,919> C1,761.036> Ct,017.0960 .••13.031)) (2.&04,416) C •134.{{41> Ct.tt44.464> CL.tt93.37 )
'47.516> 011 .048.331> C13.A33.647> (13.048.698) <17.133.114> C13.Lf7.'!S4> CL1 .51L•019> M,807.59
'_78,049 1,557.333 &.834.6*5 2.903.17 9 3.039,0999 3,13C,698 3.106.44697 3.1471.734
189.292 10v.L46 Z35:574 9!49:
117.• = 119.908 1tZ.773 1=5.636 128.635
156,399 1,070,085 3+101.379 3+330,f4T 3.4ss 1L 3.+1�.fls 3.39 +636 s WS.O77
X44,892 20,214.965 t3,596,544 t6.747s391 30,10. 803 35.%96 41a 37, L95 OSt 4i�?78,,1L
. 11411 IFi ##!•�MR R R 11-1 R M N# RNirRM# 1FNNR�NMK'#•�1####.fM# R M�FRN N# [ R N -R [ % N N N RiFR�R#�N R Ntl•■## R•N# R•R R M N 1FMK1►[ R RM
PART 3
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE ORDINANCE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
caie�tnx eueies
CXXWrr c
SUM wn
:3M110TH SIMET
#UWASUrx, CALSIORMA
ORDINANCE NO. 348.2932
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNT' OF RIVERSIDE
NDING ORDINANCE O. 348 RELATING TO ZONING
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside
Ordains as Follows:
Section 1. Section 4.41 of Ordinance No. 348, and Lower
Coachella Valley Plan Map No. 41, as amended, are further amended
by placing in effect the zone or zones as shown on the map
entitled '"Change of Official Zoning Plan, Lower Coachella Valley
District, Map No. 41.028, Change of Zone Case No. 5134.0 which
map is made a part of this ordinance.
Section 2. Article RVIIa of Ordinance No. 348 is amended
by adding thereto a new Section 17.50 to read as follows:
SECTION 17.50. SP ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 218. -
a. Planning Area 1.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 1 of
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
permitted in Article IRb, Section 9.50 of Ordinance No.
348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under
Section 9.50(a) shall also include business machine sales
and service; medical appliance and supply sales; office
furniture and equipment sales; pharmacies; and lumber
yards and construction materials sales. Furthermore, the
permitted uses identified under Section 9.50(b) shall
also include bars and cocktail lounges: health and
exercise centers; day care centers; congregate care
-1-
residential facilities and active senior citizen
1
facilities; and private clubs, fraternal organizations or
2
lodges.
3
(2) The development standards for Planning-Area 1
4
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
5
standards identified in Article IRb. Section 9.53 of
6
Ordinance No. 348.
7
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
8
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
9
identified in Article IRb of Ordinance No. 348.
10
b. Planning Area 2.
11
-- -
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 2 of
12
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
13
permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance
14
(
No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified
15
under Section 8.100(a) shall also include public parks.
16
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 2
17
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
18
standards identified in Article VIIIe, Section 8.101 of
19
Ordinance No. 348.
20
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
21
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
22
identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 348.
23
C. planning Area 3.
24
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 3 of
25
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
26
permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance
27
No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified
28
couMY COU"M
— 2 —
SVrM 300
3M - Sam STRZV
RNERSWE. CALW<W"A
• under Section 8 100(a) shall also include public parks.
1
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 3
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
3
standards identified in Article VIIIe. Section 8.101 of
Ordinance No. 348.
h
(3) Except as provided above. all other zoning
6
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
7.
identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 348.
. £3
d. Planning Area 4.
9
_ .—.
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 4 of
10
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
11
permitted in Article VIIle. Section 8.100 of Ordinance
12
No. 348. In addition. the permitted uses identified
13
under Section 8.100(a) shall also include public parks.
14
r�.
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 4
15
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
16
standards identified in Article Ville. Section 8.101 of
17
Ordinance No. 348.
18
(3) Except as provided above. all other zoning
19
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
20
identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 348.
21
e. Planning Area 5.
22
23
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 5 of
24
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
permitted in Article VIIIe. Section 8.100 of Ordinance
25
26
No. 348. In addition. the permitted uses identified
under Section 8.100(a) shall also include public parks.
27
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 5
q 28
r.0L4La J- CSI
COUKW COUNSU
—3—
SUM ono
3u - IM $Meir
Sunt 900
3533•10TH STREET
RT/ERSIUE. CALWOR A
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
1
i
standards identified in Article VIIIe. Section 8.10-1 of
P.
Ordinance No. 348.
3
(3) Except as provided above. all other zoning
4
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
5
identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 346.
6
f. LLanning Area 6.
7
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 6 of
B
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
9
permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance
10
No. 346. In addition, the permitted uses identified
11
under Section 8.100(a) shall also include undeveloped
12
open space; hiking and equestrian trails and facilities;
13
arboretums; and apiaries. Furthermore, the permitted uses
14
€
identified under Section 8.100(b) shall also include
15
resort hotels.
16
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 6
17
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
18
standards identified in Article VIIIe, Section 6.101 of
19
Ordinance No. 348.
20
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
21
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
22
identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 346.
23
q. Planning_Area 7.
24
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 7 of
25
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
26
permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance
27
-
No. 348. In addition, the permitted uses identified
28
cram J. 011EY IMA
cOWrw COUNSEL
—4—
Sunt 900
3533•10TH STREET
RT/ERSIUE. CALWOR A
under Section 8.100(x) shall also include undeveloped
1
open space; hiking and equestrian trails and facilities;
�..
arboretums; and apiaries. Furthermore, the persitted uses
3
identified under Section 8.100(b) shall also include
4
resort hotels.
5
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 7
6
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
7
standards identified in Article VIIIe, Section 8.101 of
8
Ordinance No. 348.
9
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
10
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
11
identified in Article VIIIe of Ordinance No. 348.
12
h. Planning Area 8.
13
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 8 of
14
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those uses
15
permitted in Article VIIIe, Section 8.100 of Ordinance
16
- -
No. 348.
17
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 8
18
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
19
standards identified in Article VIIIe, Section 8.101 of
20
Ordinance No. 348.
21
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
22
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
23
identified in Article VII1e of ordinance No. 348.
24
1. planning Area 9.
25
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 9 of
26
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same uses as those
27
(
permitted in Article VII, Section 7.1 of Ordinance No.
28
GERAW x C.EER1JW.6
COWN COUNSM
- 5 -
SUM M
W35' WM STREET
RiVERSOE. CAUFORM
348. In addition. the permitted uses identified under
1
Section 7.1(b) shall also include Christmas tree and
Halloween pumpkin sales.
3
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 9
4
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
5
standards identified in Article VII of Ordinance No. 348
6
except that the development standards set forth in
Article VII. Sections 7.2 through 7.10 shall be deleted
8
and replaced by the following:
9
A. The following development standards shall
10
apply for single family detached dwelling
11
-.
development. except that planned residential
12
developments shall comply with the development
13
standards contained in Section 16.5 of Ordinance
14
�
No. 348:
t.. 15
-
(aa) Building height shall not exceed
16
three (3) stories. with a maximum height of
17
thirty-five feet (356).
18
(bb) Lot area shall be not less than four
19
thousand (4.000) square feet. The minimum lot
20
area shall be determined by excluding that
21
portion of a lot that is used solely for
22
access to the portion of a lot used as a
23
building site.
24
(cc) The minimum average width of that
25
portion of a lot to be used as a building site
26
shall be forty-five feet (451) with a minimum
27
average depth of ninety feet (901). That
28
moon,. GEERnUNGS
— 6 —
COLWrY COUNSEL
SUM Soo
MW • to" SMEEr
OUVERSUX. CALIFORNIA
.r
portion of a lot used for access on "flag"
1
lots shall have a minimum width of twenty feet
2
(20').
3
(dd) The minimum frontage of a lot shall
4
be sixty feet (60'), except that lots fronting
5
on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum
6
frontage of thirty feet (301).
7'
(ee) The front yard shall be not less
8
than twenty feet (201) measured from the
9
existing street line or from any future street
10
line as shown on any Specific Plan of
11
Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed
12
structure.
13
(ff) Side yards on interior and through
14
[
lots shall be not less than five feet (51).
15
Side yards on corner and -reversed corner lots
16
shall be not less than fifteen feet (151 ) from
17
the existing street line or from any future
18
street line as shown on any Specific Plan of
19
highways, whichever is nearer the proposed
20
structure, upon which the main building sides.
21
except that where the lot is less than fifty
22
feet (501) wide, the yard need not exceed
23
twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot.
24
(qq) The rear yard shall be not less than
25
ten feet (101).
26
(hh) In no case shall more than sixty
27
percent (60%) of any lot be covered by
28
buildings.
cMUD J. GEERU"GS
CDLWWCOLVML
SUM 3W
-7-
7-
3M - IM STREET
3M
RIVERSIDE. C LLWORNIA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2?
2E
ON" J. CEERUWA
COUNTY COUMM
SUM Soo
XX • TOT H STREET
RNEPM E. CALFORM A
(ii) Automobile storage space shall be
provided as required by Section 18.12 Qf-
Ordinance No. 348.
B. The following development standards shall
apply for zero -lot line patio home development,
except that planned residential developments shall
comply with the development standards contained in
Section 16.5 of Ordinance No. 348:
(aa) Building height shall not exceed
three (3) stories, with a maximum height of
thirty-five feet (351).
(bb) Lot area shall be not less than four
thousand (4,000) square feet. The minimum lot
area shall be determined by excluding that
portion of a lot that is used solely for
access to the portion of a lot used- as a
building site.
(cc) The minimum average width of that
portion of a lot to be used as a building site
shall be forty-five feet (451) with a minimum
average depth of ninety feet (901). That
portion of a lot used for access on "flag"
lots shall have a minimum width of twenty feet
(20').
(dd) The minimum frontage of a lot shall
be sixty feet (601), except that lots fronting
on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum
frontage of thirty feet (301).
-e-
(ee) The front yard shall be not less
1
than twenty feet (201) measured from the
l 2
existing street line or from any future street
3
line as shown on any Specific Plan of
4
Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed
5
structure.
6
(ff) where a zero-lot line design is
7
utilized, the alternate side yard on interior
8
and through lots may not be less than ten feet
9
(101). Side yards on corner and reversed
10
corner lots shall be not less than fifteen
11
feet (151) from the existing street line or
12
from any future street line as shown on any
13
Specific Plan of highways, whichever is nearer
14
the proposed structure, upon which the main
C. 15
building sides, except that where the lot is
16
less than fif ty f eet (50') wide, the yard need
17
not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the width
18
of the lot.
19
(gg) The rear yard shall be not less .than
20
ten feet (101). - �•'
21
(hh) In no case shall more than
22
seventy-five percent (75%) of any lot be
23
covered by buildings.
241
(ii) Automobile storage space shall be
25
provided as required by Section 18.12 of
26
Ordinance No. 348.
27
4
C. The following development standards shall
28
GERAW J. sEERUWWS
COU rY COUNSEL
SURE Zoo
10VERSUN. CALF-ORNU►
r
apply for duplex, triplex and fourplex development,
1
except that planned residential developments shall
r 2
-
comply with the development standards contained in
3
Section 18.5 of Ordinance No. 348:
4
(aa) Building height shall not exceed
5
three (3) stories, with a maximum height of
6
thirty-five feet (3S').
7
(bb) Lot area shall be not less than
8
seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet
9
for duplexes, eight thousand six hundred
10
(8,600) square feet for triplexes and ten
11
thousand (10400) square feet for fourplexes.
12
The minimum lot area shall be determined by
13
excluding that portion of a lot that is used
14
solely for access to the portion of a lot used
C. 15
as a building site.
16
(cc) The minimum average width of that
17
portion of a lot to be used as a building site
18
shall be seventy feet (701) with a minimum
19
average depth of one hundred feet (1001)..
20
That portion of a lot used for access on
21
"flag" lots shall have a minimum width of
22
twenty feet (201).
23
(dd) The minimum frontage of a lot shall
24
be sixty feet (601), except that lots fronting
25
on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may have a minimum
26
frontage of forty-five feet (451).
27
r
28
GERALD J. GEERLIMS
COUNW COUNSEL
-10 -
SUM Soo
ams • IOTH SMET
94VERSDE.CA WOP"A
(ee) The front yard shall be not less
_ 1
than twenty feet (20' ) measured frog--thb
2
existing street line or from any future street
3
line as shown on any Specific Plan of
4
Highways. whichever is nearer the proposed
5
structure.
6
(ff) Side yards on interior and through
7
•
lots shall be not less than five feet (51).
8
Side yards on corner and reversed corner lots
9
shall be not less than fifteen feet (151) from
10
the existing street line or from any future
11
street line as shown on any Specific Plan of
12
highways. whichever is nearer the proposed
13
structure. upon which the main building sides.
14
except that where the lot is less than fifty
15
feet (50') wide. the yard need not exceed
16
twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot.
17
(gg) The rear yard shall be not less than
18
twenty feet (201).
19
(hh) In no case shall more than sixty
20
percent (60%) of any lot be covered by
21
buildings.
22
(U) Automobile storage space shall be
23
provided as required by Section 18.12 of
24
Ordinance No. 348.
25
D. The following development standards shall
26
apply for condominiums and townhome development.
27
except that planned residential developments shall
28
GO AID J. CAMRLlNIcs
COUNTY COUNSEL
—11 -
AM=
3S3S ' 10TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
f
i
I
comply with the development standards contained in
1
Section 18.5 of Ordinance No. 348:
2
(aa) Building height shall not exceed
3
three (3) stories, with a maximum height of
4
thirty-five feet (35').
5
(bb) Lot area shall be not less than
6
three (3) acres. The minimum lot area shall be
7
determined by excluding that portion of a lot
8
that is used solely for access to the portion
9
of a lot used as a building site.
14
X11
(cc) The front yard shall be not less
than twenty feet (201) measured from the
12
existing street line or from any future street
13
line as shown on any Specific Plan of
14
{
Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed
. 15
- structure.
16
(dd) Side yards on interior and through
17
lots shall be not less than ten feet (101).
18
Side yards on corner and reversed corner lots
151
shall be not less than ten feet (101) from the
20
existing street line or from any future street
21
line as shown on any Specific Plan of
22
highways, whichever is nearer the proposed
23
structure, upon which the main building sides.
24
except that where the lot is less than fifty
25
feet (501) wide, the yard need not exceed
26
twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot.
27
(ee) The rear yard shall be not less than
28
ten feet (10').
GERALD A cEEnLMs
SUM 3W
_12-
leas- IOM MEET
OVEPSDE. CAEfF<*WA
(ff ) In no case shall 36re than sixty
1
percent (60%) of any lot be covered by.__
2
buildings.
3
(99) Automobile storage space shall be
4
provided as required by Section 18.12 of
5
Ordinance No. 346.
6
(hh) No main building shall be closer
7
than fifteen feet ( lS' ) to any other main
8
building on the same lot.
9
(ii) Every main building hereafter
10
erected or structurally altered shall have a
11
lot or building site area of not less than two
12
thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for
13
each dwelling unit in such main building.
14
E. The following development standards shall
apply for all other development, except that _
16
planned residential developments shall comply with
17
the development standards contained in Section 18.5
18'
of Ordinance No. 348:
19
(aa) BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT. The same as
20
in R-1 Zones. (See Section 6.2 of Ordinance
21
No. 348).
22
(bb) REQUIRED LOT AREA. The same as in
23
R-1 Zones. (See Section 6.2 of Ordinance No.
24
348).
25
(cc) FRONT YARD REQUIRED. The same as in
26
R-1 Zones. (See Section 6.2 of Ordinance No.
27
348).
28
cERALDJ. cEEFuWA
COLRM cou+sa
—13 -
SWE 300
MM - IWM STRM
mveasWE. CAUMRMA
r'
(dd) SIDE YARDS REQUIRED. The same as in
R-1 Zones. (See Section 6.2 of Ordinance No.
2
348).
3
(ee) REAR YARD REQUIRED. The same as in
4
R-1 Zones. (See Section 6.2 of Ordinance No.
5
348).
6
(ff) LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED. In no case
7
.
shall more than sixty percent (601) of any lot
8
be covered by buildings.
9
(gg) Automobile storage space shall be
10
provided as required by Section 18.12 of
11
Ordinance No. 348.
12
(hh) DISTANCE REQUIRED BETWEEN MAIN
13
BUILDINGS. No two-story main building shall
14
be closer than fifteen feet (151) to any other
15
main building on the same lot-and no one-story
16
building shall be closer than ten feet (101)
17
to any other one-story main building on the
18
same lot.
19'
(ii) AREA PER DWELLING UNIT. Every main
20
building hereafter erected or structurally
21
altered shall have a lot or building site area
22
of not less than two thousand five hundred
23
(2,500) square feet for each dwelling unit in
24
such main building.
25
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
26
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
27
identified in Article VII of Ordinance No. 348.
28
GERALD J. GEE>RLMIGS
COUNW COUNSEL
-14-
14-surf
SUM3W
3M 'IM STRW
MVERSME. CALffORN1A
j . planning Area 10.
1
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 10.-of
2
--
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same uses as those
3
permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No.
4
348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under
5
Section 6.1(a) shall also include Christmas tree and
6
Halloween pumpkin sales.
7
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 10
8
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
9
standards identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348
10
except that the development standards set forth in
11
Article VI. Sections 6.2(a), (b), (c), and (e)(2) and (3)
12
shall be deleted and replaced by the following:
13
A. Building height shall not exceed three
14
(3) stories, with a maximum height of thirty-five
35
feet-(351). -
16
B. Lot area shall be not less than six
17
thousand (6.000) square feet. The minimum lot area
1$
shall be determined by excluding that portion of a
19
lot that is used solely for access to the portion
20
of a lot used as a building site.
21
C. The minimum average width of that portion
22
of a lot to be used as a building site shall be
23
fifty-five feet (551) with a minimum average depth
24
of ninety feet (901). That portion of a lot used
25
for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum
26
width of twenty feet (201).
27
D. Side yards on interior and through lots
28
GEPAW J. GXEKUMW
coca c.
—15 —
sLM3W
wULSME,tALW<W IA
SW E 700
3M - tarn STREET
TaVER5t0E. CALIFORNIA
E
shall be not less than five feet (5'). Side yards
1
on corner and reversed corner lots shall bg-not
2
less than fifteen feet (15' ) from the existing
3
street line or from any future street line as shown
4
on any Specific Plan of highways, whichever is
5
nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main
6
building sides, except that where the lot is less
7
than fifty feet (501) wide, the yard need not
8
exceed twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot.
9
E. The rear yard shall be not less than
10
twenty-five feet (251). except when the rear yard
11
adjoins a golf course, the rear yard shall be not
12
less than fifteen feet (151).
13
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
14
I
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
15
identified in -Article VI of Ordinance -No. 348.
16
k. Planning Area 11.
17
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 11 of
18
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same uses as those
19
permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No.-
20
348. In addition, the permitted uses identified cinder
21
Section 6.1(a) shall also include Christmas tree and
22
Halloween pumpkin sales.
23
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 11
24
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
25
standards identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348
26
except that the development standards set forth in
27
Article VI, Sections 6.2(a). (b). (c), and (e)(2) and (3)
28
CTS J. c,�S
-16 -
SW E 700
3M - tarn STREET
TaVER5t0E. CALIFORNIA
shall be deleted and replaced by the following: ?
1
A. Building height shall not exceed three
2
(3) stories, with a maximum height of thirty-five
3'
feet (351).
4
B. Lot area shall be not less than six
5
thousand (6,000) square feet. The minimum lot area
0
shall be determined by excluding that portion of a
7
lot that is used solely for access to the portion
8
of a lot used as a building site.
9
C. The minimum average width of that portion
10
of a lot to be used as a building site shall be
11
fifty-five feet (55' ) with a minimum average depth
12
of ninety feet (901). That portion of a lot used
13
for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum
14'
width of twenty feet (201).
�. � 15
D. Side yards on interior and through lots
16
shall be not less than five feet (51). Side yards
17
on corner and reversed corner lots shall be not
18
less than fifteen feet (151) from the existing
19
street line or from any future street line as shown
20
on any Specific Plan of highways, whichever is
21
nearer the proposed structure, upon vhich the main
22
building sides, except that where the lot is less
23
than fifty feet (50 1 ) wide, the yard need not
24
exceed twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot.
25
E. The rear yard shall be not less than
26
twenty-five feet (251). except when the rear yard
27
Cadjoins
a golf course, the rear yard shall be not
28
6EJwa J. 6EERU M"
-17 -
COUKW COUNSEL
SUTE 300
3M • LOTH STREET
WMtSME. CALWORMA
surf 3W
3ssn•10 H STREET
VavERSME. twtffoaMA
less than fifteen feet (15•).
• l
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
�2
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
3
identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 346.
4
1. Plannin—Area 12.
5
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 12 of
6
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same uses as those
7
permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No.
` 8
348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under
9
Section 6.1(a) shall also include Christmas tree and
10
Halloween pumpkin sales.
11
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 12
12
of Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same as those
13
standards identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348
14
except that the development standards set forth in
15
Article VI, Sections 6.2(a), (b), (c), and (e)(2) and (3)
16
shall be deleted and replaced by the following:
17
A. Building height shall not exceed three
18
(3) stories, with a maximum height of thirty-five
19
feet (351).
20
B. Lot area shall be not less than six
21.
thousand (6,000) square feet. The minimum lot area
22
shall be determined by excluding that portion of a
23
lot that is used solely for access to the portion
24
of a lot used as a building site.
25
C. The minimum average width of that portion
26
of a lot to be used as a building site shall be
27
fifty-five feet (551) with a minimum average depth
28
mw.a �. c.�EwNcs
,.r..�.
-18-
surf 3W
3ssn•10 H STREET
VavERSME. twtffoaMA
of ninety feet (904 ). That portion of a lot used
1
for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum
width of twenty feet (201).
3
D. Side yards on interior and through lots
4
shall be not less than five feet (51). Side yards
5
on corner and reversed corner lots shall be not
d
less than fifteen feet (154 ) from the existing
7
street line or from any future street line as shown
8'
on any Specific Plan of highways, whichever is
9
nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main
10
building sides, except that where the lot is less
11
than fifty feet (501) wide. the yard need not
12'
exceed twenty percent (20%) of the width of the lot.
13
E. The rear yard shall be not less than
14
twenty-five feet (251), except when the rear yard
15
adjoins-a golf course, the rear yard shall be not _
16
less than fifteen feet (151).
17
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
18
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
19
identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 346.
20
1. Planning Area 13.
21
(1) The uses permitted in Planning Area 13 of
22
Specific Plan No. 218 shall be the same uses as those
23
permitted in Article VI, Section 6.1 of Ordinance No.
24
348. In addition, the permitted uses identified under
25
Section 6.1(a) shall also include Christmas tree and
26
Halloween pumpkin sales.
27
(2) The development standards for Planning Area 13
28
roc WY COlfNSU
-19 -
SWE M
MX - Ii71-kS 5TRF.£'f
10VEMME. C_4J_Wt7RN1w
of specific Plan No. •218 shall be the same is those
1
standards identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348
except that the development standards set forth in
3
Article VI, Sections 6.2(a), (b), (c), and (e)(2) and (3)
4
shall be deleted and replaced by the following:
5
A. Building height shall not exceed three
6
(3) stories, with a maximum height of thirty-five
7
feet (35').
B. Lot area shall be not less than six
9
thousand (6,000) square feet. The minimum lot area
10
shall be determined by excluding that portion of a
11
lot that is used solely for access to the portion
12
of a lot used as a building site.
13
C. The minimum average width of that portion
14
of a lot to be used as a building site shall be
{ 15
fifty-five feet (551) with a minimum average depth
_
16
of ninety feet (901). That portion of a lot used
17
for access on "flag" lots shall have a minimum
18
width of twenty feet (201).
19
D. Side yards on interior and through lots
20
shall be not less than five feet (51). Side yards
21
on corner and reversed corner lots shall be not
22
less than fifteen feet (15' ) from the existing
23
street line or from any future street line as shown
24
on any Specific Plan of highways, whichever is
25
nearer the proposed structure, upon which the main
26
building sides, except that where the lot is less
27
than fifty feet (501) wide, the yard need not
29
GEYLA" J, cEERURGS
-20-
CIDLWW caMSFL
SUME 3W
AVX. r WA
1
i 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
KLW:cg: bin
;"13LIT 27
i
�� ... 8 8 28
GER" ,. cmua+cs
courrY coumsa
sum 300
WX • ronin sn"
RNER E. cuuoar A
exceed twenty percent (10%) of the width of the lot.
E. The rear yard shall be not less than
twenty-five feet (251), except when the rear yard
adjoins a golf course, the rear yard shall be not
less than fifteen feet (151).
(3) Except as provided above, all other zoning
requirements shall be the same as those requirements
identified in Article VI of Ordinance No. 348.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days
after its adoption.
ATTEST:
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
BY:
Deputy
(SEAL)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
M
-21-
Chairman
PART 4
SPECIFIC PLAN 218
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 4
SPECIFIC PLAN 218
1.0 SPECIFIC PLAN
1.1 Summary
2.0
PROJECT -WIDE PLANNING STANDARDS
2.1
Land Use Element
2.1.1
Residential Uses
2.1.2
Commercial Uses
2.1.3
Open Space and Recreation Uses
2.2
Circulation Element
2.2.1
Approach
2.2.2
Plan Description
2.3
Drainage Element
2.3.1
Approach
2.3.2
Plan Description
2.4
Water and Sewer Plan
2.4.1
- Approach _
2.4.2
Plan Description
2.5
Grading Plan
2.5.1
Objectives
2.5.2
General Criteria
2.5.3
Specific Criteria
2.6
Public Facilities Element
2.6.1
Approach
2.6.2
Plan Description
2.6.3
Staging Element/Public Facilities
2.7
Open SpaceiRecreation Element
2.7.1
Approach
2.7.2
Plan Description
2.7.3
Comprehensive Maintenance Plan
i
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-7
2-7
2-7
2-9
2-9
2-9
2-11
2-12
2-12
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-14
2-19
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 4 (Continued)
SECTION
TITLE
STANDARDS BY PLANNING AREA
PAGE
3-1
3.0
3.1
Planning Area 1
3-1
3.2
Planning Area 2
3-1
3.3
Planning Area 3
3-4
3.4
Planning Area 4
3-4
3.5
Planning Area 5
3-4
3.6
Planning Area 6
3-4
3.7
Planning Area 7
3-9
3.8
Planning Area 8
3-9
3.9
Planning Area 9
3-9
3.10
Planning Area 10
3-13
3.11
Planning Area 11
3-15
3.12
Planning Area 12
3-15
3.13
Planning Area 13
3-18
4.0
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4-1
4.1
Purpose and Intent
4-1
4.2
The Rancho La Quints Character
4-1
4.2.1
Project Theme
4-1
4.2.2
Project Setting
4-1
4.3
Residential Development Standards,
4-2
4.3.1
Medium Density Residential
4-2
4.3.1.1
Concept
4=2
4.3.1.2
Development Standards
4-2
4.3.2
Medium High Density Residential
4-6
4.3.2.1
Concept
4-6
4.3.2.2
Development Standards
4-6
4.3.3
Commercial Development Standards
4-10
4.4
Community Elements
4-12
4.4.1
Project Entries
4-12
4.4.2
Streetscapes
4-17
4.4.3
Land Use Transitions
4-18
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 4 (Continued)
PAG
4.4.4
Recreation and Open Space
4-31
4.4.5
Community Walls and Fencing
4-46
4.4.6
Signage
4-50
4.4.7
Residential Guidelines
4-52
4.4.8
Commercial Guidelines
4-48
4.4.9
Landscape Guidelines
4-54
4.4.9.1
Landscape Regulations
4-54
4.4.9.2
Landscape Regulations
4-59
4.4.9.3
Residential Landscape Guidelines
4-59
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 4
IB ER
DIU
Pd.GE
1.1-1
Rancho La Quinta Proposed Specific Plan
1-3
2.1-1
Proposed Circulation Plan
2-4
2.3-1
Proposed Drainage Plan
2-6
2.4-1
Proposed Sewer Plan
2-8
2.4-2
Master Water Plan
2-10
2.7-1
Open Space and Recreation
2-18
3.1-1
Planning Area 1
3-2
3.2-1
Planning Area 2
3-3
3.3-1
Planning Area 3
3-5
3.4-1
Planning Area 4
3-6
3.5-1
Planning Area 5
3-7
3.6-1
Planning Area 6
3-8
3.7-1
Planning Area 7
3-10
3.8-1
Planning Area 8
3-11
3.9-1
Planning Area 9
3-12
3.10-1
Planning Area 10
3-14
3.11-1
Planning Area 11
3-16
3.12-1
Planning Area 12
3-17
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 4 (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 4 (Continued)
NumBEg
3.13-1
TITLE
Planning Area 13
PAGE
3-19
4.3-1
Typical Concept Plan - Medium Density Residential (2-5 DU/Acre)
4-3
4.3-2
Typical Illustrative Site Plan - Medium Density Residential
(2-5 DU/Acre)
4-4
4.3-3
Typical Architectural Elevation - Medium Density Residential
4-5
4.3-4
Typical Concept Plan - Medium High Density Residential
(5-8 DU/Acre)
4-7
4.3-5
Typical Illustrative Site Plan - Medium High Density Residential
(5-8 DU/Acre)
4-8
4.3-6
Typical Architectural Elevation Medium High Density Residential
4-9
4.3-7
Typical Illustrative Site Plan - Commercial Area
4-11
4.4-1
Project Entries
4-13
4.4-2
Typical Primary Entry - Plan View
4-15
4.4-3
Typical Primary Entry - Section
4-16
4.4-4
Typical Secondary Entry - Plan and Section
4-19
4.4-5
Typical Neighborhood Entry - Plan and Section
4-21
4.4-6
Typical Commercial Entry - Plan and Section
4-23
4.4-7
Typical Streetscape - Secondary Highway (64' on 88')
4-25
4.4-8
Typical Streetscape - Urban Arterial (110' on 134')
4-26
4.4-9
Typical Streetscape - Arterial Highway (86' on 110')
4-27
4.4-10
Typical Streetscape - Internal Collector (44' on 66)
4-28
4.4-11
Typical Streetscape - Internal Private Street (40')
4-29
4.4-12
Interface - Medium Density Residential/Golf Course
4-30
4.4-13
Interface - Medium Density Residential/Biological Preserve
4-32
4.4-14
Interface - Medium High Density Residential/Golf Course
4-33
4.4-15
Interface - Medium High Density Residential/Park Use
4-34
4.4-16
Interface - Medium High Density Residential/Biological Preserve
4-35
4.4-17
Interface - Golf Course/Revegetation Area
4-36
4.4-18
Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area ld
4-38
4.4-19
Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area ld
4-39
4.4-20
Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area 4c
4-40
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 4 (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 4 (Continued)
4.421 Conceptual Plan Community Park - Sub Area 4c 4-41
4.4-22 Conceptual Plan Biological Reserve - Planning Area 3 442
4.4-23 Conceptual Plan Revegetation Area - Planning Area 5 4-43
4.4-24 Typical Walls and Fences 4-47
LIST OF TABLES - PART 4
NUMBE
TITLE
PAGE
1.1-1
Land Use Plan Legend
1-4
1.1-2
Planning Area Use Summary
1-5
2.1-1
Residential Land Use Summary
2-1
2.6-1
Projected Rate of Dwelling Unit Development
2-15
2.6-2
Projected Rate of Non -Residential Development
2-16
2.16-3
Summary of Public Facilities and Improvements
2-17
4.4-1
Rancho La Quints Plant Pallete
4-61
v
SECTION 1.0
SPECIFIC PLAN
The Rancho La Quinta project site is located within the County of Riverside, in the
Coachella Valley south and east of the City of La Quinta. The Santa Rosa Mountains are
located to the west, Salton Sea to the southeast and Little San Bernardino Mountains to the
northeast. The project site includes 1251 acres bounded to the north by Avenue 58, south
by Avenue 62, west of Jackson Street and east of Lake Cahuila County Park. The project
site is located on the U.S. Geological Survey Indio, La Quinta, Martinez Mountain and
Valerie Quadrangle Maps, including portions of Sections 26, 27, 28, 34 and 35 of
Township 6 South and Range 7 East.
The Coachella Valley is divided into the Upper and Lower Coachella Valley Land Use
Planning Area profiles and the project site is located within the Lower Coachella Land Use
Planning Area. The predominant land use in this area is agriculture, including dry farming
and citriculture, while a large portion of the Planning Area is vacant, non -irrigated desert.
Several sections of land in the Planning Area are under Indian (Torres Martinez and
Augustine Indian reservations) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ownership. The
resulting checkerboard pattern is found throughout eastern Riverside County.
The project site includes 1251 acres of flat, slightly sloping land. The elevation ranges
from approximately sea level in the western portion of the site to 90 feet below sea level in
the eastern portion. Currently, the majority of the site is used for agricultural purposes or
consists of fallow fields. Approximately 250 acres include native vegetation, such as
desert saltbush scrub, sonoran creosote bush scrub and a small amount of freshwater
marsh along an irrigation ditch.
The site is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the County of Riverside and is included in
the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area. It is also partially located within the
sphere of influence of the City of La Quinta. Land adjacent to the project site is primarily
utilized for agricultural purposes. A residential/recreational development, the PGA West
project, is located approximately 0.5 miles to the northwest of the project boundary. The
PGA West boundary represents La Quinta's city limits. Land between the PGA West
development is primarily within the ownership of Landmark Land Company, developer of
the PGA West and proposed Rancho La Quinta projects.
1-1
The project is being processed as a Specific Plan that amends the County of Riverside's
General Plan for the project site. The Specific Plan will guide the future development of
the site. The tentative maps for development are required to be in substantial conformance
with the goals and policies outlined in the Specific Plan. These policies and guidelines will
ensure that the planning and environmental protections are in place and that development
will proceed in an orderly and planned fashion.
Rancho La Quinta is proposed to be a comprehensive planned community with both public
and private facilities. Defined objectives for the development are as follows:
Y Implementation of a plan which recognizes, and wherever possible, protects the
environmental characteristics of the property
a Creation of a community with a balance of appropriate land uses and a range of
housing types
• Development of complementary recreational and commercial facilities which
will serve a range of housing types
• Development of a community which provides a safe, secure and ecologically
sound living environment
1.1 SUMMARY
The proposed project consists of approximately 1,251 acres southeast of the City of
La Quinta within the County of Riverside. Proposed development within the specific plan
area consists of approximately 4,262 dwelling units (DU) with an overall density of 3.5
DU/acre. Approximately 35 acres of commercial development are also proposed within
the specific plan area including neighborhood commercial, visitor commercial, and office
development. Recreational uses will consist of two 18 -hole championship golf courses on
approximately 380 acres and approximately 41 acres of additional public uses such as
parks, fire station, schools, roadways and open space. Table 1.1-1 is a land use summary
of proposed uses within the specific plan area. Figure 1.1-1, the specific plan map,
illustrates the proposed locations for various land use types within the specific plan area.
1.2
r
w
Rancho La Quinta Proposed Specific Plan
., 2000
FEET
Figure
1.1-1
Table 1.1-2 presents a land use summary for each of the five planning areas. Detailed
descriptions of proposed development within each of the planning areas are provided
below.
Table 1.1-1
LAND USE PLAN LEGEND
Net Grass Gross
Acreage Acreage Density
Residential
795 1216
Medium (2-5)
612 909 3
Medium High (5-8)
183 307 5
Public Use
41 - -
(Fire Station Inc.)
Open Space/Golf 380
Units
2727
1535
Commercial 35 - - 670,000 SF
TOTALS - 1251 - 4,262 DU
Overall Density 3.5
1-4
Table 1.1-2
PLANNING AREA USE SUMMARY
Residential
Open
Planning
Area
Medium
Acros
DU
Medium High
Acres DU
Commercial Public
Acres SF Acres
Space
Acres
Total
Acres
1
35 607,000
35
2
10
10
3
10
10
4
10
10
5
10
10
6
190
190
7
190
190
g
1
1
9
183 1535
183
10
127
663
127
11
346
1512
346
12
55
228
55
13
84
324
_, 84
'DOTAL
612
2727
183 1535
35 607,000 41
380
1251
r'
SECTION 2.0
PROJECT -WIDE PLANNING STANDARDS
2.1 LAND USE ELEMENT
2.1.1 Residential Uses
Three types of residential uses are proposed to be located within the specific plan area with
densities ranging from 2-8 DU/acre: medium density residential (M) and medium high
density residential (MI). Medium density residential uses will consist of single-family
detached dwelling units with densities ranging from 2-5 DU/acre on lot sizes averaging
7,200 square feet in size. Medium high density residential uses will consist of single-
family detached units, duplexes and patio homes with densities ranging from 5-8 DU/acre
on lot sizes ranging from 5,000 to 7,200 square feet in size. Residential development is
anticipated to occur over approximately 63% of the total acreage within the specific Plan
area. Table 2.1-1 is a residential land use summary for the specific plan area.
Figure 1.1-1, the specific plan map, illustrates the locations of the various residential use
types within the specific plan area.
Table 2.1-1
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE SUMMARY
Density
Gross
Number
Percent of Total
Use Range.
Dgnsily
Units
TQW A &C Am
M 2-5 3
2,727
12
65
MH 5-8 5
1.535
_u
—12
TOTALS
4,262
100 795
2.1.2 Commercial Uses
Commercial development is proposed to be located on approximately 35 acres, or
approximately 3%, of the specific plan area. Commercial development will consist of a
mixture of commercial retail and office development. It is anticipated that the commercial
retail development will include both neighborhood commercial and visitor serving
commercial uses. Commercial development is proposed to be located at the intersection of
Avenue 58 and Madison Street. Commercial development will be located in the southwest
2-1
quadrant of this intersection. It is anticipated that approximately 60% of the total
commercial development will consist of office uses. Figure 1.1-1, the specific plan map,
illustrates the proposed location of commercial development within the specific plan area.
Development standards for commercial uses are also described in the Sub -Area descriptions
for Planning Areas 1, 3, 4, and 5, and in this Specific Plan.
2.1.3 Open Space and Recreation Uses
Rancho La Quinta is designed to be a planned residential community with a strong
recreation orientation. Extensive recreational amenities have been incorporated into the
design of the project to serve future residents. The primary recreational component of the
development will be the two 18 -hole championship golf courses which will occupy
380 -acres, or approximately 30%, of the specific plan area. In addition to its function as a
recreational facility, the golf course component will also provide a significant visual
amenity within the specific plan area with most residential units having frontage on and/or
views of the golf courses. The conceptual layout for the golf courses is shown on the
specific plan map, Figure 2.1-1. Individual developments within the specific plan area
will also have additional recreational amenities including tennis and swimming facilities.
Approximately 41 acres have also been designated as public use areas within the specific
plan area. These public use areas may include community parks and open space areas.
Section 2.7 discusses the proposed open space and recreation plan.
2.2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT
2.2.1 Approach
The circulation plan for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is intended to utilize existing
circulation element roadways to provide the primary access to the specific plan area. These
roadways include Avenue 60, Avenue 58, Avenue 61, Monroe Street and Madison
Street. The internal circulation system will consist of a series of loop roads providing
access to the individual residential and recreational componentr- within the specific plan
area. Improvements to the primary circulation element access roads will be dedicated to the
County of Riverside and will be maintained by the County. It is anticipated that the internal
loop collector system will consist primarily of private streets.
2-2
rA
2.2.2 Plan Description
The proposed circulation plan for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is illustrated in
Figure 2.1-1. In general, the circulation plan will consist of improvement of the County
roadways surrounding the specific plan area to County Circulation Element standards and
development of an internal loop road system to serve individual developments within the
project. The following specific road improvements will be provided by the
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan:
• Improve Avenue 58 adjacent to the project site to major highway standards
(100' ROW, 76' pavement)
• Improve Avenue 60 from Madison Street to Monroe Street to secondary
highway standards (88' ROW, 64' pavement) and east of Monroe Street to
arterial highway standards (I10'row, 86' pavement)
• Improve Avenue 62 adjacent to the project to secondary highway standards (88'
ROW, 64' pavement)
• Improve Madison Street adjacent to the project to urban arterial standards (134'
ROW, 110' pavement) -
• Improve Monroe Street to secondary highway standards (88' ROW, 64'
pavement) adjacent to the project and north on Avenue 60 to Avenue 58.
• Improve Jackson Street adjacent to the project to arterial highway standards
(110' ROW, 86' pavement)
A variety of intersection improvements will also be provided in conjunction with specific
plan implementation. These include the following-
0
ollowing
• Avenue 58/Madison Street: widen approaches to two lanes in each direction.
• Avenue 5Wackson Street: widen Avenue 58 approaches to four lanes, provide
4 -way stop sign
2-3
N
A
2112 URBAN ARTERIAL
(134' ROW, 110' PAVEMENT)
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY
mm�
(110' ROW, B6PAVEMENT)
122x1221
MAmR HIGHWAY
(100" ROW, 76 PAVEMENT)
SECONDARY HIGHWAY
221 no w (W ROW. 64' PAVEMENT)
s w INTERNAL COLLECTOR
(66' ROW, 44' PAVEMENT)
INTERNAL PRIVATE STREET
(40' PAVEMENT & ROW)
If Avenue 58
2111111/1111121121 111121111111111111211112
d
TRAFFIC
o' SIGNAL
i
i NOT A
_ _ 1 PART
4--
i 40 W_!",i
i
i
Avenue fit
0 2000
FEET
a
F'
Igul
P -imposed Circulation Plan 2.1-
• Avenue 60/Jackson Street: widen Avenue 60 approaches to four lanes, provide
4 -way stop sign
• Avenue 58/Monroe Street: provide signalized intersection
• Avenue 60/Monroe Street: provide signalized intersection
2.3 DRAINAGE ELEMENT
2.3.1 Approach
The primary objective of the drainage plan for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is to
utilize natural drainage courses to the maximum extent possible and to respect the existing
character of the site. No increased runoff is anticipated to exit the site as a result of the
proposed development since runoff will be retained on-site to the maximum extent
possible. In general, the site is currently protected from flooding by the Westside Flood
Levy which traverses the western boundary of the site in a north/south direction.
2.3.2 Plan Description
The proposed master drainage plan for the specific plan area is illustrated in Figure 2.3-1.
As shown in Figure 2.3-1, runoff from the individual residential development areas would
drain toward the various golf course holes adjoining these areas. A series of interconnected
lakes are proposed to be utilized on the golf courses to retain storm water runoff and to
provide irrigation water for the golf courses. A 2 -foot freeboard will be maintained in each
of the golf course lakes to provide storage capacity during flash flood conditions. The
internal golf course drainage system will be constructed and maintained by the
Rancho La Quinta golf club and homeowners associations. All pads for residential units
will be located 3-6 feet above the elevation of the 100 -year storm. A natural offsite basin
will capture some of the runoff from portions of the specific plan area located north of
Avenue 60 and east of Madison Street. Runoff to this offsite area will not exceed that
occurring under natural conditions.
2-5
N
OI
Prnposed Drainage Plan
2000
M"
FEET
Figure
2.3--
2.4 NATER AND SEWER PLAN
2.4.1 Approach
The intent of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is to utilize existing water and sewer
facilities, where possible, and to provide additional or upgraded facilities as necessary.
Water and sewer service for the specific plan area is provided by the Coachella Valley
Water'District (CVWD). The CVWD provides two types of water service within the
Coachella Valley -domestic water and agricultural or irrigation water. Both types of water
service are supplied by wells. A portion of the Coachella Canal, providing irrigation water
to the valley, traverses the western portion of the Rancho La Quinta property from the
northwest to the southeast.
2.4.2 Plan Description
Vu
The anticipated sewer master plan for the specific plan area is illustrated in Figure 2.4-1.
As shown in Figure 2.41, the specific plan area would be served by a series of standard
sewer lines and laterals linking to existing 18" force mains located in Avenue 60
andMadison Street. Pumping facilities would be located as necessary within the specific
plan area to transport sewage to the existing trunk lines. The CVWD has indicated its
ability to provide sewer service to the specific plan area. A will serve letter is included in
the appendix to this specific plan.
D-0 ids—water Ser m
The anticipated domestic water service master plan for the specific plan area is illustrated in
Figure 2.4-2. As shown in Figure 2.4-2 domestic water would be distributed to individual
residential units by standard water lines to be located within road rights-of-way. New
water lines would need to be installed in conjunction with road improvements to serve the
proposed Rancho La Quinta development.
2.7
N
00
:NOTA
1 PART
NOTA
1 PART
LEGEND y
x HIGH POINT
+ PROPOSED GRAVITf SEWER & FLOW DIRECTION }
1 9 •-- __
�.. EXISTING IB' SEWER FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED 18' SEWER FORCE MAIN -
N
30 2000
FEET
Pr^nosed Sewer Plan Figure
e
401. �i
Irrigation water for the golf courses and other landscape features within the specific plan
area will be provided by the irrigation lakes to be located throughout the golf courses. The
existing underground CVWD Coachella Canal traversing the specific plan area (illustrated
on Figure 2.4-2) will not be disturbed in conjunction with specific plan implementation.
The golf courses have been routed over this irrigation line to ensure that no residential units
would be constructed on top of the underground line. The line will not be disturbed as a
result of golf course construction.
2.5 GRADING PLAN
2.5.1 Objectives
Grading criteria, to be most effective, should be tailored on a "per site" basis, so that each
unique set of conditions may be analyzed and the most sensitive techniques may be applied.
The following Guidelines provide general direction to grading design in Rancho La Quinta.
The primary focus of these Guidelines is on easing the visual impact of grading. Hence,
primary emphasis is placed on molding the graded landform to reflect the natural
topography. In the case of Rancho La Quinta, the existing relatively flat character of the
site will enable development to occur without significantly altering the natural landform.
These Guidelines are intended to foster approaches to landform alterations which minimize
the amount of area affected and sensitively blend graded areas with the existing topographic
conditions. Since the majority of Rancho La Quinta property is relatively flat, it is
anticipated that landform alteration associated with the development will be minimal.
2.5.2 General Criteria
Landform alteration proposed as a part of construction in any area of the property is subject
to review and approval by the developer as part of the plan review procedures. Such
review shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
• Manufactured slopes should be varied in cross-section and along the slope
length, with variable gradients of 4:1, 3:1, and 2:1 slope ratios, resulting in an
approximate average 3:1 slope.
2.9
N
F+
O
�; I
��' �`( _ y• �, Ire � % -
i
r! I \ a
NOTA
1r Ilrsf� r PART
NOTA
\ - ► i PART
� P
LEGEND
EXISTING IRRIGATION MAIN LINE
_______ PROPOSED 8" WATER LINE
- PROPOSED 12" WATER LINE
PROPOSED 18" WATER LINE
PROPOSED 24" WATER LINE
PROPOSED 36" WATER LINE
e0
N
0 2000
FEET
V, ester Water Plan Figure
2.4
• Manufactured landforms at development edges shall be recontoured to
approximate their original form, and imitate a natural appearance.
• The toe and crest of any manufactured slope in excess of ten (10) feet vertical
and height shall be rounded with vertical curves to blend to the natural
topography, and shall be designed in proportion to the total height of the slope.
• All graded slopes shall be revegetated and irrigated in a manner consistent with
the landscape architectural and resource management standards outlined in these
Guidelines, and as approved by the developer.
• Where residential access across drainage courses occurs it shall be
accomplished by a bridge or aesthetically enhanced culvert accommodating only
the accessway. Where these improvements occur, natural materials shall be
used for slope bank protection.
2.5.3 Specific Criteria
The following specific criteria shall be used by the developer to ensure -acceptable standards
of construction and minimize future site maintenance problems.
• If imported soil is required, the existing soil should be used for subgrade in
streets and building areas with the higher quality import soil used for planting
areas.
• Berms, channels, swales, etc., shall be graded in such a way as to be an
integral part of the graded and/or paved surface, and shall be designed with
smooth vertical transitions between changes in slope. No drainage swales shall
surface drain across pedestrian/bicycle paths.
• Drainage from private to common, or common to private areas is generally
prohibited.
• All Grading and Drainage Plans must be prepared under the direction of a
licensed Civil Engineer.
2-11
• All work shall be in accordance with the County of Riverside Grading and
Excavation Code and Standard Drawings, and other governmental requirements
as may be applicable.
• All common area finish grades shall be installed per an approved Grading and
Drainage Plan, and certified as such by a licensed Civil Engineer. This written
verification must be submitted to the developer prior to the completion of the
work.
2.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
2.6.1 Approach
In addition to infrastructure facilities (water, sewer, drainage, roads), a variety of public
facilities will also be provided in conjunction with specific plan implementation. These
public facilities include police protection, fire protection, school service, library service and
park facilities. The objective of the specific plan is to provide these public facilities in
accordance with the requirements of the County of Riverside.
2.6.2 Plan Description
Police Protection
In general, police protection for the specific plan area will be provided by the County of
Riverside Sheriffs Department. Police protection provided by the Sheriffs Department
will be augmented by security facilities to be incorporated into the specific plan. In general,
it is anticipated that the specific plan area will be a gate -guarded community with its own
private security force. Primary and secondary entrances to the residential development
areas will be protected by either a guard -gated entry or by a card -gated entry. The presence
of such a security force should reduce somewhat, the dependence of the development on
complete protection by the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. In addition, it is
anticipated that may of the residences within the specific plan area will have their own
individual private security systems. This pattern has been typical of other similar
developments by the developer.
2-12
ME a ll,F"
Fire protection within the specific plan area will be provided by the Riverside County Fire
Department. In conjunction with their PGA West development, the developer constructed a
new fire station on the PGA West property at Madison Street and Avenue 54. It is
anticipated that fire protection service to a portion of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan
area will be provided from this fire station. An additional fire station may be constructed
within the specific plan area to serve the balance of the development if required by the
Riverside County Fire Department.
School Service
School service in the vicinity of the specific plan area is provided by the Coachella Valley
Unified School District (CVUSD). It is not anticipated that significant numbers of students
will be generated by the specific plan due to the anticipated family characteristics of
potential purchasers of residential units. The applicant will contribute school fees in
accordance with the requirements of the CVUSD.
Ub as Service
The nearest library to the specific plan area is located in Indio, although bookmobile service
is also occasionally provided in the project vicinity. It may be that additional library
facilities will be required as development progresses in the project area.
Parks
Potential locations for public use areas have been incorporated into the design of the
specific plan as illustrated on the specific plan map (Figure 1.1-1). As discussed in
Section 2.7, parks will be provided in accordance with County of Riverside requirements.
2.6.3 Staging Element/Public Facilities
At the present time, it is anticipated that the specific plan area will be developed in four,
five-year phases beginning in 1990 and continuing until 2010. The types of development
occurring within each of the development phases may vary depending upon market
2.13
conditions. Public facilities will, however, be provided concurrent with need in
conjunction with each phase of development.
The specific plan is expected to be developed in four 5 -year phases beginning with Phase I
in the northwest quadrant of the specific plan area. Phase I development will consist of the
northern 18 -hole golf course, clubhouse facilities, driving range, adjacent residential
development and approximately 35 acres of commercial development along Avenue 58.
Phase 2 development will consist primarily of the second 18 -hole golf course and
residential development adjacent to Avenue 60 in the central portion of the specific plan
area. Phases 3 and 4 will include the remaining residential within the specific plan area.
Tables 2.6-1 and 2.6-2 summarize the anticipated rate of residential and non-residential
development.
Public facilities and improvements will be provided and phased in accordance with the
requirements of the County of Riverside. Transportation, drainage, water and sewer
improvements will be provided as described in Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 of this specific
plan. Open space and recreation facilities will be provided as described in Section 2.7.
Other public facilities will be provided as described in Section 2.6. Table 2.6-3 provides
a summary of the public facilities and improvements to be provided in conjunction with
specific plan implementation.
2.7 OPEN SPACE/RECREATION ELEMENT
2.7.1 Approach
Rancho La Quinta is intended to be a recreation oriented residential community. As such, a
primary objective of the development is to provide a variety of diverse recreational
amenities for residents of the specific plan area.
2.7.2 Plan Description
The primary recreational component of the Rancho La Quinta development are the two
championship golf courses to be constructed throughout the development. In addition to
providing significant recreational opportunities to residents of the specific plan area, the
golf courses will provide an important visual amenity with the majority of the residential
units fronting various golf holes. Additional recreational amenities to be provided in
2-14
s
Table 2.6-1
PROJECTED RATE OF DWELLING UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(in units)
Y AnnualCurrt�alive
1 256 256
2 256 512
3 256 768
4 256 1,024
5 256 1,280
6 64 1,344
7 64 1,408
8 64 1,472
9 64 1,536
10 64 1,600
11 426 2,026
12 426 2,452
13 426 2,878
14 426 3,304
15 426 3,730
16 106 3,836
17 106 3,942
18 106 4,048
19 107 4,155
20 107 4,262
2.15
Table 2.6-2
PROJECTED RATE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(in acres)
Year
Anneal
Cumulative
1
198.0
198.0
2
15.0
213.0
3
20.0
233.0
4
0.0
233.0
5
0.0
233.0
6
202.0
435.0
7
0.0
435.0
8
0.0
435.0
9
0.0
435.0
10
0.0
435.0
11
0.0
435.0
12
0.0
435.0
13
0.0
435.0
14
0.0
435.0
15
0.0
435.0
16
0.0
435.0
17
0.0
435.0
18
0.0
435.0
19
0.0
435.0
20
0.0
435.0
2-16
Table 2.6.3
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
Traffic/Circulation
Road Improvements Upgrade road network to circulation
element standards as described in
Section 2.2 with development of
individual planning areas.
Intersection Improvements Provide signalized intersections and
stop signs as described in
Section 2.2 with development of
individual planning areas.
Alternative Transportation Modes Provide transit, bicycle, pedestrian
circulation improvements as required
by County Engineer with
development of individual planning
areas.
Public Facilities
Waw
Project -serving facilities to be
provided by developer.
Sewer
Project -serving facilities to be
provided by developer.
Drainage
Project serving facilities to be
provided by developer.
Population based Parks
Provide park land and/or park fees in
accordance with County of Riverside
requirements.
Schools
Provide school site and/or fees in
accordance with CVUSD require-
ments.
Fire Protection Provide fire station and/or fees in
accordance with requirements of
Riverside County Fire Department.
Police Protection Provide fees as required by Riverside
county Sheriffs Department.
Gas and Electric Provided by gas company.
Telephone Service Provided by phone company.
Cable Television Service Provided by private cable T.V.
service.
2-17
N 1
1
00 Lake Cahullla
County Park
City of
La Qwnta
....
Trai/
NOTA
PART
m
LEGEND
GOLF COURSE
PUBLIC USE AREA
mmlw
POTENTIAL LINK TO
EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
N
0 2000
..
00ONFLOOD LEVEE/ FEET
RECREATIONAL TRAIL
'. To Fish Traps Park
poen Space and RecreationFigure
.?
conjunction with the golf course development include swimming pools, tennis courts,
exercise facilities and other amenities associated with a "country club" atmosphere. The
golf courses and associated amenities will occupy 380 acres, or 30%, of the specific plan
area.
Additional recreational amenities to be located within the specific plan area include
approximately 41 acres of public use area including open space and community park
sites. The locations for these public use areas are illustrated on the open space and
recreation plan (Figure 2.7-1). Community park sites will be designed and provided in
conformance with the requirements of the County of Riverside. Links will be provided as
appropriate between the community parks and the County of Riverside's recreational nail
system. Links will also be provided as appropriate between the community parks and
existing trails along the Westside Flood Levy which traverses the western boundary of the
Specific Plan area in a north/south direction.
2.7.3 Comprehensive Maintenance Plan
To receive final design review approval of development plans, a precise method of long-
term maintenance shall be formally proposed by the builder. Particular care should be
taken to provide for high-quality maintenance in common areas, visible locations, and high
traffic conditions.
The method(s) proposed by the builder should include specific financing mechanisms, and
cost considerations to maintaining the California Desert Ranch atmosphere of Rancho La
Quinta. This shall include routine periodic landscape maintenance, pest control,
fertilization, water, and utilities, etc., as well as potential funding of reserves for major
maintenance, repair, and replacement of plant material, irrigation systems, and other
elements of the landscape architectural design.
2.19
SECTION 3.0
STANDARDS BY PLANNING AREA
3.1 PLANNING AREA 1
Planning Area 1 consists of 35 acres of commercial uses, encompassing 607,000 square
feet of use (Figure 3.1-1). The following development standards shall apply to these uses:
• The commercial development shall take access primarily from Avenue 50 and
shall be buffered from adjacent residential development and golf course uses to
the south, as shown in Fig. 3.1-1 of Section 3 and Fig. 4.4-6 of Section 4.0
of the Design Guidelines.
• Landscaped buffers shall be provided between commercial uses and adjacent
residential development or golf course uses.
• All commercial development shall comply with the zoning requirements for
commercial development outlined in Part 3 of this Specific Plan, outlined in
Ord. 348.293 and as depicted in Section 4.0, Fig. 4.3-7 of the Design
Guidelines. -
3.2 PLANNING AREA 2
Planning Area 2 consists of 10 acres of community/neighborhood parks, adjacent to the
flood control levee (Figure 3.2-1). The following development standards apply to park
uses:
• Community parks shall be developed in accordance with the guidelines
presented in the conceptual site plans included in Section 4.0 of this Specific
Plan depicted by Figs. 4.4-18, 4.4-19, 4.4-20, 4.4-21 of the Design
Guidelines.
• Neighborhood parks shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of
the County of Riverside Park and Recreation Department, and Part 3 of this
Specific Plan Ordinance 348.2932.
3-1
es • Links between the Neighborhood Parks and the County of Riverside
recreational trail system and trails located on the flood control levee shall be
provided as appropriate as depicted by Figs. 4.4-18, 4.4-19, 4.4-20, 4.4-21 of
the Design Guidelines.
Access between the Neighborhood parks and residential development shall be
provided via the internal private street system as depicted by Fig. 4.4-15,
Section 4 of this document.
3.3 -PLANNING AREA 3
Planning Area 3 includes 10 acres of community/neighborhood park (Figure 3.3-1). All
development standards described in Section 3.2 apply to Planning Area 3.
Planning Area 3 shall conform to Design Guidelines of Section 4.0 and the standards set
forth in Ordinance 348.2932 as dilineated in this document
3.4 PLANNING AREA 4
Planning Area 4 includes 10 acres of community/neighborhood park (Figure 3.4-1) All
development standards described in Section 3.2 apply to Planning Area 4.
Planning Area 4 shall conform to Design Guidelines of Section 4.0 and the standards set
forth in Ordinance 348.2932 as dilineated in this document.
3.5 PLANNING AREA 5
Planning Area 5 includes 10 acres of community neighborhood park (Figure 3.5-1). All
development standards described in Section 3.2 apply to Planning Area 5.
Planning Area 5 shall conform to Design Guidelines of Section 4.0 and the standards set
forth in Ordinance 348.2932 as dilineated in this document.
3.6 PLANNING AREA 6
Planning Area 6 includes 190 acres of golf course, clubhouse and driving range in the
northern portion of the Specific Plan (Figure 3.6-1). The following development standards
shall apply to development within Planning Area 6 consistent with Part 3 of the Specific
Plan Ordinance 348.2932.
3-4
Ll
•
0
PLANNING AREA 1
Project Boundary—,
i
. 1 ."q
(,Residential
9
0
0
)60
0
1
Primary Entrance
Landscaped Buffer Area
:•fir . _ .�,. , .
-- r�rrrr„�rw
1
I1
1
I�
1
1
1
1
I1
1
1
I
1
1
Rancho La Quinta
PLANNING AREA 1
COMMERCIAL
607,000 SQ FT
35 ACRES
Key Map Figure 3.1-1
`V'
0
•
Rancho La Quints
PLANNING AREA 2
COMMUNITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
10 ACRES
Key Map Figure 3.2-1
Is
of
loop
w
' Project Boundary----,`
Pedestrian Access '�;
To Residential Area
PLANNING AREA 3
i
.1
1
Pedestrian Access
To County Recreational Trail—�
Westside Flood Levee
0
E
Residential
Rancho La Quinta
PLANNING AREA 3
COMMUNITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
10 ACRES
Key Map Figure 3.3-1
■
a
Residential
•
•
t
i
i
1
I
1
Residential
V o
Pedestrian Access
To Residential Area
PLANNING AREA 4
Pedestrian Access
4 To County Recreation
• �r
.* Westside Flood Levee
■ a #■�1Y � ■ i�l�+I � K;
M
Project Boundary
Trail
i
Rancho La Quinta
PLANNING AREA 4
COMMUNITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
10 ACRES
Kev Map Figure 3.4-1
0
p
Project Boundary
Pedestrian Access To----,,.,
Residential Area
PLANNING AREA 5
Residential
�1
Pedestrian Access To
County Recreational Trail 1 i
•
see* •
l
S
Westside Flood Levee
!tea - '• -r+r # � •M!• o. a � ■
-a@— + am
Rancho la Quinta
PLANNING AREA 5
COMMUNITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
10 ACRES .
Kev Mar) Fiaure 3.5-1
i
Project Boundary
Pedestrian Access To----,,.,
Residential Area
PLANNING AREA 5
Residential
�1
Pedestrian Access To
County Recreational Trail 1 i
•
see* •
l
S
Westside Flood Levee
!tea - '• -r+r # � •M!• o. a � ■
-a@— + am
Rancho la Quinta
PLANNING AREA 5
COMMUNITY/ NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
10 ACRES .
Kev Mar) Fiaure 3.5-1
9
0
0
AVENUE S8
View Fence t w
Project Boundary 0 W
Skyline Treem ` 0
0
V
4 0 '
Nota
Part
AVENUE 60
Driving Range
Primary Entrance
Golf Course Clubhouse
Rancho La Quinta
PLANNING AREA 6
GOLF COURSE
190 ACRES
Key Map
Figure 3.6-1
0
0
•
Open Space/Mesquite Reserve
Project Boundary -----
o (.
J Not a Part
0
Open View Fence
Skyline Trees
View Fence
Rancho la Quinta
PLANNING AREA 7
GOLF COURSE
190 ACRES
Key Map Figure 3.7-1
a
0
it
Rancho la Quinta
PLANNING AREA 8
FIRE STATION
1 ACRE
Key Map Figure 3.8-1
m
lk
Rancho la Quinta
PLANNING AREA 9
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM-HIGH 5-8 DU/AC
183 ACRES
1,535+ DWELLING UNITS
Kev Man Fins iro A O-1
• The number of lots froiaing the golf course or with views of the golf course
shall be maximized. Interface between adjacent land uses is depicted in
Fig. 4.4-12 and 4.4-14.
• The primary entrance to the golf course club house, pro shop and driving range
facilities shall be from Avenue 60.
• The clubhouse entrance shall be a primary focal point and shall be landscaped
and designed in accordance with the concepts presented in Section 4.0 of this
Specific Plan.
3.7 PLANNING AREA 7
Planning Area 7 encompasses approximately 190 acres of golf course and biological
reserve in the southern portion of the Specific Plan (Figure 3.7-1). In addition to the
development standard listed in Section 3.6, special consideration shall be given to the
relationship between the golf course and the biological reserve area as depicted in
Section 4.0, Fig. 4.4-17 of the Design Guidelines.
3.8 PLANNING AREA 8
Planning Area 8 includes one acre of public use (Figure 3.8-1). Proposed use of this site
is for a fire station to service the Rancho la Quinta Specific Plan. The fire station site shall
be designed in accordance with the requirements of the County of Riverside. A landscaped
buffer shall be provided between the fire station site and adjacent golf course uses
consistent with Design Guidelines set fourth in Section 4.0 of this document.
3.9 PLANNING AREA 9
Planning Area 9 includes 183 acres of medium-high (5-8 DU/AC) residential uses, totalling
approximately 1535 dwelling units (Figure 3.9-1). The following development standards
3-9
F1
shall apply to Planning Area 9 consistent with Design Guidelines set fourth in Section 4.0
of this document.
• Access to residential uses shall be provided from internal private streets
(40' ROW).
• The number of lots fronting the golf course or with views of the golf course
shall be maximized
• Access to the community parks from medium-high density residential area shall
be provided via the internal private street system.
Residential development in Planning Area 9 shall comply with the zoning
requirements as outlined in Part 3 of the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance
348.2932.
3.10 PLANNING AREA 10
Planning Area 10 (Figure 3.10-1) consists of 127 acres of land designated for medium
density (2-5 DU/AC) residential development. The following development standards shall
apply to the development consistent with Design Guidelines as set fourth in Section 4.0 of
this document and Part 3 Ordinance 348.2932.
• The primary entrance to residential development shall be from Madison Street
which shall also serve as a primary entrance to the Specific Plan area as depicted
in Fig: 4.4-2 of Section 4.0.
• Primary access to medium density residential development shall be provided by
the internal loop collector and by the internal private street network as depicted
in Fig. 4.4-10 of the Design Guidelines.
• Medium density residential lots fronting the golf course br with views of the
golf course shall conform to Design Guidelines Section 4.0 of the
Specific Plan and Fig. 4.4-12.
3-13
e
0
0
Rancho La Quinta
PLANNING AREA 10
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM 3-5 DU/AC
127 ACRES
663 + DWELLING UNITS
Key Map Figure 3.10-'
,SO
r
3.11 PLANNING AREA 11
Planning Area 11 includes 346 acres of medium density (3-5 DU/AC) residential
development (Figure 3.11-1). Approximately 1512 dwelling units are proposed. The
following development standards shall apply to development within this planning area:
• All residential development shall comply with zoning requirements as dilineated
in Part 3 of the Specific Plan Ordinance 348.2932.
Planning Area 11 shall be served by Avenue 60 and Monroe Street.
• Entrances to Planning Area 11 shall be provided from both Avenue 60 and
Monroe Street; these entrances shall also serve as secondary entries to the
Specific Plan area as depicted in Fig. 4.4-4 of the Design Guidelines.
• Access shall be provided via the internal collector loop street located within the
planning area as depicted in Figure 4.4-10 of Section 4.0 of the
Design Guidelines.
Special consideration shall be8z 'ven to medium densityresidential uses located
adjacent to the out parcel is the east central portion of the planning area and
buffers shall be provided as appropriate.
3.12 PLANNING AREA 12
Planning Area 12 will include 55 acres of medium density residential (3-5 DU/AC) uses
(Figure 3.12-1). Approximately 228 dwelling units are proposed. The following
development standards shall apply to the development consistent with Part 3,
Ordinance 348.2932.
• Planning Area 12 shall be served by Avenue 60 and Monroe Street.
• The primary access to residential development within the Planning Area shall be
from Monroe Street with secondary access off of Avenue 60 as depicted by
Fig. 4.4-2 of the Design Guidelines.
3-15
Rancho La Quinta
PLANNING AREA 11
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM 3-5 DU/AC
346 ACRES
1,512 + DWELLING UNITS
Key Map Figure 3.1 1-1
v
0
0
iq- -
Rancho la Quinta
PLANNING AREA 12
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM 3-5 DU/AC
55 ACRES
228 + DWELLING UNITS
Key Map Figure 3.12-1
AM 4 Z •�
i i
t .. •
,WWI
''rte-�(,� � �
_
pill
►�
- s' •. i • +►
!� R
\ f
1
iq- -
Rancho la Quinta
PLANNING AREA 12
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM 3-5 DU/AC
55 ACRES
228 + DWELLING UNITS
Key Map Figure 3.12-1
►J
• Access to residential units shall be via the internal loop collector street within the
planning area as depicted by Fig. 4.4-10 of the Design Guidelines.
• The number of residential lots fronting the golf course or with views of the golf
course shall be maximized as depicted by Fig. 4.4-12 of the Design
Guidelines.
3.13 PLANNING AREA 13
Planning Area 13 will include 324 dwelling units (Figure 3.13-1) on 84 acres of medium
density (3-5 DU/ACS. The following development standards shall apply to development
consistent with Part 3, Ordinance 348.2932.
• Planning Area 13 shall be served by Avenue 60 and Monroe Street.
• The primary entrance to the planning area shall be from Avenue 60 which shall
also serve as a primary entrance to the Speck Plan area as depicted by
Fig. 4.4-2, Section 4.0 of the Design Guidelines.
• A biological reserve area shall be located within Planning Area 13 to preserve
mesquite woodland habitat as depicted by Fig. 4.4-22 of Section 4.0 of the
Design Guidelines.
• Special consideration shall be given to the relationship between medium density
residential development and the biological reserve area in the eastern portion of
the planning area.
• The number of medium density residential lost fronting the golf course or with
the views of the golf course shall be maximized.
3-18
T
trrAa
4=Yi
�-�
� - 4w.rr. _
I�aat^�-.•�j�
114-t: .
t
•
ancho La Quinta
PLANNING AREA 13
RESIDENTIAL
MEDIUM 3-5 DU/AC
84 ACRES
324 + DWELLING UNITS
t
SECTION 4.0
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
r
Rancho La Quinta is intended to be a balanced residential and recreation -based community
located in a desert environment. The project will draw upon a design vocabulary from
leading country clubs and residential communities across the nation and from other the
developer projects across the country. These design guidelines include criteria for use by
builders, planners, architects, landscape architects and civil engineers under the immediate
direction of the developer. •These Rancho La Quinta Design Guidelines will be used by the
developer to review builder proposals for overall conformance with community design
concepts. The intent of these design guidelines is to allow each community within Rancho
La Quinta to establish its own individual identity, yet blend with the overall community
theme.
4.2 THE RANCHO LA QUINTA CHARACTER
4.2.1 Project Theme
The desired project image is that of a balanced residential and recreation -based community
located in a desert environment. The design vocabulary to be utilized in the design of the
project will involve a California Desert Ranch style theme which will be reinforced through
building and structural elements, landscape design, signage and streetscape features. The
California Desert Ranch style theme will enhance the residential -recreation orientation of the
development.
4.2.2 Project Setting
The project is located within a desert environment typical of the La Quinta area. Little
topographic relief exists on the relatively flat site. Views of the mountains to the west are
available from the western portion of the site. Distant mountain and valley views are
available from the southern and eastern portions of the property. Surrounding land uses
include residential -recreation development of a similar character to"that anticipated for the
proposed project - including the existing PGA West and La Quinta developments.
4.1
4.3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This section presents development standards for the various types of residential
development proposed within the Rancho La Quinta community.
4.3.1 Medium Density Residential
Medium density residential (as defined by Riverside County Planning Department)
development within Rancho La Quinta will include single family detached units with
densities ranging from 2-5 DU/acre. The average lot size within medium density residential
areas will be 7,500 square feet.
4.3.1.1 Concept
In order to achieve a balanced residential community, medium density residential uses are
provided away from the village cores mostly adjacent to open space areas. This density
category allows for custom residential applications. Site planning on lowest density
projects should be sensitive to the natural topography. Detached housing, architectural and
site planning technique can be used to provide interest, soften building masses, and
maintain human scale -along the streetscape. Figure 4.3-1 illustrates a typical concept plan
for medium density residential development.
4.3.1.2 Development Standards:
The following development standards shall apply to medium density residential
development areas. Figure 4.3-2 presents a typical illustrative site plan for these
development areas and Figure 4.3-3 depicts a typical architectural elevation for the medium
density residential development areas.
Density Ranges: 2-5 dwelling units per gross acre
Product Types: Single-family detached
Special Qdtgt : In tract areas, variety of floor plans elevations, and
architectural details should be provided including the use of alternating
reversing repetitive floor plans. In custom home areas, adherence to the
architectural standards of this manual will provide the necessary continuity.
4-2
oingm ramiq vwemng
Dr
for Road
destrian
MS
mmunity
it System
Typical Concept Plan Figure
Medium Density Residential (2-5 DU/acre) 4.3-1
4.3
Entry Identification
Pedestrian Access
Private Garage Entry
Typical Illustrative Site PianFigure
Medium Density Residential (2-5 DU/Acre) 4.3-2
-1_4
' 1444 l PENN 1lN4RYJJJ w I OfM I i '/1lfii.l• y
�} r
r Jul' f ti GI . r.1� is
Icul HrcnITecTural tievaTIQ
dium Density Pesidantial
Where possible, site grading should be responsive to existing natural
topography. Avoid long straight street alignments - instead use curvilinear
streets and cul-de-sacs for interest, privacy, and safety. Tracts bordering
natural open space areas should be designed to maximize open space views and
to minimize access to natural open space areas.
4.3.2 Medium High Density Residential
Medium high density residential (as defined by Riverside County Planning Department)
development within Rancho La Quinta will include single family detached units, patio
homes and duplexes with densities ranging from 5-8 units per acre. Lot sizes within these
development areas are anticipated to range from 4,000 to 10,000 square feet.
4.3.2.1 Concept
To achieve the higher densities (5-8 DU/ac) in this residential category, patio home and
duplex products will be needed. Neighborhoods may incorporate one or both of these
product types. By combining product types, a more varied and interesting street scene can
be achieved Affordable housing can be provided that achieves a lower density character.
Duplex should be designed to resemble single family dwelling. When combined with patio -
homes, they should be sited in strategic locations such as at intersections and at the ends of
cul-de-sacs to maximize their visibility. Sidewalks adjacent to local streets within these
neighborhoods will connect with the community trail system.
Figure 4.3-4 presents a typical concept plan for medium high density residential
development areas.
4.3.2.2 Development Standards:
The following development standards shall apply to medium high density residential
development areas. Figure 4.3-5 presents a typical illustrative site plan for these
development areas and Figure 4.3-6 depicts a typical architr aural elevation for the medium
high density residential development areas.
Density Ranges: 5-8 dwelling units per gross acre.
4-6
w�,dl Road
Path
gal Sidewak)
ige Entry
....r—..
Typical Concept Plan Figure
Medium High Density Residential (5-8 DU/Acre) 4.3-4
4-7
Private Garage
Entry
Cuwo-Sac
c u%ywu
Typical Illustrative Site Plan
Figure
Medium High Density Residential (5-8 DU/Acre) 4.3-5
4.8
:F
C 10(o I W;
0
IE
p
0
Product Type: Single-family detached/patio homes/duplex
Socipj r-nlgrii : A variety of floor plans, elevations, and architectural details
should be provided including the use of alternately reversing repetitive floor
plans. Varying front setbacks along local streets. Varying rear setbacks where
tracts back up to community greenbelts and trail systems. Low profiles along
street fronts, using techniques such as using second story setbacks, single story
elements oriented to streets, and clopped roof at sides and corners of buildings.
Avoid long straight street alignments - instead use curvilinear streets, cul-de-
sacs for interest, privacy and safety.
4.3.3 Commercial Development Standards
The following guidelines should be used in the design of commercial office facilities within
Rancho La Quinta. Figure 4.3-7 presents a typical illustrative site plan for a commercial
development area.
- Architectural design of the commercial office development should reflect the
overall California Desert Ranch.
- Architecture should respond to the public street and shall contain significant
elements relating to the human scale.
- Use of attractive roof forms is highly encouraged
- Buildings with facades parallel to the street are highly encouraged Long
inarticulated facades and roof forms should be avoided, however.
- Use of attractive, durable, high quality, weather resistant materials should be
required for all visible and/or weather exposed surfaces on the building exterior.
Integrally colored inorganic materials, such as brick, concrete, stone, copper,
core ten steel and anodized aluminum are encouraged
- Subdued colors not specifically limited to earth tones are encouraged
- Use of bright vibrant colors and primary colors should not be permitted except
as limited accents graciously employed.
- Use of reflective glass should be prohibited except where used or, a minimal
basis as an accent.
- Temporary modular buildings such as portable buildings or mobile homes and
metal system buildings such as Butler Buildings are prohibited Job site trailers
associated with on-site construction activity are pemissible during construction.
4-10
Project
Entry
Landscape Screening
r
Project Entry
Typical Illustrative Site Pian
Commercial Area
4-11
Landscape
Butter
Figure
4,-7
All parking required for employees, clients, customers or any others related to
an enterprise shall be provided on site, unless otherwise provided by a
reciprocal parking agreement.
- Loading docks, staging areas and transformers shall be screened from public
streets.
- Trash enclosures, rubbish bins, transformers, processing equipment and any
other unsightly apparatus shall be situated away from the street and should be
architecturally screened.
- All roof equipment shall be enclosed in a penthouse or otherwise screened as to
not be visible from a public street or right of way.
- The level of on-site lighting as well as lighting fixtures, shall comply with any
and all applicable requirements and policies of the County of Riverside and
Mount Palomar Observatory. Energy conservation, safety, and security should
be emphasized when designating any lighting system.
4.4 COMMUNITY ELEMENTS
4.4.1 Project Entries
Two primary project entries and ten secondary entries are proposed to serve the Rancho
La Quinta development, These entries are illustrated on Figure 4.4-1. The primary
project entries will be located along Madison Street and along Avenue 60. The primary
entries will project the image of the project as a recreation -oriented community. Secondary
entries will be located along Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street. The design of
the community entry features should be consistent with and complement the landscape
design of the community streetscape improvements and should establish the design theme
and quality of the entire Rancho La Quinta development. Both guard -gated and card -gated
entries maybe provided as part of the Rancho La Quinta development. The following
guidelines shall guide design and development of community entry features
• Monuments installed at community entries shall be for permanent project
identification and not for advertisement.
• Entry monuments shall be installed only within maintained landscaped areas and
shall be consistent in character with any perimeter wall or fencing, and with the
landscape architectural character of the project.
4-12
A
r
w
Project Entries
Figure
4.4-1
A
• All monuments shall be constructed of stone and/or masonry material; open
fencing shall be provided adjacent to stone entries to retain view opportunities.
Informally grouped theme tree plantings shall be located at community entries as
appropriate.
• Decorative shrub, lawn and/or groundcover plantings and decorative boulders
shall be provided as appropriate to allow the community identity signage to
blend into the landscape and streetscape design of the development.
• Decorative paving insets within public and private streets shall be provided as
appropriate to complement and highlight the community entry statement.
• Landscape accent lighting shall be provided as appropriate to highlight the
community entry statement and its landscaping.
The integration of Rancho La Quinta with the surrounding development and the character of
the Specific Plan area will partially depend upon the hierarchy of the entry statements
developed for the Specific Plan area. Project entry statements must be able to provide for a
variety of arrival sequences into the project while maintaining consistency and compatibility
in the overall project theme. Four conceptual entry statements have been developed for the
four types of hierarchical entries into the Specific Plan area: primary entries; secondary
entries; neighborhood entries and entries to commercial development areas.
Two primary project entries will be provided for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area
- one on Madison Street between Planning Areas 1 and 2 and another on Avenue 60
between Planning Areas 3 and 5. The primary entries must strongly project the image of
the project as a recreation oriented residential community with a California Desert Ranch
theme. Figures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 present a plan view and section of the type of primary
entry statement proposed for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan.
Ten secondary entries are proposed within the Specific Plan area as illustrated in
Figure 4.4-1. These entries will be provided where major community streets (Avenue 60,
Monroe Street, Madison Street) intersect the internal project loop collector system.
Secondary entries will provide access to residential development areas and to the golf
course clubhouse area. Secondary entries will be smaller in scale and importance than the
4-14
A
:.
th
Decorative
Community Wall
Primary Signage Wall
Decorative Shrubs Planting
Formal Palm Tree
Planting in Street Medan
�,-Pedestria
c
Formal Palm Tree
Planting in Street R.O.W.
.,
—... , ,..,ceM Paving
Primary Signage
Easement Area
Residential
Rear •
.,
A 16
Typical Primary Entry - Plan View Figure
4.4-2
A
r+
O%
Figure
Tvv%ical Primary Entry - Section 4.
primary entries but will reinforce the recreation -orientation and California Desert Ranch
theme of the project. A conceptual plan view and section of a secondary entry is presented
in Figure 4.4-4.
Neighborhood entries will be located within the Specific Plan area where internal loop
collector streets which serve major residential enclaves intersect with internal project streets
which serve individual residential product types or development areas. Neighborhood
entries will be informal and will be scaled to provide an understated sense of arrival which
would not compete with residential architecture. Neighborhood entries will be designed to
be compatible with the architecture of the individual developments within which they are
located. Figure 4.4-5 illustrates a plan view and section of a typical neighborhood entry.
Commercial entries will occur where major driveway entries to commercial areas intersect
with major circulation corridors, such as Avenue 58. Commercial entries shall be
compatible with the overall California Desert Ranch theme of the project. Figure 4.4-6
illustrates a plan view and section of a typical commercial entry.
4.4.2 Streetscapes
A hierarchy of streetscape-elements will be provided within the Rancho La Quinta
development including secondary highways, urban arterials, arterial highways, internal
collectors, and internal private streets.
Secondary highways providing access to the Specific Plan area include Monroe Street and
Avenue 62. These streets will be constructed with 64 feet of pavement on 88 feet of right-
of-way including a 16 foot landscaped median. Twelve -foot landscaped setbacks with
pedestrian walkways will be provided on both sides of the street. Figure 4.4-7 illustrates a
typical secondary highway streetscape.
Madison Street is the only urban arterial providing access to the Specific plan area. This
street will be constructed with 110 feet of pavement on 134 feet of right-of-way including
an 18 -foot landscaped median. Twelve -foot landscaped setbacks with pedestrian
walkways will be provided on both sides of the street. Figure 4.4-8 illustrates a typical
urban arterial streetscape.
4-17
11
Arterial highways providing access to the Specific Plan area include Avenue 60 and
Monroe Street south of Avenue 60. These streets will be constructed with 86 feet of
pavement on 110 feet of right-of-way, including a 22 -foot landscaped median. Twelve -
foot landscaped setbacks with pedestrian walkways will be provided on both sides of the
street. Twenty -foot setbacks will also be provided between arterial highways and adjacent
residential development. Figure 4.4-9 illustrates a typical arterial highway streetscape.
Internal collectors serving the Specific Plan area include the collector loop streets located
within each of the five Planning Areas. Internal collector streets will be constructed with
44 feet of pavement on 66 feet of right-of-way. Twelve foot landscaped setbacks with
pedestrian walkways will be provided on both sides of the street. Figure 4.4-10 illustrates
a typical streetscape for an internal collector.
Internal private streets will provide access to individual residential units within the Specific
Plan area and will be 40 -foot paved private streets. Figure 4.4-11 illustrates a typical
streetscape for an internal private street.
4.4.3 Land Use Transitions
To provide appropriate interfaces between various land use types, a variety of land use
transition treatments are proposed for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan. These
transitions are intended to provide appropriate edge treatments between individual land uses
to ensure creation of a high quality, environmentally sensitive and aesthetically pleasing
community. Land use transitions are intended to:
• Provide for the separation and buffering of dissimilar land uses or product
types.
• Establish design criteria for creating linkages between land use types.
Land use transition treatments incorporated into the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan are
summarized below.
Medium Density Residential&olf Course Interface: A typical treatment for this interface is
illustrated in Figure 4.4-12. Golf course frontage for residential units is a desirable feature
of the Specific Plan and views of the golf course from residential areas will be maximized.
4.18
: b
IE
Planting
Section
Plan
Typical Secondary Entry - Plan and Section Figt"
4.4-4
4.19 4-_•
0
r— Evergreen Entry Accent Trees
Section
E)))IrIIqTTil)
Entry Monument w/Neighborhood
Identification
Shrub and Accent Planting
Typical Neighborhood Entry - Plan and Section
NGghboihood
Colleclor- - - •••-•---_
Street I
P
Plan
rhood Entry Wall
y. .. �...., Accent Trees
w
4.21 4-22
F.gure
4.4-5
Entry Monument w/Major
Commercial Identilicalion
Evergreen Entry
F Accent Trees
•I1
�w
e
Decorative Cokim.-71
Shrub and Accent Planting
Section
Typical Commercial Entry - Plan and Section
Evergreen Entry F—Major Commercial Driveway Entry
Plan
•-2)
A
N
N
Residential
Yard
Typical Streetscape - Secondary Highway (64' on 88')
Formal Evergreen
Planting
Figure
4.4-7
I
1
134' R.O.W
Residential Rear Yard 110' Curb to Curb
Formal Palm Tree 18' Median
rPlanting Within
• Parkways Residential Rear Yana
Formal
Palm Tree
Planting
Pedestrian in Median
Walkway
1�
i
5' High, Decorative
Community Wall
Tr%ical Streetscape - Urban Arterial (1 ''T on 134') Figure
4.4
10
A
N
J
Formal Palm Tree
Planting Overstory
Formal Evergreen
Understory
Decorative Wall
Figure
'typical Streetscape - Arterial Highway (86' on 110') 4.4-
A
N
J
Formal Palm Tree
Planting Overstory
Formal Evergreen
Understory
Decorative Wall
Figure
'typical Streetscape - Arterial Highway (86' on 110') 4.4-
A
N
00
Infomnal, Randomly Spaced
Evergreen Trees In Street R.O.W.
' Note: Where a residential rear yard faces an internal
collector street, a 5' high solid fence should be
placed along the rear lot Uns.
T~- nical Slieetscap►e - Internal Collect. (44' on 66')
Figure
4.4- 1
A
N
NO
40'R.O.W. Curb to Curb Informal Evergreen
;0 Street Tree Planting
Residential Front Yard
Typical Streetscape - Internal Primate Street (40)
Figure
4.4-11
0
A
W
O
Improved Open Space Golf Course
Medium Density Residential
Open View
Fence
lr",dace - Medium Density Residen+iql/Golf Course
Pad
Figure
4.4
,
- N Open view fences shall be provided in the rear of residential units along the golf course to
maintain views.
ediMmDoty Desidential/Bivlggical Deserve: A typical treatment for this interface is
presented in Figure 4.4-13. Views of the reserve shall be maintained from residential units
through use of an open view fence. This interface is located only in Planning Area 3.
M iun) High Dosily &sidentiaOodf: A typical treatment for this interface is
illustrated in Figure 4.4-14. Where residential units front the golf course, views of the
golf course from the residential units shall be maximized. Where parking areas or
circulation elements are located adjacent to the golf course, a decorative wall shall be
provided.
Mtdiipm High Densi y &5idtndgl rk Use: A typical treatment for this interface is
presented in Figure 4.4-15. As shown in Figure 4.4-15, a 20 -foot landscaped buffer
shall be provided between medium high density residential uses and park areas. Views of
the park shall be maintained from residential areas.
'Medium Kjgh D n A typical treatment for this interface
is illustrated in Figure 4.4-16. Views of the reserve shall be maintained from residential
units through an open view fence. This interface is located only in Planning Area 3.
if fourselRevf,gctad Area: A typical treatment for this interface is illustrated in
Figure 4.4-17. An open rail or view fence shall define the border between the golf course
rough and the revegetation area. This interface is located only within Planning Area 5.
4.4.4 Recreation and Open Space
Four community parks approximately 10 acres each in size are designated within the
Spec Plan area - two within Planning Area 1 and two within Planning Area 4. These
community parks have been sited to provide access to the existing trail system on the
Westside Flood Levy and to afford the potential for future links to the County of
Riverside's recreational trail system. Conceptual site plans have been developed for each
of the community parks as summarized below. Conceptual plans have also been developed
for the biological reserve and revegetation areas located within Planning Areas 3 and 5,
respectively.
4-31
A
W
N
Medium Density Residential
Property Lot Une
Open View Fence
Mesquite Preserve
Figure
l!'aa.rface - Medium Density Residents,"i/Biological Preserve 4.4- 3
A
W
W
Skyline Tree Plantings to Enhance Views
Golf Course
Note: Where mulfi-farniiy residential parking or
vehicular circulation areas occur adjacent to
golf course, a W high, solid decorative wall
shall be used
Figure
Interface r Medium High Density Residential/Golf Course 4,4-14
A
W
A
Medium High Density
Residential
Passive or Active Park
Buffer Sidewalk Picnic
Area
1pll,mdace - Medium High Density Res!Aential/lark Use
Figure
4.4
\ i
Figure
Interface - Medium High Density Residential/Biological Preserve 4.4-1
a
1
Improved Open Space/
Golf Course
Golf Course Roush
Golf Course Fairway
or Green
Open View
or Rail Fence
Ooen Space/
Interface - Golf Course/Revegetation Area
4-36
Figure
4.4-17
I
Figure 4.4-18 presents a conceptual site plan for the community park proposed to be
located in the extreme southwestern portion of Planning Area 1. As shown in
Figure 4.4-18, a decorative wall or fence will separate the community park from adjacent
residential units and the opportunity is available for a potential link to the existing trail on
the flood control levy adjacent to the community park.
Figure 4.4-19 presents a conceptual site plan for the community park proposed to be
located in the western portion of Planning Area 1. A buffer will be provided between the
park and adjacent medium high density residential development as well as a buffer along
the southern boundary of the park in the vicinity of the flood control levy. The opportunity
is available for a potential link to the existing trail on the flood control levy.
Figure 4.4-20 presents a conceptual plan for the community park located in the extreme
southwestern portion of Planning Area 4. A central entry to this park could be provided
from the adjacent medium density residential development area. Figure 4.4-21 is a
conceptual plan for the community park site located in the northwestern portion of Planning
Area 4.
Figure 4.4-22 presents a conceptual plan for the biological reserve within Planning
Area I As shown, a view fence would be provided between the biological reserve and
adjacent residential development.
A concept plan for the revegetation area is illustrated in Figure 4.4-23. The revegetation
.area would be located between golf course holes 13 and 16 in Planning Area 5. A rail
fence would create the boundary between the golf course rough and revegetation area.
The following site planning criteria shall be utilized in the design of recreation and open
space areas:
Building/Parking Orientation
* Recreation facilities shall be architecturally integrated with the natural terrain.
Facilities should relate to other surrounding uses and spaces, interacting with
rather than impacting them.
4-37
Medium High Density
Residential
Decorative Community
Wall or Fence
Shrub
Buffer
Planting
Pedestrian Walk
Existing Trail on Flood Levee
Neighborhood Streetscape
Parking
Restroom
r ---Turf Typ.
Potential Trac
Connection to Park
Open Space/Park
Tree Planting
Conceptual Plan Figure
Community Park - Planning Area 3 4.4-18
1.1R
FJ
I
Decorative Community
Wall or Fence
Open Space/Park
Tree Planting
TurfTyp.
Shrub
Buffer
Planting
Medium High Density
Residential
Neighborhood Streetscape
Connection to Park
Pedestrian Walk
Parking
E)dsting Trail on
Flood Levee
Conceptual Plan Figure
Community Park - Planning Area 2 4.4-,19
4-39
Decorative Community
Wall or Fence
Turf Typ.
Existing Trail on Flood Levee
.j
Medium High Density
Residential
Neighborhood Streetscape
Open Space/Park
Tree Planting
o zoo
FEET
Conceptual Plan Figure
Community Park - Planning Area 4 4.4-20
a-40
Decorative Community
Wall or Fence
Existing Trail on
Flood Levee
Pedestrian Walk r Neighborhood Streetscape
Turf Typ.
' Medium High Density
., f Residential
Restroom
r--. Parking
Open Space/Park
Tree Planting
N
o 200
Gn-
FEET
Conceptual Plan Figure
Community Park - Planning Area 5 4.4-21
3-41
ro
Restroom
r--. Parking
Open Space/Park
Tree Planting
N
o 200
Gn-
FEET
Conceptual Plan Figure
Community Park - Planning Area 5 4.4-21
3-41
J
rA
View Fence
Medium Density Residential
j I Neighborhood
Streetscape
WAI W.1
Existing Mesquite Grove to be Preserved
Conceptual Plan
Biological Reserve - Planning Area 13
4-42
Figure
4.4-22
Decorative
Rail Fence
ly
• Parking shall be screened from adjacent uses and circulation routes.
• Significant landscape/median separations between major parking areas shall be
established.
• Pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall be separated.
• Significant turf area should separate structures from parking areas.
• All recreation building elevations shall be fully articulated
Adjacent Use Orientation
• Open space and recreational uses shall be three -dimensionally integrated into
adjacent development concepts.
• Neighborhood parks and playfields should, if possible, be sited adjacent to
major population user areas.
• Natural features should be utilized to help define neighborhood clusters and
pockets or enclaves of development.
• Pedestrian circulation systems shall link recreation and open space areas with
development.
Lighting
• Light rays shall be confined on site through orientation, the use of
shading/directional controls, and/or landscape treatment.
• Lighting fixtures shall complement fixtures in adjacent development and shall
enhance commur�.ty character.
• Lighting shall be sufficient to provide reasonable safety for persons and
property; allow sufficient illumination to identify hazards to pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, and permit routine surveillance by security personnel.
4-44
The following landscape criteria shall guide development of open space and recreation
Community (Public) Facilities
Landscaping of community facilities shall relate to the design of adjacent arterial
green ways.
• Individual community buildings shall physically relate to the arterial pedestrian
corridors and associated greenway systems.
• Pedestrian access points to the greenway systems shall be highlighted through
the use of accent plantings and monumentation.
• Turf shall be used to the greatest extent feasible.
• Shrubs shall be used to soften the intersection of building walls and the ground
plane.
• Parking shall be screened from adjacent uses and streets by location,
landscaping, and/or berming.
Improved Open Space Areas
• Plant materials shall be organized to provide buffering, transition, and slope
stabilization between land uses and streets, and between development and open
space areas.
• Where possible, improved open space shall be an extension of the golf
course/greenway concept that links all open space, including public and private
parks and recreation centers.
• Street furniture shall be provided expanding the architectural theme and
providing function.
4-4S
• Private recreation centers should supplement, not duplicate, public open space.
• Public and private recreational uses should be considered for flood plain areas.
• Public open space and recreational facilities should be distributed and located
among Ranch La Quinta's residential area on the basis of population density
and availability of alternative private open space amenities.
• Plant materials which are native or' capable of naturalizing to the Rancho
La Quinta area should be used within improved open space areas.
Specific plant selections should consider.
• scale and character,
• temperature range suitability;
• tolerance to wind;
• fire susceptibility; and
• drought tolerancy.
Plant material should be massed to:
• emphasize natural landforms;
• distinguish neighborhood entries;
• define circulation patterns; and
• help unify the overall community.
4.4.5 Community Walls and Fencing
The following guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with the design of fences and
walls in the Rancho La Quinta area. Figure 4.4-24 illustrates some of the fencing concepts
addressed in this section.
4-46
0
0
L.1
Solid Wood Fence with Stucco Pilaster
Open Construction Wood View Fence
Typical Walls and Fences
Solid Stucco Wall with Wood Trim
-:L7111
Hill
���I I II�ltl�li
I
Spit Rail Fence
Wrought Iron Fence with Stucco Column
oL
i
S
Solid Construction Wood Fence
a -a7 a -aa
4.4-24
Community
• Fences and walls shall be used in conjunction with plant materials and other
landscape techniques, to reinforce the California ranch character of Rancho
La Quinta.
• Fences and walls shall be used in a consistent manner throughout the
community.
• As a significant thematic element, the details and materials used in walls and
fences should be of a high quality and customized to the particular function and
development.
• Long linear walls shall be staggered horizontally to provide interest, and to
break sight lines.
• Conventional single-family detached lots adjoining a major arterial shall be
protected by a decorative wall at the property line for privacy and noise
reduction.
• The material, style, and height of walls shall provide an element of continuity
throughout Rancho La Quinta to ensure visual consistency.
• Fences adjacent to open space areas shall be of an open construction to allow
continuation of views.
Perimeter
• Walls or fences are not necessarily required between open spaces and residential
or commercial uses.
• A meandering sidewalk and trees may provide sufficient land use definition and
buffering for a successful interface between the open space and adjacent use.
• Because cluster residential developments are generally preferred along streets
with higher traffic volumes, special wall and/or fence requirements for these
4-49
®'
r'
developments shall be determined as part of the design review process.
Otherwise, setbacks sufficient to alleviate noise impacts may be used in place of
barriers.
• Perimeter walls shall generally not exceed six (6) feet in height, unless
necessary for privacy screening or sound attenuation.
Within Projects
• Single-family detached lots shall not take direct driveway access from
Broadways and Avenues.
• Single family homes may, subject to formal design review approval, be allowed
to front or side, on Avenues, if vehicular access is provided from the rear or
side.
Fences or walls shall be required where the rear yards of single-family detached
lots adjoin these streets; in sideon or fronton conditions, the need for fences or
walls shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis during the formal design review
process.
• Residential developments adjoining commercial uses shall be buffered by
landscaping and/or walls, except in mixed use parcels where an integrated
design may be approved during design review.
• Construction materials and colors for walls and fences shall be consistent with
the project's architecture.
4.4.6 Signage
General
Signage and its integration into the overall project is an unavoidable and critical element in
the design of any well-planned community. Use of certain consistent forms, materials, and
colors establish continuity throughout Rancho La Quinta.
4 -So
All signage within Rancho La Quinta must conform to the architectural and landscape
architectural styles established by this Specific Plan Size and configuration are determined
by the function of the sign and according to the hierarchy of information, direction and
organization.
Materials and Colors
In general, signs should be consistent with the materials and colors established within the
architectural guidelines section of this manual.
Appropriate materials include plaster, wood, clay tile, masonry, wrought iron and ceramic
tile. While plastic, back -lighted signs are not blanketly forbidden within the project, there
are situations where they will not be acceptable. When allowed, they must be designed to
utilize and emulate the style, materials and colors typical of the project. Front -lighted signs
using the above -listed materials are preferable.
Base colors for plaster elements are primarily neutral usually whites, off-whites, cream and
occasionally light pastel tints. Wood should have a light brown stain or be kept natural for
a weathered look. Acceptable accent and lettering colors are: yellow ocher, Tuscan red,
blue, deep blue-green, yellow and black. -
Specific Applications
Entries: A hierarchy of entries has been established for the project. Entry signage will
follow this hierarchy. Beyond major, minor, and neighborhood entries, private entry,
directional, and facility/identification signs should be sized to indicate a further reduction in
scale and importance.
TmvoraC� sip—s: Temporary signs (e.g., for sale, for rent, future facility, construction
signs) will necessarily be constructed to last only their useful life. They must, nonetheless,
be designed and applied to be consistent with the overall permanent signage program.
Their general appearance should be maintained while they are in use, and they should be
removed promptly when they are no longer needed.
Street signs: Street and traffic control signs will be consistent with standards which have
been adopted by the County of Riverside.
Public jra village core, commercial signs,: Signs in these areas should be sized and
located to perform their necessary function but to be sensitively integrated with the other
elements of the site. When located on buildings, they should be designed as a part of the
structure utilizing the architectural elements appropriate to the building style. Signage can
be incorporated into building accents such as awnings and doorways or painted directly on
the stucco using the appropriate accent colors listed above.
4.4.7 Residential Guidelines
The concept of "desert architecture" will be utilized in Rancho La Quinta. This type of
architecture may include a "Spanish Mission" to "Southwest Adobe", "Pueblo" or
'"Territorial" styles all reflecting the California Desert Ranch style image for the project.
The architectural integrity of the project will be protected through stringent controls and
guidelines applied to each phase of the development. Every development proposal within
Rancho La Quinta will require a preliminary design review by the master developer's
Architectural Review Committee to ensure conformance to the desired architectural
parameters. All detailing will enhance and emphasis the character of "Desert Architecture".
The base color of all structures will be limited to the spectrum of white, cream, tan, sand,
light brown, mauve, and other earth tones. Primary colors will be allowed for accents
only. Roofing materials will be limited to concrete -based materials for Spanish tiles or
shake type tiles. Four basic roof forms will be considered acceptable: hip, gable, shed,
and flat.
4.4.8 Commercial Guidelines
Commercial development within Rancho La Quinta will include a mixture of retail
commercial (including neighborhood commercial and visitor commercial uses) and office
uses. The following guidelines will guide development within the commercial areas:.
• Parking shall be oriented to permit pedestrian flow to shops without having to
cross numerous traffic aisles. Separately paved and landscaped pedestrian
walks -- from vehicle parking areas to building complex -- are encouraged.
Bumpers or other tire stops shall be provided for all parking spaces abutting a
4-52
sidewalk, planting area, street, or alley. All parking spaces shall be clearly
striped Double striping is preferred.
• Entry identification through enriched paving of driveways shall predominate.
The use of landscaped medians at major entries shall predominate. Customer
access and circulation should be separated form service/truck areas. Service
areas shall be screened from street, greenways, or adjoining land uses through
location, . elevation, landscape, and/or architectural means. The use of
significant turf areas to separate vehicular traffic from structures shall
predominate.
• Pedestrians courts are encouraged, especially to accent a greenway access point
or primary vehicular entry. Parking shall be screened from streets through
berming, low walls, and landscape. Significant landscape/median separations
between major parking areas shall predominate.
• Building massing, height, and bulk shall be comparable to that of nearby
surrounding uses. Facades adjacent to differing land uses shall employ variable
setbacks, stepping, angling, or architectural techniques to relieve expansive,
unbroken wall planes. -
Light rays shall be confined on site through orientation, the use of shading/
directional controls, and/or landscape treatment. Lighting fixtures shall
complement fixtures in adjacent development and shall enhance community
character. Lighting shall be sufficient to provide reasonable safety for persons
and property; allow sufficient illumination to identify hazards to pedestrian and
vehicular circulation; and permit routine surveillance by security personnel.
• Sign material and colors shall complement the building. Structural sign
elements shall be faced with wood or masonry where appropriate. Signs may
be attached to a building wall, hung from an overhang, or be free standing if
approved during design review. They may not be attached to a roof or extend
above the eaveline.
4-53
4.4.9 Landscape Guidelines
4.4.9.1 Landscape Regulations
These landscape regulations are established to ensure that the concepts envisioned by the
Specific Plan are maintained. The purpose of the regulations is as follows:
1. To aid in stabilizing the environment's ecological balance by contributing to the
process of air purification, oxygen regeneration, ground water recharge, and
storm water runoff retardation, while at the same time aiding in noise, glare,
and heat abatement.
2. To ensure that the local stock of native trees and vegetation is replenished.
3. To assist in providing adequate light and air and in preventing the appearance of
overcrowding of the land.
4. To provide visual buffering and enhance the beautification of the Development.
5. To safeguard and enhance property values and to protect and enhance public
and private investment.
6. To preserve and protect the unique identity of the environment and preserve the
economic base attracted to the Development.
7. To conserve energy.
8. To protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Application of Requirements
A. These Landscaping Regulations shall apply to all lard located in the property
identified in the Specific Plan. Such landscaping requirements shall become
applicable as to each individual lot as such time an application for a building
permit on such lot is made. These requirements remain with any subsequent
owner.
4-54
B. A common development which includes more than one lot shall be treated as
one lot for the purpose of satisfying these Landscaping Regulations. Split
ownership, planning in phases, construction in stages, and/or multiple building
permits for a project shall not prevent it from being a common development as
referred to above. Each phase of a phased project shall comply with these
regulations.
Basic Landscape Requirements
A. At least 20 percent of the area of the street yard shall be landscaped area. All of
the required landscaped area shall be located in the street yard. All newly
planted trees shall be planted in a permeable area no less than 3 feet wide, in
any direction.
B. At least one tree of at least 6 feet in initial height (either existing or planted)
shall be included and replaced as necessary as per the following ratios:
(1) In street yards less than 10,000 square feet, one (1) tree per 1000 square
feet, or fraction thereof, of street yard.
(2) In street yards between 10,000 and 110,000 square feet, 10 trees for the
first 10,000 square feet of street yard and one (1) tree per 2500 square
feet, or fraction thereof, of street yard area over 10,000 square feet.
(3) In street yards over 110,000 square feet, the base requirement noted
above plus one (1) tree per 5000 square feet, or fraction thereof, of street
yard area over 110,000 square feet.
An existing or planted tree, which is at least 8 inches in caliper and at least
15 feet tall shall be considered as two trees for purposes of satisfying this
subsection.
C. The existing natural character (especially native plant species) shall be preserved
to the extent reasonable and feasible. In an area of the street yard containing a
good stand of trees, the developer shall use best good faith efforts to preserve
E#:
such trees. In determining whether there is compliance with this subsection, the
Planning Director shall consider topographical constraints on design, drainage,
access and egress, utilities, and other factors reasonably related to the health,
safety, and welfare of the public which necessitated disturbance of the existing
natural landscape character; economic usefulness of the property without
disturbance of its natural character, the nature and quality of the landscaping
installed to replace it; and such other factors as may be relevant and proper.
D. The impervious cover within the arra encompassed by the dripline of any tree in
a required landscaped area may not exceed 50 percent of such area if such are is
to receive 150 percent credit discussed below.
E. Parking area and vehicle storage areas shall be landscaped in accordance with
Zoning Ordinance 348.
F. All required landscaping shall be irrigated by an underground sprinkling
system.
G. All landscaping which is in required landscaped areas and which is adjacent to
pavement shall be protected with curbs, railroad ties continuous border plants,
or hedgerows when necessary to protect trees.
H. Landscaping in landscaped areas shall not obstruct the view between the street
and the access drives and parking aisles near the street yard entries and exists,
nor shall any landscaping which creates an obstruction of view be located in the
radius of any curb return.
I. Required landscaping areas shall be continuously maintained free of debris,
litter, and weeds, and replaced as necessary to fulfill the requirements of this
section.
J. Landowners are encouraged to landscape the areas within the non -paved st :et
right-of-way abutting their land. Provided, however.
(1) The County may at any time require such landscaping to be removed and
the County shall not be responsible of liable in the event any landscaping
4-56
in the right-of-way must be removed or is requested to be moved by the
County.
(2) Such landscaping in the right-of-way shall observe the provisions of the
Code pertaining to traffic and pedestrian safety.
(3) Any underground sprinkler systems, planters, or other permanent
structures placed in the right-of-way shall require a license agreement with
the Specific Plan 218 community. When any other governmental
jurisdiction is trustee of the public right-of-way at the particular location in
question, arrangements must be made with such other jurisdiction.
Procedures
A. When site plan review by the Planning Commission is required prior to
application for Building Permit on any land where these landscaping
requirements are applicable, the site plan shall conform to County land use
applications When an application is made for a building permit on any land
where these landscaping requirements are applicable, such building permit
application shall conform to County application requirements. - -
B. Landscaping plans shall be reviewed by applicable County Agencies.
C. An inspection fee in an amount to be set by the Board of Supervisors from time
to time by ordinance shall be collected by the Building and Safety Department
at the time of application for a certificate for occupancy.
D. The Building and Safety Department shall inspect each site no sooner than 9
months nor later than 12 months after issuance of the certificate of occupancy to
ensure compliance with these Landscaping Regulations. Provided, however,
that the owner/developer for the property may call for such inspection at any
time before the nine month date.
4-57
ft
Credits Toward Landscaping Requirements
A. Each square foot of landscaped area which is permeable and within the area
encompassed by the dripline of a tree of at least 4 inches in caliper shall count as
1.5 square feet of landscaped area for the purposes of satisfying the minimum
requirements. In order to encourage growth of smaller trees between 4 and
8 inches in caliper, such trees may receive special credit for twice the area of
the dripline. Thus, each square foot of landscaped area around such 4 inch to
8 inch trees is permeable and contiguous to count as 1.5 square feet of
landscaped area.
B. The foregoing 150 percent credit shall be subject to the following limitations.
Neither overlapping dripline areas nor areas contiguous to the dripline areas
which overlap shall be counted twice. Moreover, a tree dripline area shall not
qualify for credit under this subsection if (1) less than one-half of the dripline
area is permeable cover, (2) there have been any damaging changes in the
original grade of the dripline under the tree, or (3) the total of such area
receiving such credit around the tree exceeds the total square footage of
landscaped area within the dripline. Permeable pavers shall be considered as
permeable cover. Changes in grade required by County ordinance, such as
sidewalks, curbing, driveway approaches, etc., shall not be considered as
damaging changes. In no case shall the actual landscaped area in the street yard
of a lot be less than two-thirds of the required minimum percentages as
applicable under Basic Landscape Requirements discussed above.
Alternative Compliance
A. Notwithstanding all of the foregoing provisions a landscape plan which is
alternative to strict compliance with the various landscape requirements above
may be approved by the Planning Director. If the Planning Director finds that
such plan is as good or better than a plan in strict compliance with the various
Lndscaping requirements above (in accomplishing the purposes and intent of
the Landscaping provisions), said plan shall be deemed valid.
4-S8
4.4.9.2 Landscape Character
The California Desert Ranch community design theme anticipated for Rancho La Quinta
will derive as much from the quality of the landscape as from the architectural design of the
community. There will be a need to retain continuity and quality of common areas, while
allowing for individuality and creativity within distinct neighborhoods and product types.
Overall community identity will be strongly influenced by the quality of open space
improvements, community entries, individual neighborhood entries and landscaping of
disturbed areas. The primary objective of the landscape development program for Rancho
La Quinta is to reinforce the California Desert Ranch theme proposed for the development
by developing a landscape design concept which responds to the existing character of the
Rancho La Quinta property. In an effort to capture the spirit of the indigenous landscape,
plant materials and construction materials will be selected for their ability to blend with and
complement nature. This palette should contain materials which are both indigenous to and
compatible with the existing character of the property and which complement the California
Desert Ranch theme of the projecL
4.4.9.3 Residential Landscape Guidelines
Dr,tac'hed Single Family Arcas - All streets and/or driveway scenes shall include
landscaping features appropriate to each project's residential environment and pedestrian
scale. Slope area landscape materials shall be selected and located to protect views and
complement the surrounding hillsides and back drop. Landscape shall be installed to
mitigate solar heat and reflection from paced surfaces (e.g., shade patterns, spacing of tree
canopies, effect of prevailing breezes, etc.).
Attached Single family Ami - Smaller open space areas shall be combined where possible
to generate larger, more usable, spaces. Trash receptacles shall be screened from arterial
greenways with plant material and enclosures compatible with adjacent structures and
landscaping. Landscaping berms shall be used where feasible to reduce the scale of
residential structures as viewed from below or from other neighborhoods, and also to
screen garage and parking areas. Specimen trees shall be used where residential buildings
exceed 25 feet in height to reduce visual massing of structures as viewed form arterial
greenways and adjacent uses. Landscaping shall be installed to mitigate solar heat and
reflection impacts from paved surfaces.
4-S9
Multi -F mily Area - Parking areas shall be clustered to open up and enhance the quantity
and value of the available landscape open space. Parking areas shall be well -screened from
arterial greenways and adjacent uses. Open spaces shall, where possible, be large, usable
areas for the active/passive enjoyment of residents. Landscaping shall be installed to
mitigate solar heat and reflection impacts from paved surfaces. Specimen trees shall be
used where buildings exceed 25 feet in height to reduce the visual impact to arterial
greenways and adjacent uses.
Comm rcial n apei lin sufficient - Landscaping shall be sucient in size and quantity to
effectively screen or reduce the scale of large building masses. Extensive berming and/or
grade change to accentuate screening is encouraged. Evergreen shrubs and trees shall be
used in screening trash containers, loading, and similar utilitarian areas. Shrubs shall be
introduced to soften the intersection of building walls and ground planes. Turf shall be
used in large areas to the extent feasible. Landscape features and furniture, such as
seatwalls integrated into the building foreground, are encouraged to break the visual impact
of expansive wall planes. The visual appearance of major parking areas shall be softened
by the use of extensive landscaping in planters, medians, and berms.
Plant Materials - Plant materials will be selected from the Master Plant List presented in
Table 4.4-1.
Irrigation - All landscape areas shall be fully irrigated with an automatically -controlled
underground irrigation system. The builder must submit Irrigation Plans prepared by a
licensed Landscape Architect or certified Irrigation Design Consultant for formal design
review and approval prior to installation. Areas of separate maintenance responsibility shall
be controlled by separate control valves. All lawn and shrub irrigation systems should be
separate. Irrigation controllers should be selected to minimize the amount and frequency of
water being applied to the soil. Because waterings should be deep and infrequent,
irrigation controllers should be capable of short multiple applications required for the
"soak" allowing the soil to dry out between soakings. The use of water conserving
systems, such as drip irrigation fc.- shrubs and tree planting, is encouraged. To minimize
negative visual intrusion, all automatic valves shall be installed in valve boxes with the pop-
up variety of head used whenever application allows. All backflow control devices and
controllers shall be placed in shrub areas and screened so that they are not visible.
4-60
Table 4.4-1
RANCHO LA QUINTA PLANT PALLETE
Trees
Bottle Tree
Mexican Blue Fan Palm
Blue Palo Verde
Carob Tree
Jacaranda
Crape Myrtle
Olive
Chilean Mesquite
Cork Oak
African Sumac
California Pepper
Brazilian Pepper
California Fan Palm
- Mexican Fan Palm
4M
Desert Broom
Bush Bougainvilla
Yellow Bird of Paradise
Dwarf Poinciana
Fairy Duster
Feathery Cassia
Green Hop Bush
Lantana
Texas Ranger
Heavenly Bamboo
Dwarf Oleander
Purple Fountain Grass
Yellow Oleander
Zylosma
4-61
Gazania
Trailing Lantana
Dwarf Rosemary
.r�
Maintenance, - To receive final design review approval of development plans, a precise
method of long-term maintenance shall be formally proposed by the builder. Particular care
should be taken to provide for high-quality maintenance in common areas, visible
locations, and high traffic conditions. The method(s) proposed by the builder should
include specific financing mechanisms, and cost considerations for maintaining the high
quality image desired for Rancho La Quinta. This shall include routine periodic landscape
maintenance, pest control, fertilization, water, and utilities, etc., as well as potential
funding of reserves for major maintenance, repair, and replacement of plant material,
irrigation systems, and other elements of the landscape architectural design
4-62
PART 5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SPECIFIC PLAN 218
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 5
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
i
IUE
INTRODUCTION
PAGE
1-1
1.0
1.1
Proposed Project
1-1
1.2
Location
1-1
1.3
Processing
1-4
2.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IlViPACT REPORT SUMMARY
2-1
2.1
Landform and Topography
2-1
2.2
Seismic Safety/Slopes and Erosion
2-1
2.3
Agriculture
2-2
2.4
Flooding and Water Quality
2-3
2.5
Open Space and Conservation
2-3
2.6
Aesthetics and Visual Quality
2-4
2.7
Air Quality
2-5
2.8
Wildlife/Vegetation
2-6
2.9
Historic and Prehistoric Resources
2-7
2.10
Noise
2-7
2.11
Libraries
2-8
2.12
Water and Sewer
2-8
2.13
Solid Waste
2-9
2.14
Airports
2-10
2.15
Parks and Recreation
2-10
2.16
Fire Station, Sheriff, Police and Emergency Services
2-11
2.17
Utilities
2-12
2.18
Schools
2-12
2.19
Health Services
2-13
2.20
Circulation
2-13
2.21
Fiscal Impact
2-15
3.0
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM
3-1
3.1
Site Identification Within Open Space and Conservation Map
3-1
3.2
Site Identification With Composite Hazards/Resources Map
3-4
i
r'
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 5 (Continued)
SES'. TT QN
1131
Land Use Area Profile and Community Policy Area
J!A G E
3.3
Identification for Project Site
3-7
3.3.1
Land Use Area Profile
3-7
3.3.2
Community Policy
3-7
3.4
Summary of Project Proposal/Site Comparison With
Applicable Land Use Category Policies or Community Plan
3-7
3.4.1
Category I - Heavy Urban
3-8
3.4.2
Category II - Urban
3-8
3.4.3
Category III - Rural
3-9
3.4.4
Category IV - Outlying Areas
3-9
3.4.5
Category V - Planned Community
3-9
4.0
LAND USE ELEMENT
4-1
4.1
Land Use Planning Area Policy Analysis
4-1
4.2
Community Policy Area Analysis
4-2
4.3
Land Use Category Policy Analysis
4-4
5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT
5-1
5.1
Landform and Topography
5-1
5.1.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-1
5.1.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-1
5.1.3
Mitigation
5-1
5.2
Seismic Safety/Slopes and Erosion
5-2
5.2.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-2
5.2.1.1
Geologic Setting and Lithology
5-2
5.2.1.2
Structure
5-6
5.2.1.3
Geologic Hazards
5-10
5.2.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-13
5.2.3
Mitigation
5-16
5.3
Agriculture
5-17
5.3.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-17
5.3.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-18
5.3.3
Mitigation
5-19
ii
r'
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART S (Continued)
5.4
Flooding and Water Quality
5-20
5.4.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-20
5.4.1.1
Surface Water
5-20
5.4.1.2
Groundwater
5-23
5.4.1.3
Water Quality
5-24
5.4.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-27
5.4.2.1
Surface Water
5-27
5.4.2.2
Groundwater
5-27
5.4.2.3
Water Quality
5-28
5.4.3
Mitigation
5-28
5.5
Open Space and Conservation
5-29
5.5.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-29
5.5.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-30
5.5.3
Mitigation
5-30
5.6
Aesthetics and Visual Quality
5-31
5.6.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-31
5.6.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-31
5.6.3
Mitigation
5-30
5.7
Air Quality
5-32
5.7.1
Existing ConditionslGeneral Plan Policies
5-32
5.7.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-39
5.7.3
Mitigation
5-44
5.8
Wildlife/Vegetation
5-45
5.8.1
Existing Conditions,/General Plan Policies
5-45
5.8.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-53
5.8.3
Mitigation
5-55
5.9
Historic 8t Prehistorical Resources
5-57
5.9.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-57
5.9.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-58
5.9.3
Mitigation
5-59
5.10
Noise
5-60
5.10.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5-60
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 5 (Continued)
SECTION
LL
FA --U
5.10.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5-63
5.10.3
Mitigation
5-66
6.0
PUBLIC FACILTI'IES AND SERVICES
6.1
6.1
Libraries
6-1
6.1.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-1
6.1.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-1
6.1.3
Mitigation
6-1
6.2
Water and Sewer Facilities
6-2
6.2.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-2
6.2.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-3
6.2.3
Ntigation
6-5
6.3
Solid Waste
6-5
6.3.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-5
6.3.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-6
6.3.3
Mitigation
6-6
6.4
Airports
6-6
6.4.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-6
6.4.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-8
6.4.3
Mitigation
6-9
6.5
Parks and Recreation
6.5.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-9
6.5.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-10
6.5.3
Mitigation
6-10
6.6
Fire Station, Sheriff, and Emergency Services
6-11
6.6.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-11
6.6.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-11
6.6.3
Mitigation
6-12
6.7
Utilities
6-13
6.7.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-13
6.7.2
Project-Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-13
6.7.3
Mitigation
6-14
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 5 (Continued)
SIRCTION
TITLE
Schools
PACE
6-14
6.8
6.8.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-14
6.8.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-14
6.8.3
Mitigation
6-15
6.9
Health Services
6-15
6.9.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-15
6.9.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-15
6.9.3
Mitigation
6-16
6.10
Circulation
6-16
6.10.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-16
6.10.2
Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-18
6.10.3
Mitigation
6-24
6.11
Fiscal Impact
6-27
6.11.1
Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
6-27
6.11.2
Project impact//Relationship to General Plan Policies
6-27
6.11.3
Mitigation
6-29
6.12
Other Environmental Issues
6-30
7.0
HOUSING ELEMENT
7-1
7.1
Applicable Housing Policies and Programs
7-1
7.2
Specific Plan
7-3
7.2.1
Project Relationship to the General Plan Policies
7-3
7.2.2
Housing Inventory
7-4
7.2.3
Project Compatibility with Existing Housing Inventory
7-5
8.0
REGIONAL ELEMENT
8-1
8.1
Regional Growth (SCAG) Forecasts
8-1
8.1.1
Identification of Regional Forecasts for Project Site
8-1
8.1.2
Land Use Area Profile
8-2
8.1.3
Comparison of Project Growth Forecast with
Regional Growth Forecast
8-8
8.2
Applicable Employment/Housing Balance Policies
8-10
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 5 (Continued)
EEJC_�
TTTLE
J!AcE
9.0
ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT
9-1
9.1
Land Use Policy/Specific Plan Time Frames
9-1
9.1.1
Project Time Frames for Development
9-1
10.0
MANDATORY CEQA SECTIONS
10-1
10.1
Cumulative Impacts
10-1
10.2
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
10-2
10.3
Alternatives W Proposed Project
10-2
10.3.1
No Project/No Development
10-3
10.3.2
Existing Zoning
10-3
10.3.3
Independent Development
10-4
10.3.4
Alternative Summary
10-5
10.4
Growth Inducing Impacts
10-12
10.5
Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's
Environment in Maintenance/Enhancement of Long -Term
Productivity
10-13
10.6
Irreversible rretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies
and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented
10-14
11.0
ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS
CONSULTED
11-1
11.1
References
11-1
11.2
Organizations and Persons Consulted
11-4
12.0
REPORT PREPARATION STAFF AND CONSULTANTS
12-1
LIST OF FIGURES - PART 5
NUMBE 1131E EAGE
1.1-2 Regional Map for the Rancho La Quint& Specific Plan 1-2
1.1-2 Vicinity Map for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 1-3
3.1-1 Open Space and Conservation Map 3-2
vi
r'
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART S (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES - PART S (Continued)
f -t ;,W
3.2-1
Composite Environmental Hazards Map
3-5
3.2-1
Composite Environmental Resources Map
3-6
5.2-1
Simplified Geologic Map (Topsoil Not Shown)
5-3
5.2-2
Regional Fault Map
5-7
5.4-1
Project Site Hydrographic Basin
5-21
5.4-2
Existing Project Area Drainage and 100 Year Storm Runoff
5-22
5.7-1
California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
5-38
5.8-1
Vegetation and Sensitive Biological Resources
5-46
5.10-1
Land Use Compatibility Chart Based on Community
Noise Level
5-61
6.4-1
Project Site's Proximity to Thermal Airport's Interim
Influence Area
6-7
6.10-1
Trip Assignment (Average Daily Trips)
6-17
6.10-2
Average Daily Trips Exisdng/Existing Plus Project
6-22
8.1-1
Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area
8-3
8.1-2
Coachella Valley Community Policy Area
8-5
8.1-3
Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Community Policy Area
8-7
9.1-1
Phasing for Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan
9-2
LIST OF TABLES - PART S
N U B E.,R 11TL E EASE
5.2-1 Description of Onsite Soil Properties 5-5
5.2-2 The Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensities 5-8
5.4-1 Summary of Surface Runoff Pollution Coefficients for Various
Land Uses 5-26
5.7-1 Ambient Air Quality Summary Palm Springs Monitoring
Station 5-34
5.7-2 Ambient Air Quality Summary Indio Monitoring Station 5-35
5.7-3 Air Quality Mobile Emissions for Proposed Project 5-41
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - PART 5 (Continued)
LIST OF TABLES - PART 5 (Continued)
NUMBER
5.7-4
TITLE
Power Plant Emissions
PACE
5-42
5.7-5
Natural Gas Emissions
5-42
5.7-6
Total Emissions Produced by Rancho La Quints (2010)
5-43
5.7-7
Emissions Inventory (tons/day)
5-43
5.10-1
Noise Contour Distances for Roadways Adjacent to the
Rancho La. Quinta Specific Plan Area
5-65
6.10-1
Rancho La Quints Trip Generation
6-20
6.10-2
Riverside County Highway Capacity Criteria for General
Plan Roads
6-21
6.10-3
Intersection Levels of Service
6-23
6.10-4
Phasing of Recommended Traffic Improvements
6-25
7.2-1
Rancho La Quinta Housing Inventory
7-4
8.1-1
Population and Housing Forecasts for the Lower Coachella
Land Use Planning Area
8-4
8.1-2
Population and,Housing Forecasts for the Easton Coachella
Valley Plan Arca -
8-8
10.3-1
Comparative Matrix of Alternatives
10-6
viii
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1. PROPOSED PROJECT
Rancho La Quinta is a planned community, providing residents with recreational and
commercial opportunities. Located within the County of Riverside, the community is in
proximity to the residential community of La Quints
Specific Plan 218 proposes:
Residential
795 acres
63%
Open Space
380 acres
30%
Conummial
35 acres
3%
Public Use
41 acres
4%
1251 acres
The residential uses include medium (2-5 dwelling units/acre (DU/acre)) and medium high
(5-8 DU /acre) densities. The overall density of the project is 3.5 DU/acre. The project is
proposed for four phases, approximately five years per phase, with ultimate buildout
expected in the year 2010.
Open space includes two 18 -hole golf courses and the proposed project includes a total of
4262 units. Commercial uses, 35 acres, are proposed to include a 60% to 40% mix of
retail and office uses, respectively. Public uses (a total of 41 acres) include sites for fire
stations, parks, schools etc.
1.2 LOCATION
The project site is located within the Coachella Valley of the County of Riverside,
(Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2). The site is located approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast of
the La Quinta city limits. Desert communities of Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm
Desert, Indian Wells, Indio and Coachella are located within 30 miles of the proposed
development.
1.1
RIVERSIDE,
QDm
Lake Mathews
SAN f BERNARDINO
-- _
Sun
City
Perris
Res.
SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS
Hamot
Skituler
_ SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
r- RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Banning
PALM
SPRINGS
C,O
4r
c<
-v
Palm
Doom
PROJECT SITE
o s
Vail Lake
MILES
� r!
RIVERSID€COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Regional Map for the Rancho La Quinta Specific Pian Figure
11 � r • � / �
II r 11 M
11 • � it Y
11 r It �
II AVENUE
D-1 _�
.•- 0 i f7'7 '1
u L
11
' 26 25
—�• r II �N�
�i � r• �M u��_3�t = �_� O �J
r
PROJECT SITE t
1 r•h i' •yam � V
__ -- --- -------------------
7 2
ati H
d
A
•W l
Swimming
Pool rK/`
e
Pao,
35
A V€
Swimming
Pool rK/`
1.3 PROCESSING
The Rancho La Quinta development is anticipated to be constructed over a twenty year
period. The planning approach has integrated an evaluation of the need for public facilities
over the life of the project.
Construction of these facilities will require Landmark Land Company to invest substantial
sums of money for preliminary engineering, planning and improvement costs.
To provide a degree of stability to the development of Rancho La Quinta with respect to
allocation of resources to fund public improvements, a Development Agreement is being
prepared.
The State of California, in adopting development agreement legislation, made these
declarations:
1. "The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a
waste of resources, escalate the cost of housing and other development to the
consumer, and discourage investment in and commitment to comprehensive
planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of resources at the
least economic cost to the public."
2. "Assurance of the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the
project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing
policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval will
strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in
comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development."
The agreement will incorporate informational requirements specified by Section 65862.2 of
the Government Code, including:
1. The duration of the agreement;
2. The permitted uses of the property-,
3. The density or intensity of use;
4. The maximum size and height of proposed buildings; and
5. The provision for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes
1.4
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Rancho La Quinta development
satisfies the environmental documentation requirements for the proposed agreement.
The development agreement process will lend stability to the development of Rancho
La Quinta, and can provide significant benefits to the County of Riverside. A few of these
benefits could include:
1. Assured developer performance.
2. Assured developer cormnitment to environmental impact mitigation.
3. Developer contribution to needed infrastructure or public service systems.
4. Direct or indirect monetary gain (e.g., new revenue sources).
5. Developer commitment to specific land uses and implementation of adopted
general or specific plans.
1-5
f' r
SECTION 2.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY
A summary of each issue addressed in the EIR for the proposed Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan is presented below. Under each issue, a summary of the existing conditions,
impacts and mitigation measures are provided
2.1 LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Rancho La Quinta project site is relative flat with slightly sloping topography.
Elevation ranges from approximately sea level to 90 feet below sea leveL The overall
slope is less than 1 percent. There is extensive topographic relief to the west of the site in
the form of foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains.
Construction of the residential, commercial, golf courses and ancillary facilities would not
substantially alter the topography of the site. Minor grading, including elevation
differentials of less than 10 feet, would result in minimal landform alterations. No
significant impacts would occur to either landform or topography.
No mitigation measures are recommended or required
2.2 SEISMIC SAFETY/SLOPES AND EROSION
Existing n
Surface exposures in the project site consist of a number of recent soil units, Quaternary
lacustrine and alluvial deposits, and Mesozoic granite intrusives. The Coachella Valley is
2-1
!"
bounded by two major fault zones; the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones. Two
inferred, unnamed fault traces occur in the project vicinity; one within the eastern site
boundary.
Potential impacts associated with geology and soils are related primarily to seismically
induced effects, erosion and the stability of surficial deposits.
Miti g3tiQn M! 4�-I es
Due to existing geological conditions, a geotechnical investigation of the project site shall
be conducted by a qualified consultant prior to implementation of the proposed
development. The applicant will incorporate the results of this investigation in the final
project design, including all mitigation measures developed by the geotechnical consultant.
2.3 AGRICULTURE
Existing Conditions
Approximately 57% of the proposed project site is used for agriculture purposes, including
dates, citrus and alfalfa. Prinz agricultural land accounts for 91 percent of the site.
Implementation of the project would remove 710 acres from existing agriculture
production and would result in the loss of 1140 acres of prime agricultural land. From a
regional perspective, the project site represents approximately one percent of prime
agricultural land in the Coachella Valley. Loss of productive agricultural land and
designated prime agricultural land represents an incremental decrease in agriculture in the
Coachella Valley.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are recommended
2-2
.r
e
2.4 FLOODING AND NATER QUALITY
xie i.n on ii
Natural drainage patterns in the project site and vicinity have been altered to varying
degrees by a series of storm improvement facilities. These include a number of levees and
channels which divert and carry storm runoff. There are five operating wells onsite with
water tables ranging from approximately 18 to 300 feet. Surface waters in the project area
consist primarily of intermittent flood runoff. Water quality in the Coachella Valley is
generally high.
im
Change of onsite water quantity and quality create potential impacts but are not considered
significant. No significant impacts are expected to occur from the use of groundwater
aquifers by the proposed development. The proposed project would contribute to the
overall regional increase in water quality contaminant levels. These impacts are not
considered significant, however, due to the relatively small quantities involved
Due to potential flooding and water quality impacts, a geotechnical investigation of the
project site by a qualified consultant should be conducted prior to construction of the
proposed development. Mitigation measures for drainage specifications outlined in the
geotechnical report will be implemented by the applicant into the design of the proposed
project. Also the applicant will utilize maximum water conservation efforts and minimize
runoff contaminant levels.
2.5 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
14"MT-M 'M_Misv
The project site is primarily agriculture with undisturbed and disturbed open areas. The
undisturbed open areas support mesquite thickets on the eastern portion of the site. Also
onsite is a liquefaction hazard area and an inferred fault.
2-3
Mesquite thickets in the undisturbed areas of the project site are a declining habitat which
supports the Crissal thrasher, a species of special concern. Loss of this habitat would
result in an adverse impact. Without proper mitigation of the liquefaction area,
development onsite would create an adverse impact. Development along the inferred fault
is not expected to result in any impacts.
Ming tion Mea,. rim,
The loss of open space in the area is mitigated by designating 32 percent of the site as open
space. Loss of the mesquite thicket habitat will be mitigated by the developer through a
revegetation plan utilizing mesquite into the design of the golf course when the golf course
is developed. Determination of the level of significance of the liquefaction hazard area will
require geotechnical analysis. Mitigation measures proposed in that analysis will be
required to be implemented
2.6 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY
Existing Ccnditions
The visual quality of the site consists of open space agricultural uses with a small quantity
of natural vegetation. The topographic relief is minimal on site, although areas to the west
of the project site include the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The PGA West
development is located approximately 0.5 miles to the northwest. Otherwise, agricultural
and low density residendWfarming uses prevail in the vicinity.
Impacts
The project will include residential, commercial and open space (primarily golf course)
uses. The development will include similar types of land uses as are being constructed on
the adjacent PGA West project. Minimal landform alteration would occur, becau, -. of the
limited topographic relief over the project site. If the project complies with the design
guidelines promulgated in the Specific Plan, no significant aesthetic or visual quality
impacts would occur.
2-4
W gallon Measures
The developer would be required to implement the guidelines and policies of the Specific
Plan upon construction of the development.
2.7 AIR QUALITY
Exi n n
The project is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEAB); monitoring in the air
basin is performed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The
climate of the project area is typically characterized by high temperatures, low annual
rainfall, and low humidity. Prevailing northwesterly winds funnel from the Los Angeles
area into the Coachella Valley often transporting oxidants, sulfates and nitrates into the
airshed of the project area. As a result, although the local contribution to air quality is not
substantial, the Coachella Valley area does violate state and federal standards for ozone. In
addition, particulate standards are also often exceeded because of wind -transported desert
soils.
The amount of construction -related emissions and fugitive dust associated. with site
preparation and construction cannot be determined at this time; however construction
impacts are considered short-term adverse effects. Upon completion and operation of the
proposed project, air quality in the project area will be directly affected by motor vehicle
(mobile) emissions from project traffic, and indirectly influenced by power plant pollutants
(stationary emissions) emitted to service the project. Total projected emissions from the
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan would not significantly contribute to the total emissions
burden within Riverside County basin. The project is within the SCAG population
forecasts, which is the basis for SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan. Consequently,
the proposed project would not be a significant contributor to air quality in the project
vicinity although it would incrementally contribute to the degradation of air quality in the
local air basin. Measures should be incorporated into the project design to further reduce
projected emissions and comply with County of Riverside General Plan air quality
guidelines.
2-S
Py Wggtaan Measures
Construction produced urgniuvr; dust and other pollutants can be reduced by watering
surfaces and planting ground cover as soon as feasible after grading. Project generated
emissions can be reduced through incorporating transit facilities, energy efficient buildings,
and solar design features. In addition, efficient traffic patterns can minimize unnecessary
automobile idling and the associated emissions. For commercial developments with 100 or
more employees, SCAQMD requires a reduction in vehicle trips by encouraging employee
carpooling. The project developer would be responsible for adopting these measures into
the project and performing any associated tasks to reduce emissions.
2.8 WILDLIFENEGETATION
Existing Conditions
Approximately 910 acres are under agricultural uses, while 251 acres are natural habitat
including mesquite t i_ket-C 31 a^:es), saltbush scrub (191 acres), creosote bush scrub
(28 acres), and freshwater marsh (less than 1 acre). Other habitats include disturbed
scrub (66 acres), introduced trees (15 acres), artificial ponds (3 acres), and disturbed
habitat (6 acres). No endangered or threatened species were noted on the project site;
however, the potential exists for the flat -tailed horned lizard (a candidate for federal
endangered listing and Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish
and Game) to occur on the project site. A sensitive bird species (Crissal thrasher) was
noted in the mesquite thickets.
Impacts
Impacts from the project are not considered significant; however, adverse impacts could
occur to potential flat -tailed horned lizard and Crissal thrasher habitats in the mesquite
thickets.
Mitimi6on Meas=s
A spring survey for the flat -tailed horned lizard is recommended in potential habitat in the
northwestern portion of the site. If individuals are located within this area, contribution to
a habitat retention program such as the Coachella Valley fringed -toed lizard reserves, would
2-6
be recommended Impacts to the natural mesquite thicket should be reduced and mesquite
should be incorporated in the landscape palette where feasible.
2.9 HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC RESOURCES
Existing, Conditions
Cultural resources were located on the project site and adjacent to the site.
Potential adverse impacts could occur to cultural resources on the project site. Indirect
impacts to resources in the vicinity are potentially adverse, though not significant.
Mitiga&n M05=s
Testing of three cultural resource sites, by a qualified consultant on the project site, would
be required to determine the significance of the resources. If the sites are determined to be
culturally significant, a qualified archaeologist will be retained for monitoring during
grading. -
2.10 NOISE
The primary noise source in the project vicinity is vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways,
although current volumes ar relatively low. Rural environments with low traffic volumes
typically experience noise levels ranging from 35 to 55 dB(A), depending on time of day.
Certain portions of the project would likely be exposed to noise levels greater than the
County's noise guidelines of 65dB(A) CNEL, based on preliminary noise contour
distances developed by the County and computer modelling. This would result in
significant noise impacts on future residents of the project.
2-7
a0 !
-� .
Noise levels will be reduced to County and Stain guid*L-ai'cs ia5 dB(A) CNEL exterior and
45 dB(A) CNEL interior) through mitigation measures that may include building setbacks,
earthen berms, masonary walls and/or a combination of methods. The mitigation measures
shall be subject to review and approval by the County Building and Safety Department.
Adoption of these measures would ensure that all onsite noise impacts are reduced below a
level of significance.
2.11 LIBRARIES
The closest library to the project site is located in Indio. A new library is under
construction in La Quinta and will have the capacity to serve 5,000 to 9,000 people.
The new library being constructed in La Quinta will serve 5,000 to 9,000 people. The
proposed Rancho La Quinta development, at full buildout, is expected to house
approximately 11,500 people creating an adverse but mitigable impact to the library system.
Mitigation Measures
To mitigate impacts on library services by the proposed project to a level of insignificance,
a developer fee will be required prior to obtaining a building permit. Designation of a
library site within the proposed development in lieu of development fees by the developer
would also mitigate any adverse impacts to the library system.
2.12 WATER AND SEWER
Existing Conditions
The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water, irrigation, and sewer service
to the project area. An agricultural irrigation system and sewer force main are currently the
only onsite facilities.
2.8
The project will require the extension of domestic water facilities from the nearby PGA
West development; an expansion of the Midvalley Sewage Treatment Plant; and some
additional onsite and offsite improvements to adequately provide water and sewer service to
the site. CVWD does not foresee any adverse impacts, provided those additional facilities
are funded by the developer and constructed according to CVWD requirements.
Mitigation Mea,s=s
Although no impacts are identified, the developer must financially contribute to increasing
treatment plant capacity proportionally to the project's contribution to the facility. In
addition, the developer must construct all onsite facilities to standards established by the
CVWD. Facilities should be constructed in accordance with identified needs and phasing
of the development.
2.13 SOLID WASTE
Exi�ting-onditions
Waste generated from the project area is transported by a private hauling service to the
Coachella Valley Sanitary Landfill operated by the County of Riverside.
The County does not foresee any problems with accommodating the solid waste to be
generated by the project in the Coachella Valley Landfill; therefore, no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
Mifization Mensures
No mitigation measures are required because no significant impacts are identified for solid
waste disposal.
2-9
2.14 AIRPORTS
E,rdsting Con. ition5
The Thermal Airport influence area is located approximately one mile from the project site.
The project area is located beyond the facility's influence area. There would be no noise or
adverse safety impacts to the project site resulting from of aircraft operations at this
facility.
In the future, population generated from the project may contribute to an increase in
Coachella Valley's aviation needs. Expansion of the Thermal Airport resulting from
regional growth in the Coachella Valley would likely not affect the project's noise or safety
environment, and no adverse impacts are anticipated
No measures are required because no significant impacts related to airport operations are
identified.
2.15 PARKS AND RECREATION
Existing Conditigg
There are no recreational facilities existing on the project site. Lake Cahuilla Park (a
regional county park) is located to the west of the project.
Impacts
The proposed project designates approximately 40 acres of the site for public uses and
t' nese areas are expected to be utilized as local parklands. Approximately 380 acres of golf
courses is also proposed The County of Riverside Parks Department requires a minimum
of 61 acres designated for parks and recreation. The proposed parks will implement
design standards incorporated in the Specific Plan.
2-10
The combination of designated parkland and golf comse mitigates impacts to below a level
of insignificance, no further mitigation is required.
2.16 FIRE STATION, SHERIFF, POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Riverside County Fine Department provides fire protection services to the project area.
The closest fire station to the project site is located approximately 0.5 miles to the north.
Emergency services, such as paramedic and ambulance services, are also located at the fire
station. The project area is serviced by the County of Riverside Sheriffs Department
located in Indio.
Because a fire station is proposed onsite, the proposed project is not expected to create any
adverse impacts to fire services in the area. Implementation of the proposed project will
create an adverse, but mitigable, impact on Sheriff services in the area. If it is determined
by the County of Riverside Fire Department that the proposed development's demand for
emergency services will exceed capacity, then the project would result in an adverse impact
to emergency services.
Mitigakn Measures
The proposed fire station site designated in the project design will mitigate impacts to fire
services in the area to a level of insignificance. Impacts to sheriff services will be mitigated
by increasing sheriff personnel concurrently with increasing population. Sheriff service
impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by incorporating design standards of
the Specific Plan into the project to provide safety and reduce crime. Both of these
mitigation measures will reduce impacts to sheriff services in the area to a level of
insignificance. If it is determined that the proposed development will create adverse
impacts to emergency services then emergency facilities should be provided at the onsite
fire station. Provision of emergency services at the fire station would alleviate impacts to a
level of insignificance. Both the fire and emergency service mitigation measures would
2.11
need to be implemented when existing facilities no longer are capable of servicing the area.
Sheriff services would be required on an incremental basis as population increases.
2.17 UTILITIES
Existing Conditions
Telephone, gas, and electrical utilities provide or will provide services to the project area.
These local utilities are, respectively, General Telephone Co., So. California Gas Co., and
Imperial Irrigation District.
Impacts
The proposed project will not have an impact on local utilities, provided conservation
standards for water are implemented into the design of the project.
If conservation measures are incorporated into the design of the project, for water usage,
then no further mitigation measures will be required
2.18 SCHOOLS
Existing Conditions
The proposed development will be within the Coachella Valley Unified School District.
The closest schools to the project site are located in Indio.
Impacts
The proposed development will generate approximately 4,000 to 8,000 school age
children. This addition will create a significa-.t impact to school facilities if not properly
mitigated
2-12
Miti n M
Mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance, include
developer fees of $1.50 per square foot for residential development and $0.25 per square
foot for commercial development or school sites designated in lieu of the developer's fees.
Developer's fees and/or school site designation would be required of the developer prior to
building permit issuance.
2.19 HEALTH SERVICES
Existing—Conditions
The nearest hospital to the project site is located in Indio, but there are two outpatient clinics
located closer to the project site in Palm Desert and La Quints
Because the two outpatient clinics, located in Palm Desert and La Quinta, relieves much of
the dependency on the hospital in Indio, no health service related impacts are expected to
occur.
Mid gatign Measures
No adverse impacts are expected to occur to health services in the area; therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
2.20 CIRCULATION
Existing Conditions
Regional access to the project site would be provided by Interstate 10 via Monroe Street or
Jackson Street and by State Route 86 (Harrison Street) via Avenue 58, Avenue 60 or
Avenue 62. Streets serving the site vicinity which are designated in the Riverside County
General Plan Circulation Element include Avenue 58, Avenue 60, Avenue 62,
2-13
Madison Street, Monroe Street and Jackson Street. All are currently two-lane highways
with acceptable levels of service. Primary access to the site would be from Madison Street,
Avenue 60 and Monroe Street.
Impacts
The project would be expected to generate approximately 47,010 ADT. Potential project -
related traffic impacts are identified, including unacceptable levels of service on Monroe
Street, and the intersections of Avenue 58/Madison Street, Avenue 58/Monroe Street,
Avenue 58/Jackson Street, Avenue 60/Monroe Street and Avenue 60/Jackson Street.
These traffic impacts would be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the phased
implementation of certain roadway improvements which are discussed in the mitigation
section.
Mitigation Me_5ure5
Mitigation measures are propos: I ^f,ic : would mitiga e project -related traffic impacts to
below a level of significance. These measures include improvements to Circulation
Element roads, intersection improvements and signalization where warranted, appropriate
treatment of entries to the project site to avoid sight distance constraints, appropriate
construction of internal loop roads to collector standards, appropriate access for golf carts
and conformance with all applicable land use standards outlined in the Riverside County
General Plan Circulation Element. See Section 7.10 for details.
The staging of these improvements is dependant on the proposed phasing of the
development. The project developer is responsible for the funding and construction of all
improvements, except the widening of Monroe Street, north of the project area. The costs
for improvement of this segment would be shared by any developments utilizing the
roadway. Provided the improvements are constructed by the developer within the
appropriate phases, no adverse traffic or circulation impacts are anticipated.
2-14
2.21 FISCAL IMPACT
Exi titin g Conditions
The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes; therefore, there is minimal
impact on public costs and revenues at the present. The project site is located partially
within the Redevelopment Project Area.
The projected County costs for the proposed Rancho La Quinta exceed County revenue
because a portion of the revenue would be provided to the Redevelopment Project Agency.
At buildout however, the total revenue is expected to be greater than five million, whereas
the total net County cost is projected to be 3.3 million. Therefore, the Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan is projected to have an overall positive fiscal impact when the County and
Redevelopment Agency are considered together.
Mitigation Mca5u]mg
No mitigation measures are necessary because no significant fiscal impacts would occur.
2-1S
2.16
SECTION 3.0
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DETERMINATION SYSTEM
3.1 SITE IDENTIFICATION WITHIN OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION MAP
The County -wide Open Space and Conservation Map designates a majority of the Rancho
La Quinta project site, approximately 920 acres or 75 percent of the site, as "agriculture."
The remainder of the site (i.e., the northwest portion) is in "areas not designated as open
space" (see Figure 3.1-1, Open Space and Conservation Map). The proposed project is
requesting an amendment to the Open Space and Conservation Map.
The Open Space and Conservation Plan implements the preservation, protection or
management of areas delineated on the Open Space and Conservation Map through
programs and land use policies and standards. The application of county open space and
conservation policies which are relevant to the project site are discussed below.
• Standard: The open space characteristics of the County, including the rivers,
the mountains, the deserts, and the productive agricultural lands shall be
protected.
The project site retains 380 acres in usable open space (i.e., golf courses and
driving range). An additional 40 acres is designated for public use (i.e., parks).
Approximately 920 acres (75 percent) of the project area will be removed from
agricultural (designated) use. Roughly 720 of those acres are currently utilized
for productive agricultural use. The proposed action includes an amendment to
the Open Space and Conservation Map, replacing the agriculture designation
with the Specific Plan (as shown in Specific Plan 218).
Y Standard: The premature extension of public services, facilities, utilities and
other capital improvements, for urban uses, into open space areas designated on
the Open Space and Conservation Map shall be discouraged
PGA West development, which represents the La Quinta southern -most city
limits, is located approximately 0.5 miles to the northwest of the project site.
Property between Rancho La Quinta and PGA West is primarily within
3-1
lei
0
JIM
EC
ij
A
7 X
CWOA RL
...........
T
Q1 JIN
........ ......
14,
PROJECT
IN
I BOUNDARY.N
0 13,200
FEET
LEGEND
6E, r REMAP
COMMUNITY POLICY AREAS
ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLANS
%
CITIES
jr AGRICULTURE
PARKS/FOREST
MOUNTAINOUS AREAS
DESERT AREAS
r&� fil6f - WILDLIFE/VEGETATION
WATER RESOURCES
AREAS NOT DESIGNATED
SOURCE; County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, 1987 AS OPEN SPACE
Open Space and Conservation Map Figure
3,1-1
3-2
The developer ownership. The project site is serviced by electricity and water.
Some infrastructure improvements and extensions will be required; however,
improvements and facilities are already in place to the northwest. Extension to
the project site is therefore not considered premature.
• Standard: Development projects shall consider incorporating open space into
the design of the project.
The project sets aside a total of 380 acres of usable open space which
accommodate two 18 -hole golf courses and one associated driving range. Forty
acres of public parks are also being provided. Refer to Section 3.5 for
information regarding the provision of recreation facilities within the Specific
Plan.
• Standard: Environmental hazard and resource areas within a project site, as
identified on the Hazards and Resources Maps, shall be retained as open space
or shall be developed in a manner which will be harmonious with the resource
or hazard and not increase the risk of damage or injury to the development's
users.
Environmental hazards and resources mapped during the preparation of the EIR
have been considered in the planning process. The project site is designated as
a liquefaction hazard area. See Section 5.2, Seismic Safety/Slopes and
Erosion, for discussion of measures to mitigate this potential hazard. An
evaluation of archaeological resources can be found in Section 5.9. As
previously discussed, the proposed action seeks an amendment to replace prime
agricultural land with the proposed Specific Plan. -
Standard: Urban development adjacent to open space lands will be developed
in a manner harmonious with the character of the area and will not conflict with
public open space uses.
Approximately 30 percent of the project site will be retained in usable open
space, which is evenly distributed throughout the site. Forty acres of public
parks are also being provided. Residential housing and supporting commercial
uses will be interspersed throughout the open space use areas.
3-3
Usable open space and roughly 20 acres of public park use are planned adjacent
to Lake Cahuilla�County Park: Any proposed residential areas adjacent to the
Lake Cahuilla County Park will incorporate appropriate buffers, where
necessary, into project design. See Open Space/Recreation Element in the
Specific Plan (Part 3).
• Standard: Land uses shall conform to the Open Space and Conservation Map.
The proposed action includes an amendment to the Open Space and
Conservation Map (Figure 3.1-1) from agriculture to the Specific Plan.
Standard: Land uses located in areas with environmental hazards and
resources, as identified on the individual and composite hazards and resource
maps, may be subject to mitigation of environmental impacts.
The proposed Sp;,,�;uic Plan :d&csses identified environmental hazards and
resources and provides mitigation measures to reduce impacts to acceptable
levels. See Section 5.0, Environmental Hazards and Resources Element.
3.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION WITHIN COMPOSITE HAZARDS/RESOURCES MAP
The County's Composite Environmental Hazards Map identifies the project site as a
Liquefaction Hazard Area (see Figure 3.2-1). An assessment of the liquefaction potential
on the project site is contained within Section 5.2, Seismic Safety/Slopes and Erosion.
As shown on Figure 3.2-2, the Composite Environmental Resources Map, the project site
contains agricultural resources and a low -to -high probability for prehistoric resources.
Sections 5.3 and 5.9 discuss agricultural and prehistoric resource concerns, respectively,
and propose measures as part of the Specific Plan to mitigate any associated impacts.
UE
10"abb
WAIN
1000
10011
FUJI
919
*010*
IPROJECT I
BOUNDARY
SOURCE: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, 1986
LEGEND
SEISMIC s EUX
ALQUIST-PRIOLO SPECIAL
STUDIES ZONES
'�_ • LIQUEFACTION HAZARD
AREAS
MAJOE- TOP-OQ {APHIC
FEATURES
MOUNTAINOUS AREAS AND
MAJOR SCENIC PEAKS
—65dBA--
i
•
Q
I 'ONOF;
0 13,200
FEET r
FLOQQ I IL
100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS
-6OdBA — AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS
PORTRAYED AT 65 dBA, 60 dBA,
55dBA— and 55 dBA INTERVALS
FIRE
rA FIRE HAZARD AREAS
01910 S BLOWSAND
BLOWSAND HAZARD AREAS
Figure
Composite Environmental Hazards Map
wwww •wrfnni+ve w \ v'•• +r ws��ww�_r��� aA�\a -.1 a cyvsvwavvvvv��
.�NAM
r
■
_ PNNE"
oi ps PA f!
ON
`
�`
Vic
r �.kolkFUN MAE ommmomw�AXINNINE
tv
- • ��. �^� f�"%S�Tf: ~��l°' ] C"'p+� 4�G �F .L. Sl.:�
a•
Osite tnvironmentar Resources moire
r
3.3 LAND USE AREA PROFILE AND COMMUNITY POLICY AREA IDENTIFI-
CATION FOR PROJECT SITE
3.3.1 Land Use Area Profile
The project site is located in the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area which
comprises the Coachella Valley Census Division and includes the cities of Coachella and
Indio. This planning• area, comprised of approximately 409 square miles, 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. See
Section 4.1 for a discussion of the relationship of Rancho La Quinta to this land use
planning area profile.
3.3.2 Community Policy
The Rancho La Quinta project site is in the area covered by the Eastern Coachella Valley
Plan Community Policies as contained within the County Comprehensive General Plan.
While the Comprehensive General Plan provides planning concerns necessary to direct
future land uses on a county -wide basis, the Community Land Use Policies reflect unique
concerns and needs that exist within particular communities. The Coachella Valley
Community Policies, as they apply to the project site, are discussed in Section 4.2.
3.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT PROPOSAL/SITE COMPARISON WITH
APPLICABLE LAND USE CATEGORY POLICIES OR COMMUNITY PLAN
The County's Comprehensive General Plan defines five land use categories applicable to
land not identified as an open space and conservation area. The land use categories are
based upon different levels of public facilities and service capabilities. Each category has
its own locational policies and building intensity standards. The five categories are:
Category I
- Heavy Urban
Category II
- Urban
Category III -
Rural
Category IV -
Outlying Areas
Category V -
Planned Community
3-7
3.4.1 Category I - Heavy Urban
Heavy Urban land uses are characterized by intensive commercial and industrial land uses
and higher residential densities. Category I uses are generally within or are extensions of
existing communities, and require a full range of public services including water
distribution, sewage collection, an adequate circulation system and utilities. Category I
uses must be within an improvement district of a sewer and water district. Examples of
Category I land uses include regional and community commercial centers, heavy industrial
uses and residential densities of 8 to 20 DU/acre.
Other than supportive commercial uses, no industrial or intensive commercial land uses are
proposed for the Rancho La Quinta development. Adjacent and nearby developments are
generally rural residential. The Heavy Urban category includes higher densities normally
found in larger metropolitan areas which would not be appropriate at the Rancho La Quinta
site. Although a majority of the proposed residential development falls within the Heavy
Urban category density range, overall project density, however, will not be within the
range designated for Category I uses. Category I uses would be incompatible with the
lower density residential developments to the north, east, and south and with scenic and
recreational amenities to the west. For these reasons, the Category I classification is not
considered appropriate for the site.
3.4.2 Category II - Urban
Urban land uses represent a broad mix of land uses, including many types of commercial
and industrial land uses, and residential land uses with a density of two to eight DU/acre.
The Rancho La Quinta development contains a mix of land uses including residential and
community commercial. The proposed residential uses involve a broader range than
Category II encompasses. Target densities for residential development will be primarily
greater than those appropriate for the urban category; however, overall residential density,
of 3.5 DU/acre, would fall within the acceptable range for Category II uses. Because the
overall density of the project lies within the acceptable ran€,. for Category II, and the
Rancho La Quinta project is generally an extension of existing urban uses, the
development is considered most appropriate under this category.
3-8
3.4.3 Category III - Rural
Rural land uses are characterized by lower densities and fewer public facilities and
improvements. Uses may include agriculture, small-scale commercial, residential densities
of one DU/half acre to one DU/five acres, and industries such as manufacturing service
commercial and medium industrial land uses.
Land uses proposed by the Rancho La Quinta development are more intensive than the rural
land uses applicable for this category, although the planned commercial uses would be
appropriate.
3.4.4 Category IV - Outlying Areas
Outlying area land uses are the least intensive of any of the five land use categories and are
generally located near large tracts of publicly owned land and are often used for agriculture,
mining, industry, or low density residential uses, at a density of one DU/five acres or
greater. Category IV uses are located in outlying areas away from urban centers and are
generally self-sufficient in terms of water supply, sewage disposal, commercial needs and
reliance on other public facilities and services.
The project site currently complies with characteristics of Category IV uses.
Implementation of the Rancho La Quinta development plan, therefore, creates inconsistency
with the outlying land -use category. The no project alternative is discussed in
Section 10.3.
3.4.5 Category V- Planned Community
The planned community category is a unique land use category which provides for the
development of new towns and communities within the County. Planned communities are
generally large scale projects consisting of at least 640 acres designed as balanced
communities with a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space uses.
Category V projects must include a mix of land uses and densities. Unless nearby existing
community centers are adequate to provide appropriate commercial and employment
activities, new projects must include local commercial activity to meet community consumer
needs and an employment base which serves as a balance to the creation of new housing.
3-9
The 1251 -acre Rancho La Quinta development complies with many of the characteristics
established for the planned community category. The proposed development includes a
mix of land uses and dens;::--:. � _d� of housing types are planned to provide for the
housing needs for a number of income ranges. Supporting commercial uses are planned to
provide for the consumer needs of the residents of Rancho La Quinta, minimizing trips
beyond the community for retail and service needs. The nearby cities of Coachella, Indio,
and La Quinta are considered adequate to balance the employment needs generated by the
creation of new housing. An analysis of public facilities and services has been conducted
in Section 7.0. Generally, the planned community category is intended for areas that are
self-sufficient. Because the Rancho La Quinta project is expected to rely upon outside
areas for some commercial, the majority of employment needs and public needs, such as
schools and libraries, the project does not meet Category V criteria. The planned
community category also considered as new towns and communities, whereas, this
development is basically an extension of existing urban development.
3-10
SECTION 4.0
LAND USE ELEMENT
4.1 LAND USE PLANNING AREA POLICY ANALYSIS
The Rancho La Quinta site is located in the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning
Area. According to growth forecasts prepared for the County Comprehensive General
Plan, population in the unincorporated areas of the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use
Planning Area will increase from 16,890 in 1980 to 27,000 in the year 2,000, an increase
of approximately 60 percent. Housing will concurrently increase from 6,030 units in 1980
to 9,800 units in the year 2000, an increase of about 63 percent.
Development within this Planning Area occurs predominantly within incorporated
communities (i.e., Indio and Coachella) while development in unincorporated areas is
relatively sparse. The primary land use within the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use
Planning Area is agriculture, including both dry farming and citriculture. A large portion of
this area is vacant, non -irrigated desert. It also contains a considerable amount of land
under Indian and BLM ownership, which is prevalent throughout eastern Riverside
County. Concerns that could constrain land uses in the planning area include:
• The viability of agriculture and the isolated nature of the land
• The cost of extending public services
• The desert ecology with its limited and fragile resources (water, air, land, flora,
fauna) and scenic beauty
m Community concerns with the types of design of new development and signs
Policy: Land uses within this Land Use Planning Area should not be encouraged to
change significantly in the future. This area should remain primarily agricultural in nature
and house those persons working in the Coachella Valley agricultural and service trades.
Future land uses within the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area should
generally be Category II land uses within the sphere of influence of the incorporated cities,
and Category III and Category IV elsewhere within the Land Use Planning Area.
However, open space and conservation land uses, such as agriculture, should remain the
predominant land use outside of the cities' spheres of influence.
4-1
The Rancho La Quinta development is a Category II Urban land use designation; therefore,
current agricultural uses on site would be eliminated The proposed project seeks to amend
the Open Space and Conservation Map, which currently designates 920 acres (75 percent)
of the site as agriculture. A mix of land uses are planned that will encompass Categories I
through III of the County Comprehensive General Plan. Public facilities will be provided
at appropriate levels of service, consistent with County criteria for each category. Further
information can be found in Section 5.2.
4.2 COMMUNITY POLICY AREA ANALYSIS
The project site falls within the Eastern Coachella Valley community policy area. The East
Coachella Valley Plan area encompasses approximately 201,367 acres within the southeast
portion of the Coachella Valley, south of the City of Indio. Growth forecasts prepared for
the County indicate that population in the unincorporated portions of this area will increase
by 60 percent, from 9627 in 1980 to 15,390 in the year 2000. Housing forecasts indicate
a 63 percent increase in dwelling units, from 2,711 in 1980, to 4,410 in the year 2000.
The Eastern Coachella Valley Plan provides land use policies that address the unique
concerns and needs which exist in the Plan area.
n ral Land P li
General land use policies discuss the location of land uses according to the designations on
the associated land use allocation map. Approximately 75 percent of the site is currently
designated as agriculture (0-2 DU/acre outside the City of La Quinta sphere of influence
and 0-8 dwelling units within the sphere of influence of La Quinta) and 25 percent as
planned residential reserve (0-5 DU/acre). The Specific Plan would replace these current
designations.
Other general land use policies discuss compatibility with surrounding uses (both existing
and approved, and the occurrence of discontiguous growth), within the Plan area.
Development would conflict with existing onsite and surrounding agricultural activities.
This issue is addressed in Section 5.3. The proposed project would be consistent with
similar development to the northwest (Oak Tree West/PGA West Spec Plan) and site
design and appropriate buffers would be incorporated into the project, where necessary, to
mitigate conflicts with agricultural uses to the north, east and south, and park and
4-2
recreational uses to the west. Rancho La Quinta is considered contiguous with the PGA
West development to the northwest (located roughly 1200 feet distant) and with growth
extending south from the City of La Quinta.
Approximately 560 acres of Rancho La Quinta, (i.e., the northwest portion of the site) is
located within the City of La Quinta's sphere of influence (see Figure 1.1-2). This area is
currently utilized for agricultural production. It is designated as Open Space on the
La Quinta General Plan and the applicable General Plan policy encourages the maintenance
of existing agriculture as long as possible as a means of interim open space (Open Space
and Conservation Policy 6.1.2, City of La Quinta 1985). The interim open space uses
would be replaced with the residential, commercial and recreational uses as designated in
the Specific Plan. The development of commercial facilities is considered appropriate
because such facilities are intended to service the immediate needs of neighboring
residential development. Proposed project commercial uses are sized to accommodate the
development. Residents of La Quinta are expected to utilize commercial services of the
City because commercial services of Rancho La Quinta will probably not accommodate all
consumer needs. Implementation of the proposed project should create an increased,
positive fiscal impact to the commercial facilities of La Quinta. It is anticipated that Rancho
La Quinta will accommodate a substantial number of retired residents and seasonal
residents. The number of residents seeking employment is not anticipated to be significant
relative to the number of residents the community will generate. A majority of those
seeking employment would work within a reasonable distance of their homes.
Employment opportunities in the City of La Quinta would be limited to commercial -related
facilities since a nominal industrial base exists there.
Residential Land Use Policies
The Eastern Coachella Valley Plan consists of five major Residential Land Use Categories.
Applicable residential land use policies are those identified for the Urban Category. The
Urban designation is intended to permit a broad mix of land uses including commercial and
residential land uses of two to eight DU/acre; at an overall density of 6.4 DU/acre, the
proposed project is consistent with these requirements.
Associated policies discuss the availability of public services and facilities. These issues
are evaluated in Section 6.0.
4.3
Traffic generated by the proposed project is not expected to significantly impact La Quinta's
existing circulation system. See Section 6.10 for additional discussion pertaining to the
circulation impacts and mitigation measures.
Development under the Urban Category allows up to 8 DU/acre. The project proposes
development in two density categories: 2-5 DU/acre and 5-8 DU/acre. Thus the project
would comply with the density recommendations of Category II.
Qpen Space and Conservation Land Use Policies
According to the Land Use Policy for Open Space and Conservation, areas designated as
agriculture are limited to open space and agriculture and associated uses. The proposed
development seeks to amend the General Plan and replace current designations with the
proposed Specific Plan.
Cornmucial Land U5f, Policies
Rancho La Quinta exceeds the level of development intensity defined in the Eastern
Coachella Valley Plan. The largest allowable commercial site is 15 acres, while the
proposed project calls for a maximum 25 -acre commercial site. The project complies with
all other commercial policies: 1) commercial uses are located along secondary highways or
greater, 2) are located an adequate distance from established commercial centers, and 3) the
design guidelines discussed in Section 3 will direct commercial uses to avoid "strip"
commercial development.
4.3 LAND USE CATEGORY POLICY ANALYSIS
Implementation of the Rancho La Quinta development plan necessitates a request to amend
the Comprehensive General Plan Open Space and Conservation Map to adopt a specific
plan consistent with Land Use Category II (Urban) standards. Discussion of the selection
of Category II is provided in Section 3.4. A number of subsequent requests will include
zone changes, development application/land use application, and tentative tract maps to
implement the Specific Plan.
The County Comprehensive General Plan identifies the policies for Category II projects
under which the Specific Plan is guided. They relate to residential commercial and
4-4
industrial land uses, open space and conservation, agricultural land uses, public services
and facilities, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and land use compatibility.
1. Resided Land Uses - The Rancho La Quinta project features a mix of
residential land uses and densities. A variety of housing types will be
constructed at an overall density of 3.5 DU/acre. The proposed residential uses
are consistent with the residential land use policies.
2. +Qommercial_Land Uses - Proposed commercial uses comply with Category II
community commercial land use policies. Proposed commercial uses consist of
various support retail facilities located on sites ranging from 10 to 25 acres.
Parcels which amount to less than the required 15 -acre minimum are considered
consistent with the goals of the land use policies, since they occur contiguous
with other commercial parcels and together exceed the required minimum
acreage. The proposed project complies with all other community commercial
land use policies including the following: 1) all commercial facilities are located
along arterial or greater highways (one parcel is located along a secondary
highway, however, occurs at the intersection of an arterial highway), and 2)
serve a minumum population of 35,000 within a 2 -mile service area (including
the project site, neaby PGA West development, La Quinta, other surrounding
development).
3. industrial I -and Uses - No industrial development is proposed for Rancho La
Quinta; therefore, industrial land use policies are not applicable.
4. n Space and Qgnscryation - The Rancho La Quinta project proposes
380 acres of usable open space, which represents 30 percent of the project site.
This includes two 18 -hole golf courses and a driving range. Forty acres of
public use (i.e., four park areas) are also proposed for active recreation for
community residents, which represent 4 percent of the project area.
5. Agricultural Lan - No new agricultural uses are planned as part of the
proposed project.. An evaluation of the impact on the loss of agricultural land
as a result of project implementation has been addressed in Section 5.3.
M
6. Publicrvi n Fa ili - Implementation of the proposed project would
require annexation to the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The CVWD
wou14 bupjr ly �,; i water and sewer services to the site, and have indicated their
willingness to serve the project.
Sewer service can be provided for the project by the Midvalley treatment
facility, located roughly 6 miles east of the site near Thermal. Expansion of the
facility will be required to accommodate full buildout of Rancho La Quinta.
For discussion regarding water and sewer services to the project, see
Section 6.2.
Rancho La Quinta is a comprehensively planned project that proposes a
complete array of public facilities to serve the development.
The EIR examines each type of infrastructure and facility that will be needed.
F,ji 'UrvnrT infom:a+,io:: concerning utilities, fire, police and emergency
services, schools, waste disposal, health services, libraries, and parks and
recreation, see Public Facilities and Services, Section 7.0, of the document.
7. Solid and Liquid Waste Dis oral Facilities - No solid or liquid waste disposal
facilities are planned as part of the proposed project; therefore, solid and liquid
waste facility policies are not applicable.
8. Land Uie Corn atibilit - The proposed project would be consistent with
similar development to the northwest (i.e., PGA West community) and site
design and appropriate buffers would be incorporated into the project, where,
necessary, to mitigate conflicts with agricultural uses to the north, east and
south, and park and recreational uses to the west.
4-6
SECTION 5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS AND RESOURCES ELEMENT
5.1 LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY
5.1.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The project site is a relatively flat expanse of land located east of the Santa Rosa Mountains.
The project site increases slightly in elevation from the eastern part of the site to the western
portion. The existing topography onsite ranges from sea level to 90 feet below sea level,
west to east, respectively. There are no distinguishing landform resources onsite, such as
hillsides or rock outcroppings. Because of the characteristic flat nature of the site, ranging
from sea level to 90 feet below mean sea level over the entire site, the corresponding
average slope is less than one percent (approximately .45 percent). The Comprehensive
General Plan for the County of Riverside states that development is discouraged on slopes
in excess of 25 percent.
5.1.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The project site -is relatively flat with an average slope of less than one percent. The
General Plan states that development on slopes in excess of 25 percent is discouraged;
therefore, no impacts to slope development will occur with the implementation of the
proposed project. The topography of the developed site will essentially remain the same as
the existing topography. The majority of grading onsite will occur in the development of
the golf courses. The golf courses will be cut approximately 4 to 5 feet below the
proposed roadways and building pads. This landform alteration, will not significantly
change the overall topography of the site. No significant impacts to existing landform or
topography will occur.
5.1.3 Mitigation
Because implementation of the proposed project would not create an impact to the
topography of the project site, no mitigation measures are required.
5-1
.11
5.2 SEISMIC SAFETY/SLOPES AND EROSION
This section provides a descriptive and analytical overview of geology, soils, and related
hazards in the project site vicinity and their relationship to the proposed development. Data
sources utilized for this investigation include field surveys by WESTEC Services
personnel, as well as the following published and unpublished literature; Borchardt and
Manson (1986), Brown and Ruff (1981), California Division of Mines and Geology
(1985, 1966), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (1979), Crowell (1975),
Crowell and Sylvester (1979), Elders (1979), Jennings (1975), Gilmore and Castle
(1983), Kennedy (1977), Leighton and Associates (1985, 1984), Norris and Webb
(1976), County of Riverside (1986, 1984), Seed and Idriss (1970), and U.S. Soil
Conversation Service (1980).
5.2.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5.2.1.1 Geologic Setting and Lithology
The project site is located in the western portion of the Coachella Valley, the northern most
extension of the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough consists of a low-lying alluviated
structural basin incorporating Coachella and Imperial valleys, and has been described as
both a distinct physiographic province (Elders 1979) and a subprovince of the Colorado
Desert (Norris and Webb 1976). The Salton Trough structural basin is bounded by the
San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones (described later in this section), and is
characterized by generally low relief and internal drainage. Typical stratigraphy in the
Salton Trough includes thick sequences of predominantly clastic sediments and
metasediments. In the Coachella Valley, these sediments have been deposited primarily by
the erosion of adjacent highlands, deltaic floodwaters of the Colorado River, and lacustrine
(lake) and eolian (wind) depositional processes.
Surface exposures in the project site consist of a number of recent soil units, Quaternary
lacustrine and alluvial deposits, and Mesozoic granite intrusives. Nearby exposures
include Pleistocene nonmarine sediments and Mesozoic granitic intrusives (Figure 5.2-1).
A number of additional units potentially underlie the project site and vicinity at depth,
including Precambrian and Paleozoic sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, and Tertiary and
Quaternary clastic sedimentary strata (CVAG 1979). Following is a description of soil and
geologic units present in the project site vicinity in order of increasing age.
5-2
x=c�vc I - ffr #.v r�r✓ - ��..AY` -r rrF r rfilaf 7.rf / rP xr s - - f` < to a-,
rrr"�° st � .; ',' -� d � -+ r 4r<.. s0. �.r } ..�'J i.er' f 3, f'ta'' - s� .�3' L -•r ,�-
�� ' ..y. `.T' `M' =,��i ,'T -'S :' YF� ��/�r 1. ��R .1..:'' 3.s+-.,:� y... �, Y_•!�J�...I i+ r"ii'� 'w'`rY �Y>=• ?: r�•
I I £ % ,•; y{r ,.,} i . �" {iv r`"{f'd� .: at(� aJ . fMi
hull r .r i a. � � 1�,,,rrrr -r .r Jr -•C r'� r .+-� .•i f " • ` 3 �-... x v... r r � �•'
081' v A�tr�Y' r�r r,°},l PROJECT SITE1�.{./y.
COunty Pa I -�- G[ r r �Y a +f J yy#1}r r
I �If �:�h`�/�Y/.'.//��:tlfi .y �.G'S. }•� r � J{ y.: r�r
II ! r I '•+"• 4` r5xh"�.r&Q'«y�*1 ? / �+4 'x'�tr. " fC.� •+ y �.r"�/.a �� .r � �,�"r*,'r/�. r �f Yr��,.,lq r - ��"`��� �� + vr'���gJ•
I yT � r• 4 ?'ty�`� JS�s. ar" �_;? r��9r v rim � ��r�� �f` 4�i»rYfJS �r7-�� ����r��{,r'Y ��' "i;►A�-�9i r- ��rr�`y' .-¢rf'•'`��r f?`?,srrS�
;..+^ % 4'li ,mss -r' f-.`•� IS:t J f_ yra.� r+ rr t{ y-Y.'•a. .��'17C.ii: hje*y
E�cf'P< '�ir�C,f]F�' �ri:.•.7 3,frs !t � {v � � '��. t�.�.". •
fAr . , n � f #a' � Jf r ••: f .'fs cL �: '�is � J :�, � r"i� � {a ti,•�'�t% r.r.
� r `-+ u �- r-5 r' � a ►`1r, --'rte' 7�j` -C':Fr �Y.'^' .- ti f� ,r wE �.; � ,r'y}��✓ :J✓�i'` ��•
1 ♦ •K�•ri � • I „ I� ! Y�-.rir r t�.4� yTIlT`Y�,��. il-�.:=rjJ��� .±S �� rl.'��i. �- f �C;_ ..t sr� r�/l �' r ����r
• s � .H e � I I w *' �i� ` � ��i�r-r �'="�'"Y' �C+��i f�iG'r�, """" r'�.;nwrC� .wi :� .� { .i+-✓j^r� 5✓:�`S�� � e���G
1 � y w•. ,�: k u 1 1 I ^k+ i+��: �r '�.*��� ra r . f', r ` `� � �� �r � �� �f� .er:-;s -1' r. j! �::^ -�7�]�-',i"x�.•�yr! �.,, _� �''�.,r � ,,1' r
1 r J : !' ,,f � r•� r i,*r=' r .�: gtw�jr � r'4.a '. r.�,.,:,•-'r`. '1�
• r .._.- J. � 'S+��d 3`r `7 ../; .i?� ,�, r�'-�' r,,.• ��' +' �i ..�''L f. �'� t>' ,L �fi- J J
` r ♦ f � 'I - _ - - - !'rr, �!n� r vJ .{ ' rti' r.i=r �>i%r' • .r"� i�"J " Ci}� .Jt'sl�.S'- 7 rYa[�' "'` '�� r ���
Al,Sa a. i <' .r't r. {'•`r r- r ✓ ua w"-'. J- t'' �' •€a`',r-7 ,� J!"}rte S+r✓
•
r r yid^i ti•7 n a s r�.r. . YJ - ?/I��y,,,.:•.G.'c'..r �r'.�w..[} 'r,6rr.3?'ya',fiYl+.+r`./mss `''� =. ✓�/Z-'+ Cv r'r.i°:i�G'..
" T i. !1 �� J.ir: � �'� /•� r { f }: /.�. r.: J r ^{rri�a-
r c� .s ' H r. }. •A4'��'4f�1 T lJ rr• ,..} rJ.J' f iK. .i����'.�
r • ' :.�r`+,r-;�_t,� �f i r : � s �i t y'� ''r r� � � F'?" '- a i_ � ,r'�� .� s� �u�.� i'r�X ..r r h`�': �=rr1d.r,��� r
� 'grr A e ♦ 9' � L — — � ..� - rf d r 1 J r f.r $i � l s t, r rN /_. f Y ! r -f
rK- v J J S rtY u y i�fr .J•r Jr r. !rf � err/
r 37 r �r4rt• z a = a ?.. � 4 f, i� ���' � ,,:� rr � S,.i x�.. �r ,} r .^+' jr �#` �r f•,•^1�z
{{ '� f,%r e � t �• � i! f r r1. a�, r �� r�..�d �irr� � •.:i� !'�X' ' '"�dJ. ,v P' ii' . �. ;r,.� .; w.
I� . 4 �k a _ �``4f,- r-'.+.� -r r'va� - �.' •� irL^ r/4 'f ti"c?Y .•'ir ;-.�r..rr�� ��..
A� \ �c °>a � "� r �f', Cv{if+Z-+'r? sl�-%l ti�rr •3 7� ! r rti � C � d N.� Jt� r) �, Y x ��
--�� k.M z •, v!' �. �! �.v fi � � v' f`� � fix. �'� • ��,F'rF f f '/�.sl.✓ 'r`r ,�, .
3 f �
�a� °a .� `' � ^ .�''yrrV �*� .r .1`rJ�.���.�`;r.ri'�� f r�fr
{ � w'�f•� �cr..fr i � „ r c..3 ,..reit fj .f,s.�'' .Grr'.7�`•''' y
i t • ,rte l !yr/-"' `e n'f��'fr•' ar'f`}��`.'.^ %��'�jw- -+1~
i rF4 ` 1, l xi r' L l �rG3 T fly %^�J/ f.yF {�LJ1-'r VSA I kNY- Q
"'_-'__ err r, ry,�`s• r'r �/=:r J's ..tet ✓nwJ 11.x• r T•F' r� t.` -s 2WO
kiiiii
�' �' • QUI Pr` FEET
• tttf L a `�T t 1} ^.� LEGEND
Pry l
I 33 • ►r 34 :r t ik:. Jr r; : 1. UNDIFFERENTU►TED
I . l �` 4r: ` G J'�f✓ ` '` �"r '�' Qa� QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM
I • R„ A� ' •: j��"rrw �r�r rt. l"",�e`�sf.�' � ' r"'' +r -�;, �.
• ■• - l �, ��s r`t��:,rk r '`isar r✓��v.%��d� r ,r,,�� cy w
aa• �' • • * a�'`�r ++ • it •• i `t 1`� r g r t.; 3l t"rr..r-' 1' ` rr`r-,:.yi .te a r�....M QUATERNARY LAKE DEPSRS
tr t rr , l tL x c r� 1t` ? t]HOaI
AND ALLUVIUM
�1.ie'i • a GC: • ti.r �} r k?,}',•- J t rrr'� ,r•.�''r'
• +• • ■. Y •• a•• a•••a• •• I k FP a .r.'�yy[��rr{r.•r• t,..d
••a. r••_!•. �•. •`•• �-• a+•� a• .. .-- • ---- I ...E `: aG 6-•'` •�OC PLEISTOCENE NONMARINE
Gal
.'ter-tri*.,y ra rar . DEPOSITS
•• ♦ �+• *• • a• • k l .Jrfa<.r r rr r� f'i' i �(� r MESOZOICGRANRIC
+.sa'�+ `' ' .' r'rjrtl`��y'� ` ,_ 8M -30 r r ~, �f t r� r INTRUSIVE ROCKS
•+a• •• .• • e ■ i • •• •• ----- �ai------- • ; P InpingF r��FJ-rr�
k• •* •a•• a• a •• ■ M a • i• 4 r i ilioti S Sr~ 'kr,/ f` [�'`J-iA ssy'� f+' i •
••■• • • +rr .••• +• •• • Sw t r+ r e r + 1rrfi 5 w 'J '� FAULT:
aa• +• •• • • ••
r + •�L�C • • •• ■ •►•• •■� s �w rc r�� a�; s r`.b++l'�r i APPROXIMATE
WHERAPPROXIMATE• ii • i•�*.■ ;�•".•�+•� a r + •• 0a1 I `ww •'rf��r�' t�r£ ''f;q_ "r}? , DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED
'• ■• it • a ■ • • a• II..E a • t . rte' � 'r r ' f': /� OUERED WHERE UNCERTAIN
r
Figure
Simplified Geologic Map (Topsoil Not Shown) 5.gur
Topsoil (not shown on Map)
Topsoils in the project area consist primarily of well drained sandy and sandy loam
deposits. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1980) has mapped soils on the site as
belonging to six soil series: the Carsitas, Coachella, Gilman, Indio, Myoma, and Rock
Outcrop Series. Each of these may contain a number of individual soil types, with a brief
discussion provided in Table 5.2-1. Topsoil depths in the project area range from zero to
approximately five feet, with thicker and loamier soils generally located in the central and
eastern portions of the site.
Qia=M Alluvium (Oa D
Alluvial deposits are present throughout the entire project area, although they are most
abundant in approximately the western one-third of the site (Figure 5.2-1). These
materials are derived chiefly from the erosion of adjacent highlands, although eolian and
deltaic deposits are also present. Alluvium on the site consists primarily of angular to
rounded, poorly sorted, unconsolidated silt, sand, gravels, and clay. These materiais form
shallow alluvial fans along the western property boundary which thin to the east.
Ouaternary Lake DgPQ7 is 11
Lacustine deposits in the project area are associated with Lake Cahuilla, forerunner of the
present Salton Sea. Lake Cahuilla intermittently occupied extensive portions of the
Coachella Valley over a period of several thousand years, and was apparently formed by
floodwaters of the Colorado River (Brown and Ruff 1981). Lake sediments in the project
vicinity consist generally of laminated and interbedded sequences of micaceous sand, silty
sand, and clayey silt, which are loose and unconsolidated near the surface and become
medium dense with depth (Leighton and Associates 1985).
Pleistocene Nonmarine Deposits Qq)
These materials are exposed west of the project area (Figure 5.2-1), although they may
underlie portions of the site at depth. They consist of unnamed silt, sand, and gravel
associated with older alluvial fan deposits, and are generally weakly cemented or
unconsolidated, undeformed, and dissected (California Division of Mines and Geology
1966).
UE
T
tA
Y
Table 5.2-1
Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1980
DESCRIPTION OF ONSITE SOIL PROPERTIES
Limitations for
Shrink -Swell
Proposed
$ io 1 Series
Phy,§igall Ch cteristics
Location Onsite
Potential
EWdibilily
Developrmilt
Carsitas
Excessively drained, moderately
Alluvial deposits
Low
Moderate for fluid
Slight, due to
deep, coarse-grained poorly
along wester
erosion, slight for
low slopes.
sorted sands and gravelly sands.
site boundary.
wind erosion.
Coachella
Well drained, moderately deep
Alluvial deposits
Low
Slight for fluid
Slight to
sands, very fine sands and
along western and
erosion, moderate
moderate in
sandy loams formed in
norther site
to high for wind
saturated
alluvium.
boundaries, valley
erosion,
zones.
interior.
Gilman
Well drained, moderately deep
Common through-
Low
Slight for fluid
Moderate due
loamy fine sands, fine sandy
out the site, with
erosion, moderate
to potential
loams, and silt loams formed
sandy deposits
to high for wind
compressability.
in alluvium.
towards the western
erosion.
boundary and loamy
soils in the valley
interior,
Indio
Well to moderately drained,
Common through-
Low
Slight for fluid
Slight.
very fine sandy loam, loamy
out the site with
erosion, slight
fine sand, silt, and silt loam
sandy deposits
to moderate for
formed in alluvium.
generally further
wind erosion.
west.
Myoma
Excessively to well drained, fine
Alluvial deposits
Low
Slight for fluid
Slight.
to very fine sands and loamy
along western
erosion, high for
sands formed in recent
boundary and
wind erosion.
alluvium.
drainage courses.
Rock Outcrop
Exposed granitic bedrock
Extreme western
Low
Slight.
Severe due to
usually with steep, rugged
site boundary.
slopes and
relief.
bedrock depth.
Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1980
r
Me oxQi Gr n ti lhnsive Rocks gz)
The gra;.;ui::;at.�`.usi pucks in the project vicinity are associated with the southern
California batholith complex. These igneous units were emplaced regionally in a number
of distinct episodes throughout much of the Cretaceous period. Lithology varies from
granite to gabbro, with granodiorite constituting the most prevalent rock type. In the
project vicinity, intrusive units often contain high angle perpendicular joint systems which
can facilitate the formation of angular boulders through weathering (Leighton and
Associates 1984). Intrusive rocks are exposed only along the extreme western boundary of
the project site, although they presumably underlie the entire area at depth.
5.2.1.2 Structure
The Salton Trough region consists of a rifted plate boundary which is transitional between
the divergent East Pacific Rise to the south and the transform boundary of the San Andreas
fault system to the north (Elders 1979). The Coachella Valley (situated in the northern
Dorti.,-n of u c Salton Trough) is characterized primarily by the transform fault structure of
the San Andreas system, and is physically bounded by two major components of this
system; the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones (Figure 5.2-2). These two fault
zones are the dominant structural features in the region, and are described below along with
other important regional and local faults.
San Andreas Fault Zone
The San Andreas fault zone is located approximately 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) east of the
project site at its closest point (Figure 5.2-2). A number of major historic seismic events
have occurred along the southern California segment of the San Andreas fault, including
the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake. This event registered a Richter magnitude of
5.9, and was centered approximately 34 miles (55 kilometers) northwest of the project
site. Peak vertical and horizontal accelerations in excess of 0.78g and 0.68g, respectively,
were recorded at North Palm Springs (approximately 6 miles (10 kilometers) south of the
epicenter), along with a maximum Modified Mercalli intensity of VII (Table 5.2-2). Total
economic losses exceeded $7 million, including significant damage to electrical substations
and pumping facilities (Borchardt and Manson 1986). Other historic movements along
nearby sections of the San Andreas fault zone have occurred near the town of Thermal and
5-6
KILOMETERS
Regional Fault Map Figure
5.2-2
Table 5.2-2
The Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensities
If most of these effects then the
are observed intensity is.
Earthquake shaking not felt. But people may
observe marginal effects of large distance earth-
quakes without identifying these effects as
earthquake -caused. Among them: trees, struc-
tures, liquids, bodies of water sway slowly, or
doors swing slowly.
Effect on people: Shaking felt by those at rest, 1
especially if they are indoors, and by those on j
upper floors.
Effect on people: Felt by most people indoors.
Some can estimate duration of shaking. But
many may not recognize shaking of building as
caused by an earthquake; the shaking is like that
caused by the passing of light trucks.
Other effects: Hanging objects swing.
Structural effects: Windows or doors rattle.
Wooden walls and frames creak.
Effect on people: Felt by everyone indoors.
Many estimate duration of shaking. But they still
may not recognize it as caused by an earthquake.
The shaking is like that caused by the passing of
heavy trucks, though sometimes, instead, people
may feel the sensation of a jolt, as if a heavy ball
had struck the walls.
Other effects: Hanging objects swing. St&-..'!nR
autos rock. Crockery clashes, dishes rattle or
glasses clink.
Structural effects: Doors close, open or swing.
Windows rattle.
Effect on people: Felt by everyone indoors
and by most people outdoors. Many now esti-
mate not only the duration of shaking but also
its direction and have no doubt as to its cause.
Sleepers wakened.
Other effects. Hanging objects swing. Shutters
or pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop, start or
change rate. Standing autos rock. Crockery
clashes, dishes rattle or glasses clink. Liquids
disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects
displaced or upset.
Structural effects: Weak plaster and Masonry
D* crack. Windows break. Doors close, open or
swing.
Effect on people: Felt by everyone. Many are
frightened and Fun outdoors. People walk un-
steadily.
Other effects: Small church or school bells
ring. Pictures thrown off walls, knicknacks and
books off shelves. Dishes or glasses broken.
Furniture moved or overturned. Trees, bushes
shaken visibly, or heard to rustle.
Structural effects: Masonry D• damaged; some
cracks in Masonry CO. Weak chimneys break at
roof line. Plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles,
cornices, unbraced parapets and architectural
ornaments fall. Concrete irrigation ditches
damaged.
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
S-8
If most of these effects then the
a:-.- observed intensity is:
Effect on people: Difficult to stand. Shaking
noticed by auto drivers.
Other effects: Waves on ponds; water turbid
with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand
or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Furniture
broken. Hanging objects quiver.
Structural effects: Masonry D' heavily dam-
aged; Masonry C* damaged, partially collapses in VIII
some cases; some damage to Masonry B*; none
to Masonry A*. Stucco and some masonry walls
fall. Chimneys, factory stacks, monuments,
towers, elevated tanks twist or fall. Frame
houses moved on foundations if not bolted
down; loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed
piling broken off.
Effect on people: General fright. People thrown
to ground.
Other effects: Changes in flow or temperature
of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and,
on steep slopes. Steering of autos affected.
Branches broken from trees.
Structural effects: Masonry D' destroyed;
Masonry C* heavily damaged, sometimes with
complete collapse; Masonry B* is seriously
damaged. General damage to foundations. Frame
structures, if not bolted, shifted off foundations.
Frames racked. Reservoirs seriously damaged.
Underground pipes broken.
Effect on people: General Panic.
Other effects: Conspicuous cracks in ground. In
areas of soft ground, sand is ejected through
holes and piles up into a small crater, and, in
muddy areas, water fountains are formed.
Structural effects: Most masonry and frame
structures destroyed along with their founda-
tions. Some well-built wooden structures and
bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams,
dikes and embankments. Railroads bent slightly.
Effect on people: General panic.
Other effects: Large landslides. Water thrown
on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and
mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat
land.
Structural effects: General destruction of
buildings. Underground pipelines completely out
of service. Railroads bent greatly.
Effect on people: General panic.
Other effects: Same as for Intensity X.
Structural effects: Damage nearly total, the
ultimate catastrophe.
Other effects: Large rock masses displaced.
Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown
into air.
* Masonry A:
Good workmanship and mortar, rein-
forced, designed to resist lateral forces.
* Masonry B:
Good workmanship and mortar, rein-
forced.
* Masonry C:
Good workmanship and mortar, un -
reinforced.
* Masonry D:
Poor workmanship and mortar and
weak materials, like adobe.
IX
X
X1
X11
r
the northern Salton Sea, within 22 miles (35 kilometers) of the project site (Jennings
1977). A total horizontal displacement of 200 miles (320 kilometers) has been estimated
for the San Andreas fault in southern California (Crowell 1975), with a estimated
maximum probable earthquake magnitude of between 7.5 and 8.0. Depending on the
epicenter location, an event of this size could result in a Modified Mercalli intensity of X or
more on the project site (Table 5.2-2).
San_Jacinto Fault_Zone
The San Jacinto fault zone branches from the San Andreas north of Riverside, and passes
within approximately 12.5 miles (20 kilometers) of the project site (Figure 5.2-2). Total
cumulative strike -slip (horizontal) movement along the San Jacinto fault zone is estimated
at approximately 18 miles (30 kilometers), with the San Jacinto representing the most
historically active branch of the San Andreas system in southern California (Brown and
Ruff 1981). No known vertical movement has occurred along the San Jacinto fault,
although a number of major historical earthquakes have been centered there. Specifically,
there have been six quakes with magnitudes exceeding 6.0 along the San Jacinto fault
within the past 70 years. The most recent of these was a 6.4 magnitude event in 1968,
centered approximately 30 miles (50 kilometers) south of the project site near the town of
Borrego. A maximum probable earthquake magnitude between 7.0 and 7.5 is generally
assumed for the San Jacinto fault, which could produce a Modified Mercalli intensity as
high as X on the project site, depending on epicenter location (Table 5.2-2).
Elsinore Fault Zone
The Elsinore fault zone is also a branch of the San Andreas system, and is located
approximately 40 miles (65 kilometers) west of the project site at its closest point
(Figure 5.2-2). Historically, the Elsinore is relatively quiet compared to the San Andreas
and San Jacinto zones, with approximately 60 recorded earthquakes between 1932 and
1972. Five of these events were of Richter magnitude 4.0 or greater, although none were
as large as 6.0 (Kennedy 1977). Most of the individual faults in the Elsinore zone are on
the order of 0.5 to 1.5 miles (1 to 2.5 kilometers) long, although several have been
mapped continuously for up to 16 miles (25 kilometers). Evidence of both strike -slip
(horizontal) and dip -slip (vertical) movement have been observed, with displacements of up
to 3 miles (5 kilometers) horizontally and 110 feet (33 meters) vertically at various
locations (Kennedy 1977). The maximum probable earthquake for the Elsinore fault is
M
generally given as 7.0. Such an event could generate Modified Mercalli intensities of up to
VIII or IX (Table 5.2-2), although intensities on the project site would likely be less due to
the distance from the Elsinore fault.
Local Faulting. A number of smaller faults and splays exist in the vicinity of the project
site, including the Banning, Pinto Mountain, Indio Hills, and Mecca Hills faults
(Figure 5.2-2). Probable magnitudes and intensities associated with these faults are
generally lower than those ascribed to the San Andreas and San Jacinto zones due to their
smaller extent.
Two inferred, unnamed fault traces are located in the immediate project vicinity, with one
lying within the eastern site boundary (Figure 5.2-1). These projected faults, along with
additional minor inferred and concealed fault traces in adjacent areas, do not exhibit any
evidence of Holocene movement (i.e., within the last 11,000 years) and are not considered
active. Consequently, the project site and immediate vicinity do not lie within any Alquist-
Priolo special study area zones, or Riverside County fault hazard zones (California
Division of Mines and Geology 1985, County of Riverside 1986).
5.2.1.3 Geologic Hazards
The evaluation of existing onsite geologic hazards includes events generated by seismic
activity and other sources (e.g., erosion). Seismic activity, however (particularly
groundshaking associated with major earthquakes), represents the primary source of onsite
hazards and is emphasized in the following discussion. Potential geologic hazards
considered include seismically induced ground rupture, liquefaction and dynamic
settlement, landsliding, seiches, and structural damages, as well as fluid and wind erosion,
geologic stability and gravity induced landsliding.
Seismically induced ground rupture is not considered a significant onsite hazard due to the
absence of known active faulting. Additionally, onsite rupture related to ground -shaking
from regionally active faults is not considered likely, although the possibility cannot be
entirely discounted.
5.10
Ligggfaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of unconsolidated materials can be caused by strong
vibratory motion resulting from seismic activity. Loose, granular soils are most susceptible
to these effects, while the stability of silty clay and clay materials is generally not affected
by vibratory motion. Among granular materials, finer textured varieties are more
susceptible to liquefaction and settlement than coarse-grained types, and sediments of
uniform grain sized are more likely to liquefy than well -graded materials (Seed and Idriss
1970). Additionally, liquefaction is generally restricted to saturated or near -saturated
materials at depths of less than 100 feet (30 meters).
The Riverside County General Plan (1986) designates a number of potential liquefaction
areas, one of which includes approximately two-thirds of the project site (Figure 3.2-1).
This designation is based on the generally equigranular soils and potentially shallow
groundwater tables found in the area. According to the Coachella Valley Water District
(1987a) a number of domestic and irrigation wells have been drilled within the project site
since 1979, with groundwater encountered at depths as shallow as 18 feet (5.5 meters).
While groundwater depths can vary significantly over short distances due to the presence of
localized perched aquifers, the presence of known shallow water tables increases the
potential for liquefaction throughout the site.
Additionally, portions of the alluvial soils in' the western project area may also be
susceptible to liquefaction, due to their granular cohesionless nature and the potential for
shallow groundwater.
Soils in the project site vicinity are generally considered susceptible to settlement due to
their loose unconsolidated nature, and the potential presence of oversize material in alluvial
deposits.
Landslidin
Seismically induced landsliding is not considered a significant hazard on the project site due
the predominantly level topography. The western site boundary, however, abuts a set of
granitic hills which contain steep slopes and may be subject to fracturing. Portions of this
area, therefore, may be subject to landsliding impacts of varying degree.
5-11
Earthquake -induced seiches are the result of seismic waves producing massive wave-like or
oscillatory movement in large bodies of water.
The project site is not subject to inundation by seiches due to the distance and elevational
change from local and regional water bodies, and the presence of intervening flood control
structures (see Section 5.4).
Structural Damage,
Existing structures on the project site are limited to agricultural facilities (greenhouses,
storage facilities, etc.), and a few scattered residences. Many of these structures are likely
subject to significant impacts from seismic grbundshaking, due to building design. That is,
single story uninhabited structures are generally not required to meet seismic design
standards.
The project site is generally not considered subject to significant fluid erosional impacts due
to its level topography and the existence of flood control facilities (Section 6.4).
A number of onsite soils have been assigned a high potential for erosion by wind, due to
their generally granular, cohesionless nature and the seasonal occurrence of high winds in
the area. Localized unimproved areas within the site may be subject to high wind erosion
potential under appropriate soil and climatic conditions. The existing wind erosion
potential on the project site as a whole is considered low to moderate, however, due to the
presence of abundant agricultural improvement such as vegetative windbreaks and
irrigation.
Regional wind erosion can produce shifting, dune -like deposits termed blowsand. These
dei osits can impact roadways, vegetation, etc., as well as local or regional air quality (see
Section 6.8). Localized surface and climatic conditions could result in the periodic
accumulation of blowsand onsite, although the project area is not within active blowsand
zones mapped by the County of Riverside (1986), and is generally not considered subject
to significant impacts from blowsand deposits.
UNN
Geologic Stability_
Surficial geologic and soil units onsite are generally subject to compression and settlement
due to their loose, unconsolidated nature. This can result in significant impacts to
structures and other facilities in the form of shifting foundations, etc. Additional stability
impacts such as unstable slopes and expansive soils do not occur onsite due to the physical
nature of local geologic and soil units.
Gravity Induced Lans liding
Gravity induced landsliding is not considered a significant onsite hazard due to the
generally level topography. As discussed for seismically induced landsliding, however,
the western project boundary abuts a potentially fractured granitic slope which could
produce landsliding impacts.
5.2.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Pian Policies
The proposed project involves the development of a golf course community incorporating a
total of 4262 residential units as well as 35 acres of commercial development. Potential
impacts associated with geology and soils are similar in nature to those discussed for
existing conditions (Section 5.2.1.3), although their extent would be greater due to the
level of proposed development. Specifically, the greatest potential impacts would be
related to seismic groundshaking, erosion, and geologic stability. Following is an itemized
description of potential geologic and soil related impacts associated with proposed
development.
Ground Ruptur;
Potential impacts related to seismically induced ground rupture are similar to those
discussed for existing conditions (Section 5.2.1.3). Earthquake activity in the vicinity
could attain a magnitude of 8, or Modified Mercalli intensity of X or more on the project
site. It should be noted, however, that this evaluation of potential ground rupture impacts
assumes that onsite fault traces have not exhibited Holocene movement. If further
investigation refutes this assumption, then additional potential impacts may be identified.
Lin]
Virtually the entire project area would iikc:y be subject to seismically induced liquefaction
and settlement impacts, due to the nature of onsite soils and the presence of generally
shallow ground water tables. The level of potential impacts would vary locally with the
nature of proposed development and the specific soil and groundwater conditions.
Portions of the site, however, would likely be subject to significant impacts in the event of
major seismic activity. As discussed, portions of the site are within potential liquefaction
zones designated by the County of Riverside (1986). These areas require a geotechnical
evaluation of potential impacts and mitigation measures prior to constructing residential
(among other) facilities, with the County geologist empowered with review and approval
authority. Because of the identified potential impacts, it is likely that portions of the project
site would require mitigation to facilitate implementation of the proposed development as
described below under mitigation measures.
I,an tiding
Potential impacts related to seismically induced landsliding are not significant throughout
most of the site because of the level topography. Portions to the west, abutting a set of
granitic hills could be subject to landsliding impacts of varying magnitude.
The proposed project design does not contain any large surface water bodies associated
with domestic supplies, recreation, etc. Potential seiche impacts, therefore are not
significant.
The proposed project includes substantial residential and commercial development onsite.
These structures would be subject to damage from seismic groundshaking due to their
proximity,:) major regional faults. The California Uniform Building Code (UBC) contains
specific provisions to mitigate such impacts through the use of appropriate building
techniques and materials. Implementation of UBC procedures would likely reduce
potential structural impacts below levels of significance (although this assumption should
be reevaluated after site specific geotechnical investigation).
5-14
Flood and wind erosion potential on the project site would likely increase during
construction, due to the removal of vegetative cover, the operation of heavy equipment, etc.
These potential impacts can be abated by utilizing temporary erosion controlling techniques
such as surface watering, the use of soil tackifiers or mulches, and the construction of
swales and restraining berms as necessary. The exact type and location of erosion
controlling measures would be determined on the ground by the geotechnical and/or
landscaping consultant. Proper implementation of these methods, along with the restriction
of construction activities during periods of precipitation or high winds, would reduce
potential short term erosional impacts below levels of significance.
Once developed, the project site would not likely be subject to significant erosion -related
impacts due to the proposed landscape and grading plans. That is, the projected
development calls for essentially level, heavily landscaped terrain, with little exposure of
materials susceptible to fluid or wind erosion. If determined necessary by field
investigation, however, appropriate erosion control methods would be implemented to
reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level.
Geologic lability
The project development would be subject to significant impacts related to geologic
stability, due to the proposed construction of residential and commercial facilities on
materials susceptible to compression and settlement. These impacts can likely be mitigated
below levels of significance by standard treatment techniques (such as overexcavation and
compaction), although final determination would be made during the onsite geotechnical
investigation.
Gravity Induced Landsliding
Potential impacts related to gravity induced landsliding are not considered significant
because of the level topography.
Potential impacts associated with geology and soils are related primarily to seismically
induced effects, erosion, and the stability of sur cial deposits. On the basis of known
IJ
data, it is felt that all potential impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels by utilizing
standard grading and construction techniques. This assessment could change, however, if
the site specific geotechnical investigation identifies additional or more severe potential
impacts. Additionally, it should be noted that the assessment of potential seismically -
induced impacts is based on the evaluation of maximum probable earthquake occurrence on
identified major regional faults (see Section 5.2.1.2). Should greater magnitude or closer
events take place, the level of impacts on the project site could exceed those discussed in
this report.
5.2.3 Mitigation
Prior to implementation of the proposed development, a geotechnical investigation of the
project site shall be conducted by a qualified consultant. This investigation should include
surface and/or subsurface testing of the identified onsite fault traces to determine their status
of activity. The results of this investigation will be used in the final project design,
including all mitigation measures developed by the geotechnical consultant to reduce
impacts to an acceptable level. Based on existing data, these will iikeiy include measures
such as:
• Overexcavation of unsuitable base materials and replacement with approved and
properly compacted structural fill.
• Appropriate design, location, and construction of erosion control methods, and
devices.
• Appropriate design of structural footings and foundations.
• Restrictions on structure and ancillary facility design and location pursuant to
onsite hazards.
Design of surface and subsurface drainage devices.
• Initiation of settlement monitoring for appropriate areas.
Adherence to all UBC and other appropriate restrictions regarding construction
methods and materials.
5-16
• Scarification of all compacted areas to facilitate revegetation and reduce erosion
potential.
• Identification of appropriate wind erosion mitigation measures such as
watering, appropriate operating schedules, etc.
Additionally, a written report of the geotechnical investigation shall be prepared, with
copies available for review and comment by the Riverside County geologist, other
appropriate agencies and individuals, and the general public.
5.3 AGRICULTURE
5.3.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The Rancho La Quinta project site is located in a predominantly undeveloped agricultural
azca south-east of the City of La Quinta. Approximately 710 acres of the site are currency
utilized for the agricultural production of primarily dates, citrus (i.e., lemons) and alfalfa.
Irrigation is utilized onsite within productive agricultural parcels. Agricultural land uses
surround the site on the north, south, east, and portions of the west.
Approximately 1140 acres of the project site are classified as "Prime Farmlands," as
designated on the agricultural Resources Map of the County Comprehensive General Plan.
As defined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), United States Department of
Agriculture (1981), prime farmland is best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber,
and oilseed crops. It exhibits the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply (per
SCS guidelines) needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when
treated and managed according to modern farming methods. The characteristics of the soil,
including pH, erodibility, slope degree, permeability rate, rock fragment content, and
rooting depth, must be in agreement with established criteria. Prime farmland must be
located in an appropriate climatic area, where soils maintain the required temperature regime
to be classified as such. Lastly, soils must exhibit the appropriate moisture regimes and
available water capacity to be considered as prime agricultural soils. The water table must
be maintained at a sufficient depth so as not to conflict with crops during the growth
seasons. In addition, these soils must not experience frequent floods during the crop
5-17
season (less often than once in two years). Within the project area, prime agricultural lands
are associated primarily with Gilman and Indio soils.
"Farmlands of Statewide Importance" are lands other than "Prime Farmlands" which have a
good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops.
Roughly 55 acres of the project site occur on soils of Statewide importance. One soil type
(i.e., Myoma) is associated with this designation and it occurs along the western border of
the site.
Williamson Act lands are agricultural areas which have been designated as agricultural
preserves by contract with the landowner and the County of Riverside. The property
owner or the county may file a Notice of Non -Renewal which will cause the contract to
expire in 10 years. The property owner also has the option of petitioning the Board of
Supervisors for the cancellation of the contract which requires the payment of a fee.
Approximately 68 acres of the project site, involving three parcels, are under Williamson
Act Preserve contract. A notice of non -renewal was filed and subsequently recorded for
these parcels in November 1987.
5.3.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
Implementation of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan will eliminate onsite agricultural
uses. Construction of Rancho La Quinta will result in the conversion of 1140 acres of
prime agricultural soils to an urban residential community. This loss of designated prime
farmland will contribute to the regional, State and national loss due to their conversion to
urban uses. The full potential of the prime agricultural lands within the project area are
currently not being utilized. A total of 710 acres are currently under agricultural
production, which represents 57 percent of prime farmland on site. It should be noted that
large areas of undeveloped prime agricultural lands occur throughout the region. The prime
agricultural lands of Rancho La Quinta would be adversely affected by the proposed
project. Most of these lands would be permanently removed from production due to the
establishment of roads, buildings, and residences. A portion of these lands would be
developed as golf courses, which would not be a permanent land conversion; however,
conversion from golf course to agricultural uses will be unlikely because of the intensity of
the proposed residential uses surrounding the golf courses.
5-18
In addition to the direct loss of agricultural lands which will result from implementation of
the proposed project, the addition of an urban community and the installation and
improvement of urban infrastructure systems may encourage the conversion and
development of adjacent agricultural lands into urban communities. The extent to which the
project may encourage additional development of agricultural lands, or the extent to which
approval of this project may encourage adjacent property owners to seek additional land use
entitlements, is unknown.
As a result of project development, lands which are classified as "Prime Farmland" on the
Countywide Agricultural Resources Map of the Comprehensive General Plan and as
"Agriculture" on the Open Space and Conservation Map, will be committed to urban use,
precluding any future agricultural production. In accordance with the General Plan Policy
Land Use Standards for agriculture, impacts on loss of productive cropland on soils;
impacts on groundwater, runoff, water supply, air quality, wildlife, vegetation, open
space; traffic congestion; noise; energy use; economic and fiscal impacts; and growth
inducing impacts are addressed in Environmental Hazards and Resources Element,
Section 5.0, Public Facilities and Services Element, Section 6.0, and Mandatory CEQA
topics, Section 10.0. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in greater
economic value to the county (see Section 6.11). A fiscal impact report is included in the
Technical Appendices, Appendix D.
As discussed under "Existing Conditions", a notice of non renewal was filed for roughly
68 acres which are currently under Williamson Act contract. If development occurs prior
to the expiration of the contract, then a petition for cancellation of the contract and payment
of any associated fees would be required
The project will provide buffer areas between development and existing productive
agricultural land and other incompatible land uses when necessary. Buffer areas will be in
the form of walls/fences and rear yard setbacks as discussed within the Development and
Design Element.
5.3.3 Mitigation
No mitigation for the loss of 1140 acres of Prime Farmland are proposed. The applicant
will provide appropriate buffering between project development and adjacent agricultural
uses, where necessary.
5-19
5.4 FLOODING AND NATER QUALITY
An inveetbation of project site hydrology, flooding, and drainage was conducted b
Engineering Service Corporation (1987). This information is summarized below with the
complete report included in this document as Appendix E. Additional data sources utilized
in this section include field investigation by WESTEC Services personnel, and the
following published and unpublished literature: California Water Resources Control Board
(1975), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (1979), Leighton and Associates
(1985, 1984), County of Riverside (1986, 1984), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(1980), and Wigington et al. (1983).
5.4.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
5.4.1.1 Surface Water
The project site is located within the West Colorado River Basin, one of 16 statewide
hy?^o phic planning units established by the State Water Resources and Regional. Water
Quality Control Boards (Figure 5.4-1). The West Colorado River Basin is divided into a
number of subunits, including the Coachella hydrological unit. This unit includes the
Whitewater River watershed, a closed inland basin which drains into the Salton Sea. The
Whitewater River receives intermittent runoff from Coachella Valley and the surrounding
highlands in the form of storm water drainage. Precipitation is normally intense, although
of short duration. Annual precipitation rates vary from approximately 5 inches
(13 centimeters) in the valley to over 40 inches (100 centimeters) in the adjacent
mountains. Infiltration rates are low, resulting in rapid sheeted runoff movement through
the major upland canyons and into the alluviated valley. Intermittent drainage from the
project site flows primarily northwest to southeast through a number of small ephemeral
washes and improved channels (Figure 5.4-2), eventually spilling into the Whitewater
River.
Natural drainage patterns in the project site and vicinity have been altered to varying
degrees by a series of storm improvement facilities. These are associated with agricultural
development, and include a number of levees and channels which divert and carry storm
runoff. The most significant of these is the westside levee, a 25 foot (7.5 meter) high
earthen dike designed to divert storm runoff from the western highlands (Figure 5.4-2). A
number of smaller drainage improvements associated with agricultural development are also
5-20
r
Project Site Hydrographic Basin
SOURCE: CWRCB 1975
Figure
5,4-1
p w u
p w w h kl II
p wa
AVE JUE u A 38 AVENilE _ .k sa i
w R - 8 •
� y .w• r quq II p , Q C 1 I\ 2
26
27
�J1 , _ _ 11•'11. ' �/_ , o I
ake null '' I i PROJECT SITE 1
Coin Pa
1 Ih� I w '► I. o
� } G
__ , AOU T r W ; _ _ - _ - ---------
.--_- _ _-_ �„ i -, --' PIPELINE
128 g w 7
F I I uy 1 c
40
,
I _ _ I
_70- '
AVENUE 60 _
I —Y-- --.—.��_ _mss. t.-�¢.Y m .' - - ws.:: rr- g� • ...
I
Q 100 Q Swimming pool
.j MII`�� 0100 1425 Cts} Pool
1554 cfs 8
\ wlmmmQ Pool } 35
i 33 34 .. --AVE FN 61
WESTSIDEFLOOD LEVEE f '��WATERSHED BOUNDARY �.
1 0 2000
kBM —401 •� 1 FEET
.. `---
- --------------------------------
---•-- -- -------------------
m — --r — -- --� ez LEGEND
Station k �.
*�� RUNOFF DIRECTION
l °'' ± •tI "BU 0100 100 YEAR STORM RUNOFF
SOURCE: Engineering Service Corporation, 1987 1425 cfs (CUBIC FEET PER SECOND)
Figure
Existing Project Area drainage and 100 Year Storm Runoff +
located in the area. The combined effect of these facilities protects the project area from
significant storm related flooding. The Coachella Valley Water District (1987b) considers
the project site "safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances". The Riverside
County General Plan (1986) requires that siting and development standards be implemented
so as to reduce risks and damages from flood hazards. The site is not within any of the
100 -year floodplain hazard zones mapped by the County of Riverside (Figure 3.2-1),
although site specific floodplain mapping of the project area has not occurred. The
watershed which incorporates the La Quinta site is approximately 3620 acres in size, with
combined 100 -year storm runoff valves (Q100) of 2979 cubic feet per second (cfs,
Figure 5.4-2).
5.4.1.2 Groundwater
Groundwater resources in the Coachella Valley region are contained in a complex pattern of
aquifers located at various depths. A number of horizontal and vertical barriers separate
and bound these aquifers (including geologic structures and impervious soil layers),
although flow between groundwater bodies does occur (CVAG 1979, Aslan 1987).
Groundwater recharge occurs primarily through percolation of streamflow in the adjacent
mountains, where annual precipitation rates often exceed 40 inches (100 centimeters).
The quantity of groundwater inflow from the Whitewater River Basin is not well
established, with long-term average annual flow estimated at 3700 acre-feet
(CVAG 1979).
Groundwater bodies, can be generally divided into two broad categories; large deep
aquifers and smaller, shallow aquifers. There are two major large aquifers in Coachella
Valley, located primarily at depths of 400 to 600 feet (120 to 180 meters). These aquifers
are separated by an east -west trending underground geologic structure (i.e., an intrusive
dike) located near the City of Palm Desert (Aslan 1987), and supply much of the domestic
water supply for the valley region. Estimates on the amount of usable water underlying
Coachella Valley vary widely, including figures ranging from 6,800,000 to 15,700,00
acre-feet for the upper valley aquifer (CVAG 1979). Local water tables in the deep aquifers
have experienced a moderate decline over the past several decades, although the rate of
decline has slowed in recent years. This is likely due to a number of factors, including the
implementation of water conservation measures and the importation of Colorado River
Water for agricultural irrigation beginning in 1949. Prior to that date irrigation relied
5-23
exclusively on groundwater pumping and resulted in a steady lowering of local water
tables.
Imported water is conveyed through the Coachella Canal and is used exclusively for
irrigation. Since 1960, an annual average of over 340,000 acre-feet of Colorado River
water have been imported (CVAG 1979). While infiltration rates for irrigation water are
not known, it is assumed that a substantial quantity of water enters the local hydrologic
cycle from this process. Percolating irrigation water recharges local groundwater aquifers,
with the majority likely retained in shallow aquifers near the point of discharge (due to the
structural barriers previously discussed). Shallow aquifers occur in variable sizes, at
depths of generally less than 400 feet (120 meters). The extent of irrigation runoff which
eventually percolates to deep aquifers in unknown, however, and should not be discounted
as a potential source of deep water recharge.
No quantitative analysis of groundwater occurrence on the project site has been conducted,
although at least five operating wells are located there (Coachella Valley Water District
1987a). These include three domestic and two irrigation wells, with water tables occurring
at depths ranging from approximately 18 to 300 feet (5.5 to 91.5 meters). Potable water
in the three domestic wells generally occurs at depths greater than where water is first
encountered, with potable water extracted at depths of between 79 and 590 feet (24 and
180 meters).
5.4.1.3 Water Quality
Surface waters in the project area consist essentially of intermittent flood runoff. This type
of flow normally occurs at relatively high velocities, resulting in high total dissolved solid
(TDS) levels and poor water quality. Because storm runoff is infrequent and of limited
volume onsite, however, water quality levels are not a significant concern.
Groundwater quality in the Coachella Valley is generally high, with TDS levels in most
areas at 300 milligrams per liter (mg/1) or less (County of Riverside 1984). The California
State Health Deparr lent recommends a TDS limit of 500 mg/1 for sustained domestic use.
Thus Coachella Valley groundwater generally exceeds State recommended standards by a
considerable margin.
5-24
e
Most domestic water use in the valley is from the deeper groundwater aquifers, which
generally are of higher quality than more shallow groundwater. This is due in part to the
effects of agricultural and urban development in the region over the past several decades.
Specifically, agriculture in the Coachella Valley utilizes large quantities of irrigation water
due to the high temperatures and low precipitation rates which occur there. Most water
utilized for agricultural irrigation is derived from imported Colorado River water. Imported
water is generally higher in TDS than local groundwater, averaging approximately 650 to
825 mg/1 between 1949 and 1976 (County of Riverside 1984). Irrigation in the Coachella
Valley results in large volumes of runoff and infiltration into local groundwater tables.
Agricultural runoff normally contains relatively high levels of contaminants, due to the use
of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, as well as the leaching of the salts from the soil
and the TDS levels of imported water. These substances are introduced into the
groundwater table by infiltration, resulting in a reduction of groundwater quality.
Urban development generally increases the potential for runoff contamination, with urban
runoff commonly contributing bacteria, pesticides, nutrients, organics, solids, and metals
to downstream waters (Wigington et al. 1983). This is due to the interception of airborne
pollutants by precipitation, and the accumulation of contaminants in surface runoff or
drainage structures. A summary comparison of average runoff waste loads for various
land uses is given in Table 5.4-1.
Because of the natural groundwater barriers in the region (i.e. geolQgic structures and
impervious soil layers), urban and agricultural runoff tends to concentrate in shallow
groundwater aquifers near the point of infiltration. Thus, contaminants associated with this
type of runoff which enter the groundwater table tend to affect the quality of shallow
aquifers more than deep aquifers.
The Riverside County General Plan (1986) lists its major quality objectives as basing water
quality planning on accepted growth forecasts and adopted regional development plans, and
recognizing nonpoint sources of pollution as potentially significant impacts of
development. A number of water quality programs are outlined including agricultural
runoff, water quality monitoring, and grading and construction, which provide specific
policy direction to meet the General Plan goals.
5-25
N
ON
Table
5.4-1
SUMMARY OF SURFACE RUNOFF POLLUTION COEFFICIENTS FOR VARIOUS LAND USES
(lbs/acre/year)
Total
Suspended
Dissolved
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Biochemical Oxygen
Chemical Oxygen
Land Use
li
Solids
Solids
(N)
Demand (BOD]
Mmand (COD)
Open Space, Barren
1050
500
550
2.0
0.2;
6.0
40
Grains, Hay
650
400
250
10
0.�
20
150
Citrus, Walnut
Vegetables
650
400
250
30
1.5
30
200
Residential Trailer
Parks
900
500
400
12
2.0
30
230
Commercial, Parking
1450
950
500
12
1.0
.40
300
Industrial
1250
700
550
12
1.2
30
240
Picnic, Golf Courses
Green Lawns
650
400
250
15
0.5
18
100
Source: CWRCB 1975.
5.4.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
5.4.2.1 Surface Water
The proposed development would alter the existing onsite drainage through grading
activities and the construction of impervious surfaces. This would change the quantity and
quality of onsite runoff, by altering drainage patterns, decreasing infiltration rates, and
increasing runoff quantities within the site. These potential impacts are not considered
significant, however, due to the infrequent nature of onsite runoff, and design measures
contained in the proposed drainage plan.
The proposed drainage plan (see Figure 3.4-1) includes a total onsite watershed area of
approximately 1232 acres. All runoff would be retained onsite, using the golf course for
retention/percolation basins. This would require a total retention capacity of 252 acre-feet
to accommodate runoff associated with a 100 -year storm event. The proposed golf course
covers 380 acres and would provide more than sufficient capacity to accommodate
100 -year storm runoff (ESCO 1987). All proposed structures on the project site would be
situated 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) above grade from the golf course, resulting in no
significant potential flooding impacts (ESCO 1987).
The project site is not within any flood hazard zones identified by the Riverside County
General Plan (1986). The proposed project design meets the General Plan flood hazard
objectives by effectively mitigating potential flooding impacts associated with a 100 -year
storm event.
5.4.2.2 Groundwater
The proposed project would utilize regional groundwater aquifers as a sole source for
domestic water. No significant impacts are anticipated from this use, however, based on
the determination of the Coachella Valley Water District (see Section 6.2). Golf course
and other irrigation water may be derived in part from both groundwater and imported
water. The exact distribution of sources for irrigation water would be determined by the
Coachella Valley Water District (see Section 6.2).
A number of locally perched groundwater bodies may exist onsite, and would present
potentially significant flooding impacts to structures and facilities during construction. It is
5-27
anticipated, however, that standard construction dewatering techniques (e.g., the use of
submersible pumps) would be capable of reducing potential flooding impacts below levels
of significance. Specific dewatering methc . •:you' a -c detarmined during the site specific
geotechnical investigation.
5.4.2.3 Water Quality
Potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality from the proposed project would be
related to the decrease in runoff quality generally attributed to urban development (see
Section 6.4.2.1). Specifically, contaminants such as oil, grease, and heavy metals from
automotive sources; pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers from residential and recreational
uses, and bacteria from human and animal wastes could potentially be discharged either
directly or indirectly into local drainage systems. It should be noted that while relatively
large quantities of fertilizers and herbicides would be used in association with golf course
landscaping, the difference between this use and current applications for agricultural
purposes would not be significant. The proposed project would contribute to the overall
regional increase in water quality cc..t.:.:nin=t lcvcls, although these impacts are not
considered significant due to the relatively small quantities involved.
The proposed project would result in incremental increases to regional contaminant levels,
although by implementing proposed project design and the mitigation measures listed
below the water quality objectives of the Riverside County General Plan (1986) can be met.
5.4.3 Mitigation
The mitigation measures listed below were generated as a result of field investigation of the
project site and available literature, and represent the best known information on
hydrology/water quality to date. Subsequent investigations and information should be used
to augment the following recommendations were appropriate.
A geotechnical investigation of the project site should be conducted by a
qualified consultant prior to construction. As a part of this investigation,
drainage specifications should be established to insure adequate mitigation
against flood related impacts.
5-28
VA
The applicant should coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water district to
insure maximum water conservation efforts and minimum runoff contaminant
levels. The applicant should institute an appropriate water quality monitoring
program if deemed appropriate by the CVWD.
5.5 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION
5.5.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The General Plan states that natural features such as prominent hillsides, major rock
outcroppings, major stands of trees, unique scenic features, and other characteristics shall
be preserved and incorporated into the design of any development. Environmental hazard
and resource areas within a project site shall be retained as open space or shall be developed
in a manner that is harmonious with the resoures and does not increase the risk of damage
or injury to the development's users. According to the Comprehensive General Plan for
Riverside County, Open Space and Conservation Map, the project site is designated
agriculture and as areas not designated as open space (see Figure 4.1-1). The areas not
designated as open space are residential reserve (5 DU/acre). Of the 1251 acres proposed
for development, 1,140 acres are designated as prime agricultural land (approximately
91 percent).
The project site is primarily agricultural. There are, however, various spots of open space
consisting of mesquite thickets and disturbed areas. Mesquite thickets are considered a
declining habitat regionally, and support a variety of declining bird species. One such bird
species found onsite is the Crissal thrasher (Toxistoma crissale), which is a species of
special concern and is declining in population size regionally (see Section 5.8).
There are several archeological sites identified within the project boundaries. The majority
of the sites consist of small pottery scatters while some may be habitation sites (see
Section 5.9).
According to the Composite Environmental Hazards Map in the Comprehensive General
Plan there is a liquifaction hazard area through the project site. There also exists a non-
active inferred fault through the eastern portion of the project site. There are no other
environmental hazards identified on site, such as flood zones, fire hazards or mountainous
areas (see Section 5.2).
5-29
5.5.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
Approximately thirty-four percent of the project site is designated golf course/open space
and parkland on the conceptual site plan. This usable open space designation is in
conformance with open space land use standards for project development, according to the
General Plan, which states: development projects shall consider incorporating usable open
space into the design of the project (County of Riverside General Plan 1987).
According to the Riverside County General Plan, natural resources within a proposed
project development should be preserved and incorporated into the design of the project.
The mesquite thicket habitat is declining in southern California on a regional level and is
therefore considered a cumulative significant loss. Loss of the mesquite thickets would
also result in an adverse impact to the Crissal thrasher, a bird species of special concern.
5.5.3 Mitigation
Thirty four percent of the project site is designated as open space/golf course according to
the conceptual site plan. This quantity of open space provided by the Specific Plan would
reduce the impacts to below a level of significance for the loss of open space.
Loss of the mesquite thickets on the project site, and therefore, loss of habitat for the
Crissal thrasher, would create an adverse impact. To mitigate the loss of this habitat the
developer has agreed to incorporate some of the existing mesquite thickets into the golf
course design. The developer would also revegetate mesquite thickets in other locations
within the golf course design.
No mitigation measures are required for the majority of the archeology resources on the
project site because these sites are not significant cultural resources. Mitigation of impacts
for the other archeological resources cannot be determined until site significance testing has
been performed (sites Riv-1340, -1343, -1715, and LQ -S-3).
If left unmitigated, the liquefaction area onsite would create an adverse hazardous impact.
A future site specific geotechnical report would be required to determine the significance of
the liquefaction impacts and any mitigation measures required. Potential seismic hazards
5-30
would also be determined during the geotechnical investigation. All mitigation measures
recommended by these studies would be required to be implemented.
5.6 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY
5.6.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The project site consists of relatively flat land with very little topographical differentiation.
The highest elevation is approximately sea level in the western portion of the site and the
lowest elevation in the far eastern portion of the site is 90 feet below sea level. The overall
slope is less than 1 percent. The site supports primarily agricultural uses with some open
spaces of mesquite and disturbed areas. The site is visible from surrounding parcels, from
the adjacent regional park (Lake Cahuilla Park), and surrounding mountains.
The project site can be viewed from parcels north of 58th Street, south of 62nd Street, and
east of Jackson Street. It is also visible from a development currently under construction
to the north (PGA West). Lake Cahuilla Park is adjacent to the northwestern portion of the
project site. The project site is visually obstructed from the park's parking lot by a man-
made berm (flood protection) separating the park from the project site. The project site
could, however, be seen from various points within the park acreage at higher elevations.
The Santa Rosa Mountains are located to the east and south of the project site. The project
site can be seen from various points in these mountains.
5.6.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The landform of the proposed project will not be significantly altered. The project design
remains relatively flat and consistent with existing topography. The only grading proposed
is for the golf courses which will be 4 to 5 feet below roadways and building pads.
Therefore, views from surrounding areas will not be significantly different than existing
conditions. The proposed development will be visible from surrounding parcels, portions
of the regional park and from the surrounding mountain areas. The proposed project will
be contiguous visually with the development currently under construction to the north.
Views from the adjacent parcels, the park and the mountainous areas will be consistent with
development in the area. The proposed project will not create a significant visual/aesthetic
impact as long as the landscape and architectural design standards outlined in the Specific
Plan are implemented.
S-31
FJ
5.6.3 Mitigation
The landscape and architectural design standards outlined in the Specifc Plan would be
implemented during project implementation. If these standards are followed, no further
mitigation measures would be required.
5.7 AIR QUALITY
5.7.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The climate of the Coachella Valley area is governed primarily by the strength and
position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the
position of the San Jacinto, San Bernardino and Santa Rosa mountains that isolates
the vaiiey from any marine influences to the west. Climatic conditions are
characterized by very hot summers, mild winters, negligible rainfall, few clouds,
low humidity, and occasional wind storms that loft sand and dust (LSA, 1984).
Rainfall averages less than 3 inches per year, falling on average 10 days each year.
The rain originates from the fringes of winter storms and isolated summer
thunderstorms. Temperatures in the Coachella Valley typically range from a
summer high of 107'F and low in the high 70's to a winter maximum in the mid
70's and minimum in the low 40's. The humidity in the Rancho La Quinta area is
highest in the winter and lowest in the late spring, often below 10 percent.
Temperature inversions do not occur in the desert, and therefore do not trap
pollutants as in the Los Angeles air basin. These clean, dry conditions result in
intense solar radiation, and which, when combined with high temperatures, is
highly conducive to photochemical smog formation.
In addition to rainfall, temperature and humidity, winds are a significant factor
influencing the climatic and air quality conditions in the Coachella Valley. Air flow
into the valley is generally funnelled through San Gorgonio Pass near Cabazon and
then diverges across the valley. Prevailing winds, out of the northwest, are
strongest in spring and sometimes lead to blowing sand and dust; however, the
5-32
La Quinta area is sheltered on three sides by the Santa Rosa Mountains and
experiences lower wind speeds and thus little blowsand problems. The wink have
their origin in the Los Angeles basin and transport polluted air through mountain
passes (e.g., San Gorgonio Pass) out of the Los Angeles area into the desert air
basin.
• Air Qualily
The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Area is located in the Southeast Desert Air
Basin (SEDAB) of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Air quality monitoring is carried out by the SCAQMD, with the nearest monitoring
station located in Indio, approximately 10 miles north. The Palm Springs
monitoring station, approximately 20 miles northwest of the project site, provides a
more comprehensive list of pollutant data, therefore ambient air quality data from
1983 through 1986 for both stations are contained within Tables 5.7-1 and 5.7-2.
As noted within the tables, the Coachella Valley area has e-xceeded federal. or state
standards for ozone and particulates during this time period (TSP and PM -10).
The primary source of ozone in the Coachella Valley is that which is transported
from the Los Angeles air basin. Sulfates and nitrates are also transported, however
their concentrations are of only minor significance. The maximum number of
ozone violations occurs in the westernmost portion of the valley; with Indio (or
La Quinta) located in the eastern portion of the valley, exceedances are less
frequent than those experienced closer to San Gorgonio Pass. While the Rancho
La Quinta area air quality is more reflective of Indio rather than Palm Springs, there
will continue to be some exceedances of clean air quality standards in the project
area. To minimize the problem, ozone should be effectively controlled in the Los
Angeles area.
Particulates in the Coachella Valley consist mainly of dust from wind-blown desert
soils disturbed by development and agricultural activities. While windy periods in
the valley contribute to increased particulate production, at the same time the winds
help to disperse pollutants, transporting particulates and oxidants out of the project
area. Once again, the La Quinta area is shielded on three sides by local terrain,
therefore wind effects are minimized in the project area.
5-33
N
Table 5.7-1
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
PALM SPRINGS MONITORING STATION
* = Maximum 24-hour sample (in µg/0)
ppm = Parts per million
µg/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, 1983 - 1986
California
Federal
Maximum 1 hr
Number of Days
Average
Air Quality
Primary
Concentradons
(ppm)
Exceeding
State Standard
Pollutants
'lime
Standards
Sta� ndard
1983
1984
1985
1986
1983
1984
1985
1986
Oxidants
(Ozone)
1 hr
0.10 ppm
0.12 ppm
0.19
0.20
0.24
0.18
86
92
81
80
Carbon
8 hrs
9 ppm
9 ppm
2.8
2, 1
2.6
3.6
0
0
0
0
Monoxide
1 hr
20 ppm
35 ppm
7.0
A.0
5.0
5.8
0
0
0
0
Nitrogen
Dioxide
1 hr
'0.25 ppm
ry-
0.16
0.09
0.08
0.08
0
0
0
0
Sulfur
Dioxide
1 hr
0.25 ppm
--
0.01
--
--
--
0
--
--
--
Total
Suspended
Particulates
24 hrs
--
260 µg/m3
159*
113*
291*
175*
--
--
--
--
* = Maximum 24-hour sample (in µg/0)
ppm = Parts per million
µg/m3 = Micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, 1983 - 1986
w
w
Table 5.7-2
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SUMMARY
INDIO MONITORING STATION
California
Federal
Maximum 1 hr
Average Air Quality
Primary
Concenntion
Pollutants Time Stant dards
Standards
JM M
IM 1986
Oxidants
(Ozone) 1 hr .10 ppm
.12 ppm
.18 .19
.20 --
Total
Suspended I
Particulates 24 hrs --
260 µg/m3
305* 280*
606* 242*
Particulate
Matter -
10 micron
(PM -10) 24 hrs 50 µg/m3
--
-- 47*
358* 111*
* = Maximum 24-hour sample (in µg/m3)
** = Percent of samples taken
ppm = Parts per million
µg/0 = Micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, 1983 - 1986
Number of Days
Exceeding Stale Standard
im 12H im 1_$m
80 69 67 --
-- 0** 61** 41**
Photochemical oxidants, commonly known as smca =,, -=_nrc-sc.d mostly of
hydrocarbons (HC) and reactive hydrocarbons (RHC) which are produced from
photochemical interaction with nitrogen oxide (NOx). Photochemical oxidants,
expressed and measured as ozone (03), are considered a major problem in the
Coachella Valley area. Significant concentration of oxidants are often recorded at
locations far from the primary emission source. For example, ozone formed in the
Los Angeles area is often transported through the San Gorgonio Pass into the
Coachella Valley.
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced largely by the
incomplete burning of fuel in internal combustion engines. Concentrations of CO
occur close to heavily traveled streets, especially at locations where vehicles idle for
prolonged periods (e.g., parking lots, drive-through facilities, and congested
intersections). These areas of high CO buildup are generally referred to a CO
"hotspots." CO levels are related directly to vehicle .Needs.
Since CO buildup typically occurs at locations where traffic is congested, CO
concentrations are correlated with levels of service at intersections. Significant
concentrations of carbon monoxide sometimes occur (depending on temperature,
wind speed, and other variables) where an intersection's level of service is "D" or
worse.
• HealthEffects cif Air PQlli,itants
Air pollutants are recognized to have a variety of health effects on humans.
Hazardous health effects are especially pronounced for "sensitive receptors":
(1) children under 5 years of age; (2) individuals with respiratory and
cardiovascular problems; and (3) persons over 65. Effects range from eye
irritation to respiratory diseases such as emphysema. Carbon monoxide, ozone and
nitrogen oxides, when absor')ed into the bloodstream, reduce the oxygen -carrying
ability of hemoglobin. Suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen and
ozone can trigger respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and lung cancer.
Death may even result from short-term exposure to high pollutant dosages, but the
urban population is usually exposed to low levels over long periods of time.
5-36
• Regulatory Framework
Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) represent the maximum level of
background pollution considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect
the public health and welfare. The five primary pollutants of concern for which
standards have been established are sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides, ozone and suspended particulate matter. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) were promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in 1971 with States retaining the option to develop different (more stringent)
standards. Due to unique air quality problems in California, the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) has developed additional AAQS. Figure 6.7-1 lists the
currently applicable State and Federal standards. In the SEDAB, it is the
responsibility of the San Bernardino County District (APCD) to set regulations and
permit sources.
• �Plan Policies
There are two Land Use Standards in the Environmental Hazards and Resources
Element of the Comprehensive General Plan relative to air quality. They concern
air quality impact mitigation and sensitive land uses.
1. Air Quality Impact Mitigation - Major development proposals which may create
a significant new source of air pollutant emissions must contribute to the
mitigation of adverse air quality impacts. Major projects may include large
industrial, mining, residential, commercial or recreational projects. Smaller,
incremental projects which are determined to be contributing to a significant
cumulative air quality impact in an area may also be required to provide
mitigation. Air quality mitigation measures to reduce automobile or energy use
include the following:
• Bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, racks and lockers.
• Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters and turnouts.
• Park and Ride facilities.
• Carpool preferential parking programs.
• Energy efficient buildings.
5-37
ppm • PARTS PER MILLION
uglrn 3. MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
mgim .MILLIGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
California and Federal
Ambient Air Quality Standards
5-38
Figure
5,7-1
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS
NATIONAL STANDARDS
POLLUTANT
AVERAGING
CONCENTRA-
TION
METHOD
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
METHOD
TIME
nXInAMT
1 HOUR
0.10 ppm 3
(200 ug/m )
ULTRAVIOLET
PHOTOMETRY
_
-
OZONE
1 HOUR
-
-
240 ug/m3
SAME AS
PRIMARY
CHEMILUMINESCEN'
(0 12 ppm)
STANDARDS
METHOD
9 ppm 3
NOW
10 mg/m3
SAME AS
NON -DISPERSIVE
8 HOUR
(10 mglm 1
DISPERSIVE
(9 ppm)
PRIMARY
INFRARED
CARBON MONOXIDE
INFRARED
STANDARDS
SPECTROSCOPY
1 HOUR
(2p3g/m3)
g
SPECTRO
SCOPY
5 ppm)
ANNUAL_
100 ug/m3
AVERAGE
SALTZMAN
(0.05 ppm)
SAME AS
GAS PHASE
NITROGEN DIOXIDE
METHOD
PRIMARY
CHEMILUMIN-
1 HOUR
0.25 ppm 3
(470 ug/m 1
_
STANDARDS
ESCENCE
ANNUAL
_
80 ug/m3
AVERAGE
(0.03 ppm)
_
24 HOUR
0.05 ppm
(131 ug/m3)
365 ug/m3
(0.14 ppm)
_
CONDUC-
SULFUR DIOXIDE
TIMETRIC
METHOD
PARAOSANILINE
METHOD
3 HOUR
-
-
1300 ug/m3
(0.5 ppm)
1 HOUR
0.25 ppm
(655 ug/m3)
_
-
SUSPENDED
ANNUAL
GEOMETRIC
- 10
30
30 ug/M3HIGH
TSP
75 ug/m3
60 ug/m3
PARTICULATE
MEAN
VOLUME
HIGH VOLUME
24 HOUR
PM 10
TSP
150
MATTER
SAMPLING
SAMPLING
50 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
ug/m3
SULFATES
24 HOUR
25 ug/m3
AIHL METHOD
NO.61
-
30 DAY
'AVERAGE
1 5 ug/m3
AIHL METHOD
NO. 54
LEAD
CALENDAR
-
-
1.5 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
ATOMIC
QUARTER
ABSORPTION
CADMIUM
HYDROGEN
SULFIDE
1 HOUR
0.03 ppm
i42 ug/m3)
HYDROXIDE
AN
-
-
METHOD
METHOD
VINYL CHLORIDE
24 HOUR
0.010 ppm GAS CHROMA-
(CHLOROETHENE)
(26 ug/m3) TOGRAPHY
-
-
8 HOUR
0.1 ppm
ETHYLENE
1 HOUR
0.5 ppm
IN SUFFICIENT AMOUNT TO
VISIBILITY
ONE
REDUCE THE PREVAILING
REDUCING
OBSER-
VISIBILITY TO LES --S THAN
_
PARTICLES
VATION
10 MILES WHEN THe
RELATIVE HUMIDITY IS
LESS THAN 70%
ppm • PARTS PER MILLION
uglrn 3. MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
mgim .MILLIGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
California and Federal
Ambient Air Quality Standards
5-38
Figure
5,7-1
• Solar access orientation of structures.
• Solar heated and cooled structures and swimming pools.
2. Sensitive Land Uses - Sensitive land uses (e.g., hospitals, convalescent homes,
day care centers, schools, parks, and nurseries) should not be located adjacent
to sources of heavy air pollution, such as major roadways or heavy industrial
land uses.
5.7.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The following information was calculated based on formulas provided in the SCAQMD's
"Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports" (April 1987).
Ift
Heavy-duty truck, earth movers, air compressors and generators will be used
during site preparation and construction. Various pollutants, principally exhaust
emissions, dust and particulates, will be emitted on short-term basis. The amount
of pollutants emitted during site preparation and construction cannot be determined
at this time, because of a lack of specific information, such as location, extent and
techniques of grading and construction. To accurately calculate these factors, it is
also necessary to know which energy source would be utilized by the vehicles
during site preparation and construction for a specific number of hours, as
concentrations of gasoline -powered motor emissions differ from those of diesel -
powered motor emissions. In addition, it is expected that 100 pounds of dust per
acre per day of construction activity will be generated by project development. Dust
can be controlled by revegetation of graded surfaces and periodic watering down of
surfaces during construction activity.
• Qpmtion ref Completed Project
When the project is completed and occupied, air quality in the project area will be
directly affected by motor vehicle emissions from project traffic, and indirectly
influenced by pollutants emitted by power generation plants which serve the project
in the SEDAB.
5-39
J
1. Motor Vehicle Emissions - The greatest project -related air quality impact
results from the 47,000 daily vehicle trips the project will generate at build -out
(Section 6.10). The amount of motor vehicle emissions associated with the
proposed project is calculated based upon the total vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) at various phases of development. The VMT is determined by
multiplying the 47,000 average daily trips (ADT) generated by the
development times the average residential trips length of 5.5 miles, the
3.2 mile average commercial trip length and the average recreational trip
length of 5.2 used in the URBEMIS model, for a total of 184,000 VMT per
day.
Because of the motor vehicle emissions control program, per mile emissions
from individual motor vehicles in California are projected to be lower each
year. Air quality emissions for build -out year of the proposed project (2010)
are presented in Table 5.7-3, assuming a speed of 35 mph. The amount of
motor vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project has been
estimated empioying iiie EMFAC7PC emission factors developed by the
California ARB.
2. Utility Emissions - According to Southern California Edison, residential units
utilize an estimated 6081 kwh/unit/year. This estimate is based on the "Air
Quality Handbook for EIR's" (April 1987). Utilizing this estimate, the target
4262 units proposed by the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan would utilize
25,917,222 kwh per year. As the exact nature of the proposed commercial
uses is unknown, no attempt was made to quantify electrical demand
associated with the proposed 35 -acres of commercial uses. See Table 6.7-4
for power plant emissions associated with this demand for electricity.
The primary use of natural gas by the project will be for combustion to
produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air
conditioning. Consumption for residential use is estimated by Southern
California Gas Company (1986) at 6665 cubic feet/unit/month. The targ - t
4262 units proposed by this project would require 28,406,203 cubic feet of
natural gas per month. As discussed above, no attempt was made to quantify
anticipated demand for natural gas associated with the 35 -acre commercial
5-40
Table 5.7-3
AIR QUALITY MOBILE EMISSIONS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
CO = 202,000VMTX6.59gm/mil.lb/454grn =
2932 lbs/day
NOx = 202,000 VMT X 1.34 gm/mi 1 lb/454 gm =
596 lbs/day
ROG = 202,000 VMT X.52 gm/mi l lb/454 gm =
231 lbs/day
CO - Carbon Monoxide
N% - Nitrogen Oxides
ROG - Reactive Organic Gases; species of organic gas which undergoes
photochemical reactions along with other compounds in the air to form
secondary pollutants, primarily ozone
*assumes 35 mph
5-41
Table 5.7-4
POWER PLANT EMISSIONS*
CO
= 25,917,222 kwh X
.20 lbs/1,000 kwh
= 5183
lbs/yr
NOx
= 25,917,222 kwh X
1.15 lbs/1,000 kwh
= 29,805
lbs/yr
sox
= 25,917,222 kwh X
.12 lbs/1,000 kwh =
3111
lbs/yr
Part
= 25,917,222 kwh X
.04 lbs/1,000 kwh =
1037
lbs/yr
ROG
= 25,917,222 kwh X
.01 lbs/1,000 kwh =
259
lbs/yr
*Resulting from consumption of 25,917,222 kwh per year generated by a power
plant, assuming average hydro year and low sulfur fuel oil/natural gas fuel mix.
CO
- Carbon Monoxide
NOx
- Nitrogen Oxides
sox
- Sulfur Oxides
Part
- Particulates
ROG
- Reactive Organic Gas
Table 5.7-5
NATURAL GAS EMISSIONS
CO
= 28,406,203 c.f. x
20 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. =
568 lbs/mo
NOx
= 28,406,203 c.f. x
80 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. =
2272 lbs/mo
sox
= Negligible
Part
= 28,406,203 c.f. x
.15 lbs/1,000,000 c.f =
4.3 lbs/mo
ROG
= 28,406,203 c.f. x
5.3 lbs/1,000,000 c.f. =
151 lbs/mo
CO
- Carbon Monoxide
NOx
- Nitrogen Oxides
sox
- Sulfur Oxides
Part
- Particulates
ROG
- Reactive Organic Gas
5-42
uses. See Table 5.7-5 for emissions associated with this consumption of
natural gas.
The total projected emissions upon buildout of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan,
including stationary and mobile emission sources, are as follows:
Table 5.7-6
TOTAL EMISSIONS PRODUCED BY RANCHO LA QUINTA (2010)*
Pollutant Lbs/Day
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2965
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 753
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 236
* Stationary and mobile emission sources.
To evaluate the magnitude of the emissions generated by the Rancho La Quinta Spec
Plan, the "Air Quality Handbook for EIR's" recommends comparing the project emissions
to the total emissions burden in the area. Although project completion will not occur until
2010, the South Coast Air Quality Managment District does not have emissions inventory
data compiled beyond the year 1983. Therefore, the emissions inventory in Table 5.7-7
compares the total daily tons of pollutants generated in the Riverside County portion of the
South Coast air basin to those generated by the project at completion to give a general idea
of the project impacts on the regional air quality.
Pollutant
CO
NOx
ROG
Table 5.7-7
EMISSIONS INVENTORY (tons/day)
Project -Related*
l mi$5ion
1.�
.4
.1
Riverside County** % of Basin
Basin Emissions Total
386.80 .38
51.38 .78
80.54 .12
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1986.
*Year of buildout (2010)
**1983 emission inventory data
5-43
The Air Quality Management District uses SCAG population forecasts as a basis for its Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It is estimated that the Rancho La Quinta Specific
Plan will generate a populaton of approximately 11,500 (4262 DU x 2.69 persons). This
populaton growth is within the growth forecast for this area and is, therefore, consistent
with the AQMP.
Because the projected emissions for the project would not be a significant contributor to
adverse air quality in the Coachella Valley area as shown by the above percentages, and the
project is within the SCAG growth forecasts for the area, the air quality impacts associated
with the project are not significant. However, it will incrementally contribute to the
degradaton of air quality in the local air basin when combined with similar developments'
emissions to the air basin.
• RelationshiR to genCM1 Plan P li i
It is intended that the project conform with the Air Quality Land Use Standards by
employing mitigation measures listed below.
5.7.3 Mitigation
The amount of fugitive dust and other pollutants emitted during the grading and
construction phase of the proposed project may be reduced by watering graded surfaces
during construction activities, and planting groundcover immediately following grading.
Because most of the project -related air pollution emissions are generated by automobiles,
there is limited potential for any effective mitigation on the part of any single developer.
However, where feasible, the project will integrate the following features into the project
design:
• Transit facilities, such as benches, shelters and turnouts.
• Energy efficient buildings.
• Solar access orientation of structures.
• Solar heated and cooled structures and swimming pools.
Additionally, the design of efficient and direct traffic flow patterns on the project site can
help reduce the quantity of air pollutants generated by minimizing the places in the roadway
S-44
f'
system where automobiles would be idling unnecessarily.. The project traffic analysis,
included in Section 6.10 of this report, contains a number of design guidelines to be
utilized in creating an efficient roadway system.
Based on a recently passed regulation, the SCAQMD may also require the commercial
development in the project to reduce their trips through carpooling, particularly if any of the
commercial uses employ 100 or more people (Nickerson 1987). This, in turn, will reduce
mobile emissions in the project vicinity.
5.8 WILD LIFENEGETATION
The following discussion briefly summarizes the vegetative habitats on the property,
wildlife utilization of those habitats, and any high -interest species and habitats observed
onsite or which are known from the immediate vicinity. A detailed biological resource
report for the project is included as Appendix A of this report.
5.8.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Vcutadoa
Vegetation on the La Quinta property is primarily nonnative, and consists of agricultural
crops (including alfalfa fields and citrus and date groves), ruderal vegetation along
roadsides, abandoned or fallow fields, and hedgerows along property lines or between
fields. Native vegetation occurs on approximately 285 acres, and includes desert saltbush
scrub, disturbed scrub, sonoran creosote bush scrub, and one small area of freshwater
marsh. Vegetative habitats are delineated in Figure 6.8-1 and discussed below. Due to the
late survey date, a large number of annual or herbaceous perennial species which could
occur in native habitats were not detectable.
Areas mapped as agriculture include land currently in production and land directly affected
by present or recent agricultural activities. These latter areas include ruderal vegetation
along roadsides and abandoned or fallow fields, and are characterized by a preponderance
of nonnative, weedy species. Typical species include Russian thistle (Salsola iberica),
cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), castor -bean (Ricinis
communis), and lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) along roads, and suaeda (Suaeda
torreyana), bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and young tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) in old
5-45
u r i° Ni
n'VA n a
AVENUE
a a
\ ' (u 'I 28 27 a., u 26 i 25
Lake Cahud + a� ` PROJECT SITE
County Par + • i` i S 41 i4� w ,'a
Y,r._ -----•. ---_ _
----
f—
fir,+�}i` •..4r. VPN
0 2000
FEET
rr 9 T •� =, ,, rr FWY • T 4} LEGEND
AVENUE AGRICULTURE (induding old fells)
r -
iy 's , 41t DISTURBED HABITAT
C SP
� s DESERT SALTBUSH SCRUB -
rn i `� a- , '.'sem. S E S 4,;- - DISTURBED SCRUB
`rf r! � r a �+ f a f. ' { - a`'r $ • ,'� a +�+• � CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB
V- ila�; wrmmang Pool
3 MESQUITE Pro ndulosa
I 33 ', , ;�, vat. wrta ana) l
ry �'���r'r� •iiia ti ��
t ylii 4 i v ` • "t
r+�■r,+ S44 s� L ` i+a ?.�+': PONDS
FwM FRESHWATER MARSH
J J'1\!�� ' .rl i 1�•t
� fir + �4r. `�, a'.ls I? • a d�1
-' i �'' +■; ; �' �, s a �•� .`. T TAMARISK (Tamarix app.) GROVES
g +�.I_'r-� -, „ e,{t '(t'•"' E EUCALYPTUS Euca r spp°)
GROVES
_—�--� --------- two
---------------------_
r_ Pumpinto
g B2 Q CRISSAL THRASHER (Poxosma
Slalron ",• crissale)
BLACK-TAILED GNATCATCHER
(Pot%_ optila matanura
Figure
Vegetation and Sensitive Biological Resoi rirces :; . 8 -1
fields. Overall, agricultural areas account for about 910 acres, or 72 percent of the total
area onsite.
Two artificial ponds (3 acres total) occur within agricultural areas in the southern part of
the site. Although this open water habitat may be beneficial for some wildlife species, little
vegetation is present.
Large groves of exotic trees occur throughout the property. Tamarisk is the primary
species in these groves. This species was introduced into the area as a windbreak and is
highly invasive wherever sufficient water is present. Other exotic species include
pomegranate (Punica granatwn), several species of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) and palms
(Phoenix spp.). These groves comprise approximately 15 acres (1 percent) onsite.
Desert saltbush scrub is the dominant native vegetative habitat remaining on this property
(191 acres; 15 percent of the total cover). This association is composed of low, grayish,
microphyllous (small -leaved) shrubs to 3 feet (1 meter) in height, with some succulent
species present. Desert saltbush scrub generally occurs on fine -textured, poorly -drained
soils with high alkalinity and/or salinity (Holland 1986). Its occurrence in well -drained
soils in the western portion of the property may be indicative of a successional condition.
On the subject property, dominant shrubs of this association include quailbush (Atriplex
lentiformis), many -fruit saltbush (A triplex polycarpa), and cheesebush (Hymenoclea
salsola). Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana) is a conspicuous element of
desert saltbush scrub in the east -central portion of the site, where it exists in large,
relatively old thickets, within which a number of tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) have become
established. Historically, honey mesquite in the Coachella Valley grew along aquiferous
fault lines and along the subterranean watercourses emerging from the mountains
(Zabriskie 1979). This association accounts for an additional 31 acres (3 percent) of
habitat.
Small areas of disturbed scrub habitat occur in the eastern part of the site (66 acres;
5 percent of the vegetation). These areas are characterized by nearly monotypic stands of
the native species, alkali goldenbush (Haplopappus acradenius), but are clearly
successional, i.e., they were probably cleared of native vegetation in the recent past.
Sonoran creosote bush scrub is composed of widely -spaced shrub species generally with
bare ground between. This habitat occurs on well -drained secondary soils of slopes, fans,
5.47
II
and valleys as opposed to upland sites with thin soils or sites with a high soil salinity
(Holland 1986). Sonoran creosote bush scrub is poorly represented on this property,
occurring only in the northwest pui►:c,. ul' l.Az property, where it intergrades with the more
common saltbush scrub association. Dominant species of creosote bush scrub onsite
include creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), burrobush (Ambrosia durnosa), and brittlebush
(Encelia farinosa). Virtually no understory species were present during the survey period.
Palo verde (Cercidium jloridum) occurs scattered throughout the northernmost portion of
this habitat. This drought -deciduous tree is typically indicative of a dry wash woodland,
although it forms no well-defined community on the property. Onsite, it occurs on an
outwash plain near the aqueduct .and indicates near -surface groundwater supplies.
Creosote bush scrub accounts for 28 acres, or 2 percent of the total vegetative cover on
this site.
Freshwater marsh, dominated by cattails (Typha spp.), occurs only in an irrigation ditch
adjacent to Madison Street, and accounts for less than 1 acre (less than 1 percent) of
habitat. Other mesic species in this ditch include sedge (Cyperus sp.) and the alkaline -
tolerant species alkali -heath (rrankenia gran=�f-Alia) and alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis
var. vallicola), among others.
Disturbed habitat, as mapped in the eastern part of the site, is largely devoid of vegetation
and is further degraded by illegal refuse disposal. This area, which comprises 6 acres
(1 percent), is not directly associated with agricultural activities.
WILDLIFE
Wildlife Habitat Value
The degree of disturbance onsite and in the surrounding area limits the wildlife value of this
property. Key wildlife areas occur primarily as isolated stands in the remaining native
habitat. Mesquite thickets in the eastern portion of the site provide the best habitat, overall,
for bind species. Reptiles and some mammal species are expected to utilize the narrow strip
of saltbush scrub and creosote bush scrub along the western property edge. Although
much of this western area shows evidence of disturbance, its value is somewhat enhanced
by the presence of similar, largely undisturbed habitat offsite, west of the aqueduct dike.
5-48
Amphibians and Reptiles
Because of the lack of aquatic habitat, no amphibians are likely to be common in the project
area, though California toad (Bufo boreal) and Great Plains toad (B. cognatus) are possible
in irrigation ditches.
The only species of reptile observed on the site was side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana).
About 25 reptile species occur in the general vicinity of the project site; however, many of
these are restricted to rocky habitats and so could occur only at the base of the hill at the
property's western extremity. Reptiles likely to be widespread onsite include zebra -tailed
lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), red racer
(Masticophis flagellum), and gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus).
Birds
Forty-one bird species were detected during the present survey (see Appendix A). Most of
these are typical of mesquite scrub, creosote bush scrub, and agricultural areas. Typical
species found in mesquite include Gambel's quail, ladder -backed woodpecker, Crissal
thrasher, cactus wren, phainopepla, and Abert's towhee. Creosote bush scrub species
include Say's phoebe, verdin, and black -tailed gnatcatcher. Common species in
agricultural areas include common ground dove, European starling, horned lark, and
western meadowlark. Many winter visitors were conspicuous and numerous, e.g., cedar
waxwing, Bewick's wren, water pipit, orange -crowned and yellow-rumped warblers, and
white -crowned sparrow. An additional six or so species that occur in the vicinity during
their breeding season only could be expected in a spring or summer survey (e.g., white -
winged dove, lesser nighthawk, and ash -throated flycatcher). Probably three nocturnal
species would be found with a night survey: barn and great horned owls and poor -will.
No species characteristic of riparian woodland (e.g., Bell's vireo or summer tanager)
would be expected on the property.
t
Birds were most abundant in mesquite habitat in the eastern segments of the property, of
intermediate density in the creosote bush scrub in the northwestern corner, and very sparse
in the saltbush scrub in the western and southwestern corners. Birds were sparse over
most of the agricultural fields, but large flocks of western meadowlarks were also present
there. Of interest were rufous -sided towhee, a rare winter visitor to California, violet -green
swallows, unusually late migrants that normally keep to the mountains on their southbound
5-49
s
passage but which were possibly displaced by storms the preceding night, and the white-
tailed kite, a rare migrant to the desert from the coastal slope.
Mammals
The only mammal detected during the survey was desert cottontail. About 20 additional
species could occur in the project area. Common expected species include little pocket
mouse, Merriam's kangaroo rat, black -tailed jack rabbit, antelope ground squirrel, and
coyote.
HIGH INTEREST SPECIES/HABITATS
Plants
High interest plants include those listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS
1985a), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 1985), and California Native
Plant Society (Smith and York 1984). The r—.NPS is sa,?c +oresi by the California
Department of Fish and Game and essentially serves as their list of "candidate" species for
listing as threatened or endangered
No sensitive plant species were detected onsite during this survey. Many of the sensitive
species known from the general vicinity are shrubs which would have been detectable
during the survey period, and/or are otherwise restricted by lack of suitable edaphic factors.
This group includes Little San Bernardino linanthus (Linanthus maculatus), Orocopia sage
(Salvia greatai), ayenia (Ayenia compacta), spearleaf (Matelea parviflora), desert sage
(Salvia eremostachya), Salton milk -vetch (Astragalus crotalariae), Borrego milk -vetch
(Astragalus lentiginoses var. borreganus), and mecca aster (Xylorhiza cognata). Little
San Bernardino linanthus is a highly restricted species found at higher elevations than
occur onsite; Orocopia sage generally occurs on the eastern side of the Salton Sea; ayenia,
spearleaf, and desert sage all prefer rocky slopes or canyons; Salton milk -vetch and
Borrego milk -vetch occur on sandy flats, fans, dunes, or valleys; and mecca aster is found
in gypsum clays.
Another group of species with a somewhat higher potential for occurrence based on habitat
affinities or known occurrence in the vicinity could not be reliably detected during the
survey period. These plants include California ditaxis (Ditaxis Californica), glandular
5.50
ri
ditaxis (Ditaxis adenophora), ribbed cryptantha (Cryptantha costata), winged cryptantha
(Cryptantha holoptera), and the desert unicorn plan (Proboscidea althaeifolia). The
sensitivity ratings and overall potential for occurrence onsite are discussed in the detailed
biology report.
Animals
High interest animal species are officially listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS 1985b) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 1980).
Sensitive species pertinent to the study area are discussed below.
Reptiles
Several sensitive reptiles occur in the Coachella Valley or the surrounding mountains,
including desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi), desert slender salamander (Batrachoseps
aridus), Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard (Uma inornata), flat -tailed horned lizard
(Phrynosoma mcallii), and magic gecko (Anarbylus switaki). The sensitivity ratings of
these reptiles and their potential for occurrence onsite are discussed in Appendix A.
10
Three sensitive bird species were detected on the property: Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma
crissale), black -tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura), and sharp -shinned hawk (Accipiter
striatus).
The Crissal thrasher inhabits dense thickets, primarily of mesquite, in desert lowlands. It
is difficult to detect because it hides in dense vegetation and calls infrequently, but its
populations are sparse even in its preferred habitat. The numbers of Crissal thrashers in
California have been reduced sharply by conversion of mesquite scrub to agricultural and
urban uses and possibly, by replacement of native mesquite by nonnative tamarisk. The
California Department of Fish and Game recognized the Crissal thrasher in the third -
priority category on its list of bird species of special concern in California (Remsen 1978).
Remsen's fust recommendation for conservation of the species is protection of mesquite
brushland in the Coachella, Imperial, and Colorado River valleys. One Crissal thrasher
was found onsite during the field survey, in the mesquite thicket north of Avenue 60.
Another individual was detected just offsite, between the above-mentioned locality and
5-51
Jackson Street. The individual detected onsite was observed in the only habitat suitable for
Crissal thrashers on the property. In spite of their having been used for illegal refuse
disposal, both tracts, totalling 53 acres (32 acres onsite; 21 acres offsite to the east), are
nearly ideal habitat for the species, and may support up to 12 or so individual thrashers.
Only a few other areas of mesquite thickets large enough to support populations of Crissal
thrashers persist in the La Quinta/IndiofMermal area.
The black -tailed gnatcatcher occurs in lowland mesquite scrub with the Crissal thrasher but
more numerously in desert washes and creosote bush scrub. Remsen (1978) listed the
black -tailed gnatcatcher as a second -priority species of special concern, primarily on the
basis of the threats to the coastal population, now known to be a biologically and
ecologically distinct species (Polioptila californica). Nevertheless, populations of the
black -tailed gnatcatcher of the desert region (Polioptila melanura lucida) have been reduced
by agricultural and urban development, and possibly by disturbance from off-road vehicles
and brood -parasitism by brown -headed cowbirds, though the species remains common
over large areas of southeastern California.
Seven black -tailed gnatcatchers were found during the survey: one pair in open creosote
bush/saltbush scrub in the western part of the property west of Avenue 60, and the
remainder in the northwestern corner of the property in creosote bush scrub with scattered
palo verde and mesquite adjacent to the Coachella Aqueduct. An additional pair was
detected offsite to the east, near Jackson Street in dense mesquite scrub. These areas are
the only places likely to support black -tailed gnatcatchers, though there is a slight
possibility that a pair or two might occur in the disturbed saltbush scrub in the southwest
corner of the property. Perhaps two or three dozen pairs inhabit the entire site; small,
inconspicuous birds such as these are impossible to census completely in the impenetrable
thickets covering the eastern segments of the property. Black -tailed gnatcatchers are
probably still widespread along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains but have been
eliminated from most of the floor of the Coachella Valley.
The single sharp -shinned hawk was seen in palo verde trees in the northwest corner of the
site. This species, which occurs in the Coachella Valley as an uncommon winter visitor,
was listed by Remsen (1978) as a third -priority species of special concern because of its
small breeding population and contracting breeding range in California. It is on the Blue
List of declining birds in North America (Tate and Tate 1982) on the basis of a steep
decline in the breeding population of the eastern half of the continent.
S -S2
Several additional sensitive bird species known from the Coachella Valley may or may not
occur on the property. These species include the following: Leconte's thrasher
(Toxostoma leconteia), vermilion flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus), prairie falcon (Falco
mexicanis), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and the long-eared owl (Asio otus).
These birds and their habitats are discussed in more detail in Appendix A.
Six sensitive mammals are known to occur in the vicinity of the project area: California
leaf -nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), Townsend's big -eared bat (Plecotus townsendii),
pocketed free -tailed bat (Tadaridca femorosacca), California mastiff bat (Eumops perods
californicus), Coachella round -tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus),
Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), and American badger (Taxidea
taxus). An additional nonsensitive species of some concern is known from the region:
desert kit fox (Vulpes macrods arsipes). These species are discussed in the detailed
biology report
Habitats
Sensitive habitats are those which are considered rare within the region, are listed as unique
by the County of Riverside (1986), or support sensitive plants or animals. Although no
habitats onsite have any regulatory status, the mesquite thickets in the eastern portion of the
property are of interest. These thickets provide the best bird habitat onsite in terms of
density and diversity of species, and provide nesting habitat for the sensitive species,
Crissal thrasher and black -tailed gnatcatcher. These mesquite thickets amount to
approximately 31 acres of habitat.
5.8.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
Sensitive biological resources detected onsite or those with a reasonable potential for
occurrence are discussed below as to their significance in the context of the proposed
project. Impacts to resources identified as significant are also addressed.
The proposed development includes residential (795 acres), public use (41 acres),
commercial (35 acres), and open space (424 acres of which 380 acres includes two 18-
5-53
hole golf courses and a driving range) areas, and will result in the loss of nearly all native
habitat onsite. Impacts to biological resources onsite due to the maximum development
plan will largely occur from habitat removal during the construction phase, although
sensitive areas which are retained could also be impacted by implementation activities,
including increased traffic, noise, and human use of the area.
Overall, project implementation is not expected to result in significant impacts to biological
resources because approximately 80 percent of the site is currently disturbed by
agricultural activities. These disturbed areas offer little wildlife habitat value and support
no sensitive plant or animal species.
Four biological resources of concern exist or are potentially occurring onsite, however.
mesquite thickets which support the declining bird species, Crissal thrasher, two potentially
occurring sensitive plant species (ribbed cryptantha and winged cryptantha) and one
sensitive reptile species (flat -tailed horned lizard).
Impacts to mesquite can be adequately mitigated by retention of a portion of this habitat
onsite in dedicated open space, in conjunction with revegetation to replace impacted
mesquite habitat elsewhere onsite at roughly a 1:1 ratio. Ideally, areas of revegetated
mesquite will be in proximity to existing habitat.
A 30 -acre mesquite thicket occurs in the northeast corner of the site. At least 6 acres
(20 percent) of this habitat is expected to be incorporated into a proposed open space area.
Habitat enhancement would increase the overall value of this retained habitat. An additional
3 acres is available in this area for mesquite revegetation. Revegetation with mesquite
would also be appropriate within or adjacent to the golf course elsewhere onsite.
An appropriately -timed survey will need to be conducted by a qualified biologist to
adequately assess the presence or absence of the two sensitive plant species and flat -tailed
horned lizard onsite. Surveys for the plant species should be conducted in spring (March -
April). Only large populations are expected to present constraints to development.
Effective mitigation would then likely include retention of all or a portion of the
population(s) onsite. If flat -tailed horned lizard is present, appropriate mitigation for this
species would be retention of habitat onsite or offsite mitigation via fee assessments to the
Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard preserves or another designated habitat protection plan.
Although the property is outside the fee assessment area as shown in the Coachella Valley
5-54
Fringe -Toed Lizard HCP (1985) this latter mitigation measure would be biologically -
preferable because it would allow the purchase of suitable flat -tailed horned lizard habitat in
a known higher -density area for the species, compares to retention of the small, isolated
parcel of habitat which occurs onsite. The flat -tailed horned lizard surveys would need to
be conducted prior to approval of this area for development, and should be conducted
between May 1 and July 1.
The population increase expected from this development could result in indirect impacts to
sensitive habitat areas offsite to the west from increased use of those areas. Given the
availability of onsite recreational opportunities the probability of trespassing on adjacent
private property is considered minimal.
5.8.3 Mitigation
The following general recommendations are provided to reduce impacts to mesquite habitat
and potentially occurring sensitive species to an acceptable level. More specific mitigation
measures to replace mesquite lost or impacted during construction by enharic .went or
revegetation techniques are outlined in the following section.
1. Development should be prohibited within existing mesquite habitat in the
eastern part of the site to the greatest extent possible. A proposed open space
area encompasses approximately 6 acres of this existing mesquite habitat. This
area should be designated as natural open space and preserved as a minimum or
no -use area with adjacent facilities situated so as to direct potential impacts away
from this sensitive habitat. An additional 3 acres of disturbed habitat which
occurs in this open space area should be revegetated with mesquite.
2. This open space area should be enhanced by removal of trash and nonnative,
invasive plant species such as tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) Planting of exotic
species is prohibited in this area.
3. Mesquite thickets to be preserved in open space should be flagged and/or fenced
prior to adjacent construction. A substantial penalty should be levied against the
grading contractor if this habitat is damaged to ensure necessary repairs.
F
4. No grading should occur within 50 feet of this open space area from January -
May to avoid adverse impacts to Crissal thrasher during the breeding period
5. Residential dwellings (including yards) and roads should be set back
75-100 feet from this habitat to provide a wildlife buffer. This buffer area can
be vegetated with native shrubs found onsite or in the area, such as saltbush
(Atriplex spp.), palo verde (Cercidium floridum), smoke tree (Dalea spinosa),
or cat's claw (Acacia greggii), to name a few. Use of the latter species, in
particular, would provide a natural barrier to inhibit access of this area, thereby
offering more protection for sensitive resources therein. In addition to the use
of natural vegetative barriers, this open space area should be posted with no
trespassing signs (and/or educational signs) to deter human access. If
necessary, a vandalism -resistant off-road vehicle barrier should be incorporated
to prevent vehicular access into this area.
6. Development adjacent to this area should take into consideration lighting,
traffic, and noise impacts. bighting f:mm buildings should be oriented away
from mesquite habitat, in an attempt to minimize disturbance to nesting wildlife
species. Traffic (i.e., roads, parking lots) should also be situated away from
mesquite habitat to the greatest extent possible to minimize noise disturbance to
wildlife.
Appropriately timed surveys should be conducted for ribbed Cryptantha and
winged Cryptanta (March through April), and for flat -tailed horned lizard
(1 May - 1 July) prior to development of the potentially sensitive habitat.
Replacement of Mesquite Habitat
Although a portion of the 30 acres of mesquite habitat onsite is expected to be retained in
open space as outlined above, approximately 24 acres will be lost. Mitigation to offset this
loss should occur through replacement or revegetation techniques.
An approximate habitat replacement ratio of 1:1 (1 acre of mesquite replaced for each acre
lost) is suggested, which can be accomplished by incorporating large stands of mesquite
into landscaping elsewhere onsite. The most appropriate area for replacement of mesquite
habitat is directly southwest of the above-mentioned open space area. Double -loaded
S -S6
{
fairways are planned for this area; plantings of mesquite between these fairways is a
feasible option which would provide valuable habitat. The mesquite would be somewhat
buffered from residential development by the golf course, and would be close enough to
existing mesquite habitat to be utilized by wildlife there. In addition to planting mesquite in
this area of the golf course, this species should be incorporated as islands and/or strips of
vegetation into other areas of the golf course.
Due to foraging requirements of Crissal thrasher (the species is insectivorous and spends
much of its time on the ground), the use of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodent
poisons on golf course areas adjacent to mesquite habitat may be detrimental to this and
other bird species. For this reason, the use of these chemicals adjacent to mesquite thickets
should be prohibited.
In general, planting throughout this development should utilize other low-water
consuming, native species. Recommended species which would be appropriate for
landscaping and would offer wildlife habitat value, particularly in massed plantings,
include cottonwood (P'opulus fremondi,, ironwood (O/neya tesota), palo verde (Cercidium
floridum), cat's claw (Acacia greggii), and smoke tree (Dalea spinosa). Invasive species
such as tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) should not be used
5.9 HISTORIC & PREHISTORICAL RESOURCES
5.9.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Previous work by Wilke in 1973 and SRS in 1979, identified six archaeological sites
(CA-Riv-193,-273,-1340,-1343,-1716 and -1717) within the project area. A field
reconnaissance conducted by WESTEC resulted in the recordation of five new
archaeological sites and eleven isolate artifact finds. No historic sites were located In
addition to these archaeological sites, two rock art (petroglyph) sites are located within two
miles of the project area. One of the sites (Riv-193) is located within the project area;
Riv-37 is immediately adjacent to the project area, but within the Lake Cahuilla County
Park; and the third site (Riv-368) is located two miles south. Site Riv-10 is a National
Register and county maintained property which includes both rock art (petroglyphs) and
fish traps on tufa covered hills. This site is in excellent condition, given the lack of public
access. Sites Riv-37 and Riv-193 are both disturbed through vandalism (recent paint and
rock carving) but petroglyphs are still apparent.
5-57
Of the 11 sites within the project area, site Riv-1716, containing a few pieces of pottery,
was not relocated; sites Riv-1717, LQ -S-1, LQ -S-2, LQ -S-4 and LQ -S-5 were primarily
small pottery scatters which were collected; site Riv-273 was revisited and only five pieces
of pottery were relocated.
The two cremations recorded at Riv-273 have been collected by Wilke (1980) for reburial
by Native Americans. Given the size of sites Riv-1340, -1343, and LQ -S-3 and the
presence of artifacts other than pottery (i.e., milling tools and flakes) these sites reflect
habitation post last filling of relic Lake Cahuilla to the 40 foot elevation. No collection or
testing to determine subsurface depth was conducted at Riv-1340, -1343, and LQ -S-3.
5.9.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
Sites Riv-1716, -1717, LQ -S-1, LQ -S-2, LQ -S-4, and LQ -S-5 are primarily pottery
scatters in disturbed areas, which have been collected These sites, evaluated under CEQA,
Appendix K, Section III, lack integrity and/or do not provide information that has
demonstrable public interest or scientifically consequential importance. Site Riv-273, a
cremation site, would have qualified as an important cultural resource, however this site
was collected in 1980 for reburial by Native Americans.
Archaeological sites Riv-1340, -1343, and LQ -S-3 cannot be evaluated for site importance
without additional fieldwork to determine site importance. This work should include the
collection and mapping of all surface artifacts, as well as, posthole testing and 1 by
1 meter unit excavation to determine the presence or absence of a subsurface deposit.
Petroglyph site Riv-193 is identified under CEQA as an important cultural resource.
Archaeological site Riv-10 is also an important cultural resource under CEQA and is a
National Register Property. This site was identified by the county to be addressed for
secondary impacts.
Impacts
Under CEQA, only important cultural resources need be addressed as to impacts or
mitigation of impacts. Sites Riv-273, -1716, -1717, LQ -S-1, LQ -S-2, LQ -S-4, and
LQ -S-5 are not identified as significant cultural resources and need not be addressed under
5-58
impacts or mitigation of impacts. Sites Riv-1340, -1343, and LQ -S-3 need to be tested for
site significance before impacts or mitigation of impacts can be addressed. Rock art site
Riv-193 will be directly impacted by the proposed project. Site Riv-193 will suffer further
vandalism, given the increase in population and improvement in access. It should be noted
that Riv-10, which includes both rock art and fish traps, is roughly two miles south of the
project area. The general public is aware of this important archaeological site, but no
protection other than lack of access has been afforded this site. The increase in population
from this project as well as other development projects in the valley increase the likelihood
of secondary impacts (Le., vandalism) to this National Register property.
5.9.3 Mitigation
Mitigation of impacts for sites Riv-273, -1716, -1717, LQ -S-1, LQ -S-2, LQ -S-4, and
LQ -S-5 are not necessary, as these are not "important" cultural resources. Mitigation of
impacts for Riv-1340, -1343, and LQ -S-3 cannot be determined until site significance
testing has been conducted The sites determined as significant cultural resources are
Riv-193 and Riv-10. Mitigation of impacts to site Riv-193 could be achieved through the
recordation and mapping of all petroglyph elements at this site. In addition, this site should
have an interpretative sign and incorporated into a trail (i.e., horseback, walking) system
that connects to the Lake Cahuilla County Park.
Site Riv-10 is an extensive rock art and fish trap (circular rock features) site. No work hag
been done to identify the number of petroglyphs and fish traps, let alone the management,
of this resource. Until this site is inventoried and measures taken for the protection of this
unique site, the public should be denied access. This is presently the case with private
property blocking access from the public street. The degree of secondary impacts cannot
be measured as this site is roughly two miles away and the impacts (i.e., vandalism) due to
the cumulative increase in population and not the direct result of one project, the protection
of this site necessitates: 1) identifying the resource, 2) development of a plan for the
protection of the resource and 3) development of a park or preserve with limited access.
5-59
5.10 NO i S E
5.10.1 Exizii�lr;g C- siiunsiGeneral Plan Policies
The primary source of noise in the vicinity of the project area is vehicular traffic along
Avenue 58, Avenue 60, Avenue 62, Madison Street, Monroe Street and Jackson Street.
Although Thermal Airport is located approximately 1 mile east of the site, the aircraft
pattern routes, altitudes, and low traffic volumes do not significantly contribute to the
project's existing noise environment.
Community noise levels are generally presented in terms of CNEL (Community Noise
Equivalent Level). CNEL is the average sound level during a 24-hour day, and is
calculated by adding 5 decibels to sound levels in the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and
adding 10 decibels to sound levels at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
The County of Riverside requires that noise levels in areas containing residential land uses
not excea' `,11B A) C TNTE _ For proposed residences exposed to exterior noise levels
greater than 600(A), development should be undertaken only after a detailed acoustical
analysis of the noise environment is made and any required mitigation is developed. In
addition, for multi -family residential projects, the California Noise Insulation Standard
(California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) requires
that interior noise levels in multi -family residential living spaces not exceed a CNEL of
45dB(A).
For recreational land uses (e.g. golf courses) the acceptable noise level in the County is
55dB(A) CNEL. Commercial land uses in the County can be exposed to noise levels of
65dB(A) CNEL or less to be considered acceptable. If these noise levels are exceeded, an
acoustical analysis is required. Figure 5.10-1 depicts the County's Land Use compatibility
system based on noise levels in the community.
The project area is relatively rural, and the majority of traffic along roadways in the project
vicinity is below 600 average daily trips (ADT); the exception being Jackson Street which
currently carries between approximately 1100 and 1880 ADT. Rural environments with
such low traffic volumes typically experience noise levels ranging from 35 to 55dB(A),
depending on time of day, according to 11p, Handbook gf Noise ntrol (Harris 1979).
The County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan identifies residential and recreational
5-60
Explanation of Land Use Consequences:
A Normally Acceptable. With no special
noise reduction requirements assuming
standard construction.
B Conditionally Acce table. New con-
struction or development 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.
C Generally Unacce table. New
construction is discouraged. If
new construction or development
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 Discouraged. New con-
struction or development should
generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, 1986
Land Use Compatibility Chan Based Figure
.1-1
on Community Noise Level
5-61
CNEL or L n Value BA
L a n d U s e s 50 55 60 65 70, 75 80 8!
Residential Land Uses: Single and Multiple
Fan.i 1y Dwellings, Group Quarters, Mobi 1 ehomes
Q
X XX A
(U
Transient Lodging: Hotels, Motels
School Classrooms, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes, etc.
D
Recreational Land uses: Golf Courses, Open Space
Areas with walking, bicycling or horseback riding
trails, water based recreation areas where motor-
ized boats and et -skis are prohibited.
10
Office Buildings, Personal, Business, and
Professional Services
Auditoriums, oncert Halls, Amphitheaters, Music
Shell ma be noise sensitive or noise producer
Sports Arenas, -Outdoor Spectator Sports
Z5
Recreations Land Uses: Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Ball Parks, Motorcycle Parks, and Water-based
a
Recreation Areas where motorized boats and jet -
skis are ermitted.
a)
Commercial Land Uses: Retail trade, Movie
Theaters, Restaurants, bars, entertainment
related commercial activities services.
Commercial Land Uses: Wholesale, Industrial/
Manufacturing, Transportation, Communications
and Utilities.
/D Xx
Explanation of Land Use Consequences:
A Normally Acceptable. With no special
noise reduction requirements assuming
standard construction.
B Conditionally Acce table. New con-
struction or development 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.
C Generally Unacce table. New
construction is discouraged. If
new construction or development
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 Discouraged. New con-
struction or development should
generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, 1986
Land Use Compatibility Chan Based Figure
.1-1
on Community Noise Level
5-61
developments as noise sensitive land uses and commercial land uses as noise producers.
There are seven land use standards pertaining to noise levels in the community.
1. Noise issues shall be reviewed in relation to the land use; circulation
transportation, and housing elements.
2. The following uses shall be considered noise sensitive and shall be discouraged
in areas in excess of 65dB(A) CNEL : single and multiple family residential,
group homes, hospitals, schools and other learning institutions, and parks and
open space lands where quiet is a basis for use.
3. Business and professional offices where effective communication is essential,
shall mitigate interior noise to 45dB(A).
4. Proposed noise sensitive projects within noise impacted areas shall be required
to have acoustical studies prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and may
be required to. prmdt! mitib3zic : i *n eX;Sting not„,.
5. Proposed projects which are noise producers shall be required to have an
acoustical engineer prepare a noise analysis including recommendations for
design mitigation if the project is to be located within proximity to a noise
sensitive land use, or land zoned for noise sensitive land uses.
6. Projects that are incapable of successfully mitigating excessive noise shall be
discouraged.
7. In areas within proximity to highways and roads, the road's design standard
(average daily trips) shall be used to estimate maximum future noise hazard.
Various zones have prescribed ranges of land use intensity which are permitted. Although
some instances of categorical incompatibility exist within some zones, incompatibility of
land use is more commonly associated with areas of zone transition where r-sidential zones
abut commercial zones or agricultural zones abut residential zones.
5.62
5.10.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
To determine roadway contributions to future onsite noise levels, the roads adjoining the
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area were identified by design capacity according to road
classifications within the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The design capacity
represents the traffic volume that would produce an acceptable level of service (LOS C),
and thus a maximum ADT for the roadway. As stated in the traffic analysis in Section 7.10
of this report, Avenue 58 is classified as a major highway; Avenues 60 and 62 are
classified as secondary highways; Madison Street is classified to be an urban arterial; and
the arterial highway classification is assigned to Monroe and Jackson Streets.
The primary noise source affecting the project would be from traffic generation on the
nearby ciruclation network. The County of Riverside Road Department has developed
design capacities based on the type of roadway facility and number of lanes contained
within the roadway (Table 7.10-2 demonstrates the County's design criteria). The traffic
volumes associated with these classifications represent the ultimate traffic that would impact
onsite noisc lcvcls in the future. The classifications from the Circulation Element
corresponding to each facility type are based on conversations with Willdan Associates and
are as follows:
EOW,jy, Cl assi ficatio- FgCility T)=
Major Highway
Secondary Highway
Urban Arterial
Arterial Highway
Collector
Major
Secondary
Expressway (4 lane)
Arterial
Collector
From these classifications, the typical noise contour diagrams contained within the General
Plan (page 356-358) determine the distance from the center line where the noise levels
would be 60 or 65 dB(A) CNEL, provided the traffic volumes do not exceed the
classification's design capacity. According to the traffic analysis prepared for the Rancho
La Quinta project (Willdan 1987), once the proposed mitigation measures are implemented,
no roadways adjacent to the project site would exceed LOS C in the future. Therefore, the
typical noise contours developed within the General Plan can be utilized to establish
preliminary contours for most of the roadways in the project vicinity.
5-63
The exception to using this methodology would be for the internal circulation system and
for the adjacent urban arterial (Madison Street). The traffic analysis idc„ti ;; u : _ _;rt,um
12,000 ADT and collector classification for the internal roadways, where the urban
arterial's design capacity (4 -lane expressway) would be 50,000 ADT. Typical noise
contours have not been developed for a collector or urban arterial roadway; therefore, the
Federal Highway Administration's Stamina 2.0 model was utilized to determine the noise
contours for those roadways.
The Stamina 2.0 model accepts as input: (1) modeling of the existing terrain of the project
site, (2) pad elevations of the proposed development, (3) roadway location and grade, (4)
average daily traffic volumes from roadways, and (5) noise receptor points. The existing
terrain and pad elevations were assumed level, representing a worst-case analysis. The
roadway grades was assumed to be less than 2 percent. All Z coordinates for receptors are
increased by 5 feet above ground elevations to model the approximate height of the human
ear for fust -floor elevations. The results of the noise study were computed in Equivalent
Noise Levels (Leq) units, which were converted to CNEL.
Table 5.10-1 contains the contour distances from the center line of each roadway adjacent
to the project site, which are based on the County General Plan. The contour distances for
the internal circulation system and Madison Street were developed by Stamina 2.0
modelling of future onsite noise conditions. Traffic volumes utilized in the modelling of
these roadways are those contained within the traffic analysis prepared for the project and
County design capacities. These two methodologies for determining the noise contour
distances do not, however, accurately portray the cumulative noise effect at the
intersections of roadways.
Those residences which would be exposed to noise levels of 60dB(A) or less are normally
considered acceptable by the County. Those residences proposed within an area which
would be subjected to noise levels greater than 60dB(A) are required by the County to
undertake a detailed acoustical analysis to develop noise reduction measures for the exterior
of the residences. In addition, according to the State, an interior acoustical analysis is also
required for those residences exposed to noise levels greater than 60dB(A) to ensure the
interior 45dB(A) requirement is satisfied.
5-64
f
Table 5.10-1
NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES FOR ROADWAYS ADJACENT
TO THE RANCHO LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
Roadway
Avenue 58
Avenue 60
Avenue 62
Madison Street
Monroe Street
Jackson Street
Internal Roadways
60dB(A) distance*
310 feet
270 feet
270 feet
490 feet**
315 feet
315 feet
125 feet**
Source: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan 1986.
* Distance in feet from the centerline of the roadway.
** Based on FHWA Stamina 2.0 modelling.
65dB(A) distance*
150 feet
130 feet
130 feet
300 feet**
155 feet
155 feet
55 feet**
County General Plan policies state that in areas exceeding 65dB(A) CNEL, single and
multi -family residences are discouraged Therefore, a potentially significant noise impact
may occur for those residences which would appear to be exposed to noise levels greater
than 65dB(A) upon project buildout. The General Plan requires that an acoustical study
prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to accurately assess any potential noise impacts
to those projects proposed in noise impacted areas.
5.10.3 Mitigation
Potential measures to mitigate exterior noise levels generated by traffic may include
masonry walls, earthen berms, building setbacks, building orientation or a combination of
the methods.
All residences exposed to noise levels 60 dB(A) or greater will be required to reduce
interior noise levels to the State -mandated 45 dB(A) CNEL requirement. Building
materials and techniques available to reduce residential interior noise levels include stucco,
insuiation, anti drywall. Exterior wail assemblies and glazing (such as sealed winaows,
double pane windows, and highly -resistant wall insulation rated R-11) provide the greatest
noise attenuation. Mechanical ventilation and/or air conditioning may also be required.
The mitigation measures and any requirements for a noise study shall meet the satisfaction
of the County of Riverside's Engineering Department.
Noise impacts related to construction activities may be mitigated by the following
measures.
• Adherence to County of Riverside requirements for noise control during
construction.
• Ensure proper maintenance of heavy construction equipment, including
prompt replacement of deteriorated intake and exhaust silencers and mufflers,
and routine lubrication.
• Limit construction activities, particularly clearing and grading, to normal
working hours during weekdays.
5-66
• Provide temporary screens or enclosures for semi -fixed construction
equipment.
0 On-site maintenance equipment (i.e., lawn mowers) should be equipped
with the latest noise attenuation devices.
• Use walls, berms, and/or landscaping to attenuate noise at locations subject
to impact from high traffic volumes.
S-67
11
5-d8
SECTION 6.0
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
6.1 LIBRARIES
6.1.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The two nearest libraries to the project site are located in Indio and Coachella. The Indio
and Coachella Branch County libraries service the Coachella area, which includes the
project site. Residents of La Quints and surrounding areas use these libraries as their
primary library source. A bookmobile also services the La Quinta area as an extension of
the County Library services. A new library currently under construction is expected to be -
completed in spring of 1988 and will have the capacity to serve 5,000 to 9,000 people.
The Comprehensive General Plan for the County of Riverside states that the County will
assist in providing adequate library facilities and services consistent with development and
community aceds. This will be done by assisting the City and County Library System in
developing standards to evaluate the adequacy of existing library services and the need for
future library services.
6.1.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The project area is currently served only by a bookmobile. With the development of a new
library in La Quinta, however, service will increase to approximately 5,000 to 9,000
people. The development of the proposed project will increase the population size by
approximately 11,500, therefore, significantly increasing the demand for library services.
Implementation of the proposed development will result in an adverse impact to library
services and facilities in the area.
6.1.3 Mitigation
Because of the increase in demand and the adverse impacts on library services with the
development of the proposed project, mitigation measures are required.. A new, larger
library will have to be developed with a capacity to serve 20,000 to 40,000 people. To
finance this new library, developer fees of $280 per dwelling unit will be required. The
6.1
development of a new, larger library will mitigate adverse impacts to a level of
insignificance to library services in the area.
6.2 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES
6.2.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Water
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the Rancho La
Quinta Specific Plan area. The site does not currently receive domestic water supplies.
The nearest existing domestic water facilities are 1/4 mile northwest of the project area in
the PGA West development. An existing CVWD irrigation system services the agricultural
uses within the project site (Figure 2.4-2 of the Specific Plan).
Sewer
Sewer facilities in the project area include an existing 18" force maid mining through the
site along Avenue 60 (Figure 2.4-1 of the Specific Plan). Sewage generated in Rancho La
Quinta area is transported 6 miles east for processing at the Midvalley Treatment Plant near
Thermal. The design capacity of the facility is 1.1 million gallons per day (mgd); while the
plant currently processes 500,000 gallons of sewage daily.
The County of Riverside maintains three Land Use Standards in the Public Facilities and
Services Element of the Comprehensive General Plan relative to water and sewer service.
They concern servicing, landscaping, and wastewater reuse.
1. Water and Sewer Servicing
A Category 11 development must be located within special districts authorized to
provide water and sewer service. A Category H development must have a
district water system and district sewer system. The development proponent
must show that adequate water and sewer facilities, water resources availability,
and sewage treatment plant capacity will exist to meet the demands of the
project. Commitments for adequate and available water and sewer service must
be confirmed by the special districts.
6-2
2. 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.
3. 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.
6.2.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
Water
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has indicated that they will provide domestic
water service to the Rancho La Quinta project site. The project will require 750 gallons of
domestic water per day per dwelling unit. Based on the 4262 units estimated for the
development, the project would require a total of 3,196,500 gallons of water daily (or
3.2 mgd). The CVWD estimated that the project would have require approximately 8.4
million gallons of reservoir storage capacity to provide domestic water and fire flow for a
7585 unit development. The actual demand would be less because the intensity of the
development has been reduced to 4262 DU. In addition to the domestic demand for the
residential portion of the project, there are approximately 35 acres of proposed commercial
development. Water demand for commercial development varies dependent upon type of
use, and no estimate was made of the project's commercial demand.
The existing water facilities in the Rancho La Quinta area are not sufficient to meet the
domestic demands of the project. The developer has agreed to build wells, reservoirs,
transmission mains and/or booster stations, or dedicate lands for well sites, to serve the
project as required by CVWD. Figure 2.4-2 of the Specific Plan illustrates the proposed
onsite water system. The project could possibly be connected to existing water system at
PGA West.
6-3
The water demand associated with irrigation of the 380 -acre proposed golf course is
estimated to be 2,100 gallons per minute. The main source of irrigation water for the golf
course will be the existing CVWD agricultural irrigation system that services the project
site. The developer has agreed to drill additional wells to augment the CVWD irrigation
supply and to act as a backup system.
The project complies with the water and sewer servicing and landscaping requirements
contained within the General Plan; the exception being the water source proposed for golf
course irrigation which would be CVWD water, rather than wastewater reuse.
No adverse water service impacts to the Coachella Valley Water District would, therefore,
occur upon project development, provided the additional facilities proposed on- and off-site
are funded and implemented.
Sewer
The Coachella Valley Water District has indicated that it will provide sewer service to the
Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area. The project would require annexation to
Improvement District No. 55 to receive the service. According to CVWD's generation
factor of 252 gallons of sewage per day per -dwelling unit, the 4262 units proposed for the
project would ultimately generate approximately 1,074,024 gallons of sewage daily (or
1.07 mgd). The CVWD has indicated that the N idvalley Treatment Plant has sufficient
capacity to accommodate the first phases of the project. According to CVWD, the plant
was designed to be expanded in 1.1 mgd increments based on service area need; therefore,
no adverse impacts would occur to the treatment plant, provided development fees are paid
to fund construction of additional plant capacity.
CVWD has indicated that the existing force main along Avenue 60 has adequate capacity
for the initial project phases; however, an additional 18" force main, possibly along Avenue
62, and a lift station will be required to serve the project upon completion. Onsite gravity
lines will be sized to accept flows from PGA West, which will also utilize the existing and
proposed force main and lift station. Figure 3.6-1 illustrates the existing and proposed
sewer facilities for the project.
Provided adequate capacity is made available within the Midvalley Treatment Plant and the
appropriate force mains and lift station are constructed, no adverse impacts would occur to
the CVWD upon buildout of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan.
6-4
6.2.3 Mitigation
No adverse water or sewer impacts are anticipated upon buildout of the proposed project,
provided adequate facilities are funded by the applicant and constructed by the Water
District according to CVWD requirements. No additional mitigation measures would be
required as a result.
6.3 SOLID WASTE
6.3.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The primary landfill facility servicing the Eastern Coachella Valley is the Coachella Sanitary.
Landfill, located approximately 15 miles northeast of the site on Landfill Road at the Dillon
Road intersection. The 640 -acre facility received 195,850 tons of solid waste (537 tons per
day) during 1986. The remaining capacity at the landfill is approximately 9 million tons,
with an estimated closure date of 2010. The primary sources of solid waste for the landfill
are nearby residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
The Mecca II and Edom Hill landfills are also located within the project vicinity; however,
Edom Hill primarily services the Palm Springs area, and Mecca II has a limited capacity
(393,000 tons) and staffing. As of January 1988, the County of Riverside will determine
the destination of solid waste in the project vicinity. It is therefore likely that Rancho La
Quinta's waste would be disposed of in the Coachella Sanitary Landfill because of its
available capacity and its proximity to the Specific Plan area (Perry 1987).
The objectives of the County of Riverside's Comprehensive General Plan include the
provision of adequate waste disposal sites within the County to accommodate existing and
future solid waste -generation, and encouraging waste management strategies to facilitate
resource recovery in all new development proposals. In addition, the County should
implement the programs and recommendations of the Solid Waste Management Plan in
order to provide adequate disposal service to existing and developing areas.
C -W
6.3.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The proposed project's estimated solid waste must not significantly reduce the capacity of
the Coachella Sanitary Landfill, and should be considered in the Solid Waste Management
Plan's recommendations regarding the landfill facility.
Provided the solid waste generated by Rancho La Quinta is disposed of at the Coachella
Sanitary Landfill, no adverse impacts would result upon implementation of the project.
The Coachella landfill has adequate capacity to service the site. The County Solid Waste
Division should continue to plan for possible expansion of the existing Coachella site,
propose new sites, or pursue alternative waste disposal technologies for future
development in the area. The project will contribute to the incremental decrease in the
lifespan of the landfill.
6.3.3 Mitigation
The Rancho La Quinta Sn-fc Plan nous i utilize the Coachella Valley Sanitary Landfill or
other site as designated by the County of Riverside for disposing of solid waste generated
onsite. No adverse impacts would, therefore, occur to solid waste facilities upon project
development, and no mitigation measures are required.
6.4 AIRPORTS
6.4.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The closest aircraft facility to the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Area is Thermal Airport,
which is located approximately 0.75 miles east of the project area. The associated airport -
influence area developed by the County of Riverside's Aviation Department is based upon
noise; flight hazards, and obstruction criteria. Because the project site is located outside of
Thermal Airport's influence area (Figure 6.4-1), the criteria established for the influence
area do not apply to the site.
Currently, the Specific Plan Area is not subjected to adverse noise or adverse safety
conditions due to aircraft operations. In the future the Thermal Airport facility may be
expanded from a general aviation facility to a commercial services airport with scheduled
passenger service and cargo operations (Ross 1987). The Master Plan for Thermal
Airport, which will address the expansion issue as related to Coachella Valley's future
6.6
T
J
0 1
MILE
Project Site's Proximity to
Thermal Airport's Interim
Influence Area
s
t� I
AVENUE
SOURCE: County of Riverside Comprehensive General Plan, 1886
Figure
6.4-1
aviation needs, is scheduled to receive a Federal grant in January 1988, and will be
underway shortly thereafter. The plan will address a 20 -year forecast of future needs. The
current airport -influenced area is interim until the compiedoi, of elm pian.
Other airport facilities in the Rancho La Quinta project vicinity include the Bermuda -Dunes
Airport which is located approximately 10 miles north of the project site, and a private
airport which is approximately 12 miles north of the project site. The Palm Springs
Municipal Airport facility, approximately 20 miles northwest, provides commercial
services with passenger and cargo services.
The objectives of the County of Riverside's General Plan are to: (1) provide available and
convenient airport facilities to accommodate existing and future needs; and to (2) minimize
environmental impacts to residents surrounding airports by careful use of all planning
strategies available including land use constraints, operational constraints, and land
acquisition to provide compatibility.
In accordance with these objectives, any tev elopmetp:ogc�?:lue is," ai.�ortVai1"
influenced is referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for review and
recommendation. Once a final airport -influenced area is defined in the Thermal Airport
Land Use Plan, any developments within the influence area will be reviewed against the
plan and a determination of compatibility with the plan's criteria will be made.
6.4.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
Because the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area is not located within the Thermal
Airports interim influence area, the General Plan policies are not applicable at this time. In
the future, if the facility's services are expanded, the project area may be affected by an
expanded influence area, and the policies and criteria would then apply. According to the
County's Aviation Department, the expansion would not likely affect the Rancho
La Quinta area; however, final determination of the influence area will occur upon
completion of the Thermal Airport Master Plan sometime in 1989 to 1990.
Development of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan may incrementally contribute to the
increased aviation demands of the Coachella Valley. As a result, expansion of Thermal
Airport may be necessary to accommodate future needs in the area.
6-8
6.4.3 Mitigation
If the Thermal Airport Master Plan determines that the final airport -influence area must be
expanded into the project area in response to projected future needs, the project would be
subjected to noise and safety criteria contained within the Airport Land Use Plan. No
mitigation measures would be required prior to the completion of the Thermal Airport
Master Plan in 1989-1990. Phased development would allow for implementation of criteria
upon determination or need.
6.5 PARKS AND RECREATION
6.5.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Rancho La Quinta is located in a predominantly agricultural area. There are no existing
recreational facilities on the project site. Recreational facilities in the area include Lake
Cahuilla Park to the northwest of the site and Fish Traps Park approximately three miles
southeast of the project site.
Adjacent to the project site are both existing and proposed recreation trails. These trails
begin in La Quinta near Lake Cahuilla Park and run adjacent to the southwest comer of the
project site then south to Fish Traps Park. These proposed and existing trails are
secondary riding and hiking trails.
The Parks and Recreation Element of the Comprehensive General Plan contains specific
park standards for new developments. These include regional, neighborhood and
community parks.
In assessing current and future needs for regional park facilities (Lake Cahuilla Park), the
Riverside County Parks Department utilizes the standard of one developed acre per
thousand population and twenty-five acres natural park acreage per thousand population.
Regional parks are those areas that offer recreation opportunities that attract visitors from
beyond the immediate vicinity.
The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan standards for neighborhood and
community park requirements are 3 acres per 1,000 population. Neighborhood parks
should serve a population of 2,000 to 5,000, with a service radius of 1/4 to 3/8 mile and
6-9
should be near or adjacent to elementary school sites. Community parks should serve a
population of 10,000 to 25,000, with a service radius of 1/2 to 3 miles and should be
adjuc_m io junior or senior high school sites.
6.5.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The proposed development designates 40 acres for public use (i.e., parks) and 380 acres of
open space (golf course). The Comprehensive General Plan states that there is currently a
shortage of neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated areas and that all new
developments will be required to dedicate acreage for parkland or pay fees to support other
area parks utilized by the development's residents.
The Riverside County Parks Department requires 3 acres per 1,000 population for
neighborhood and community parks. Therefore, at full buildout, the development's
11,500 people will require a minimum of approximately 35 acres of dedicated parkland.
The project proposes 40 acres of parks and 380 acres of useable open space (golf
comses); which is adequate for the population generated by this development.
Residents of the proposed project would increase attendance and circulation around the
adjacent regional park (Lake Cahuilla Park). Lake Cahuilla Park is currently and
continually under -going improvements and expansion to accommodate increasing demand.
It is not expected that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on capacity
of Lake Cahuilla Park, but would incrementally contribute to impacts to the park.
6.5.3 Mitigation
The Riverside County General Plan requires a land dedication of 3 acres per 1,000
population (approximately 35 acres) or payment of in lieu fees. The proposed project
design designates 4 park sites totaling 40 acres and 380 acres of usable open space (golf
courses). The parkland requirements are met and therefore the impacts are reduced to
below a level of insignificance.
6-10
6.6 FIRE STATION, SHERIFF, AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
6.6.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Fire protection for the proposed Rancho La Quinta site is under the jurisdiction of the
Riverside County Fire Department. The closest fire station to the project site is located at
Avenue 54 and Madisorr Street, approximately 0.5 miles north of the proposed project
location. This station houses one permanent employee and is supported by a volunteer
crew. Response time from this station to the Rancho La Quinta is approximately five
minutes or less.
The project site is serviced by the County of Riverside Sheriffs Department, Indio Station,
located in Indio. Currently one patrol car services the area on a 24-hour basis.
Other emergency services include paramedic and ambulance services. Both of these
services are located at the fire station at Avenue 54 and Madison Street, mentioned above.
Paramedic and emergency services from this station would serve the Rancho La Quinta
development.
The project site does not lie within a hazardous fire area according to the hazardous Fire
Areas Map of Riverside County. The Comprehensive General Plan for the County of
Riverside has specific land use standards for fire protection and facilities. It states that all
new developments will have an adequate level of fire protection through measures such as:
dedication of fire station site(s), construction of new station(s) or upgrading existing ones,
or provision of new or upgrading of existing equipment.
The General Plan Land Use Standards for sheriff services requires that all new
developments be reviewed for adequate safeguards for crime prevention and are
implemented into the design of the project.
6.6.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
As long as the Land Use standards designated in the general plan (stated above) are
implemented, no adverse impacts to fire services are expected to occur. A fire station will
be built within the project boundaries as part of the project design. The fire station
proposed onsite will conform with land use standards stated in the general plan and will
6-11
have the capacity to adequately service the area. Therefore, the proposed project is not
expected to result in adverse impacts to fire services in the area.
An increase in population size will increase the demand for sheriff services; therefore,
implementation of the proposed project will have an adverse, but mitigable, impact on
sheriff services in the area. Private security systems and private guard services are
commonly used in developments such as proposed for Rancho La Quinta. Additionally,
either card -security or guarded gate entrances will likely be included in the design of the
communities. These measures are expected to reduce the requirement for sheriff services.
There are existing ambulance and paramedic facilities that can service the area. Increase in
population size may create a need for more ambulance and paramedic services than the
existing services can support. If this is determined to be true, then development of Rancho
La Quinta would result in adverse impacts to these services.
6.6.3 Mitigation
The proposed fire station site designated in the project design will mitigate impacts to fire
services in the area to a level of insignificance.
Implementation of the proposed project will increase the demand for sheriff services in the
area. As demand increases, utilization of more sheriff personnel will increase concurrently.
To mitigate short-term impacts of the proposed development, the Sheriffs Department
recommends design considerations of lighting, security, building location, visibility and
planting as aids in reducing potential increases in crime. The implementation of these
design standards and the increase in sheriff personnel will adequately mitigate impacts to a
level of insignificance to sheriff services.-
If
ervices:
If it is determined, by the County of Riverside Fire Department, that the ambulance and
paramedic facilities, located 0.5 mile north of the project site, are not adequate to serve the
residents of Rancho La Quinta, then mitigation measures would be required. Paramedic
and/or ambulance facilities and services would be required at a location onsite. If these
facilities are provided in the proposed fire station, then impacts to ambulance and paramedic
services would be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
6-12
r
6.7 UTILITIES
6.7.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Telephone service to the project site is provided by General Telephone Company of
California. Existing telephone facilities generally cover the area within Avenue 58, Avenue
62, Jefferson Street and Jackson Street.
Southern California Gas Company will supply natural gas to the Rancho La Quinta area.
The nearest gas distribution main is located in Airport Boulevard approximately one-quarter
mile east of Monroe Street.
The Imperial Irrigation District provides electricity service to La Quinta and surrounding
areas, and would provide service to the project site. The Imperial Irrigation District is
presently constructing a new Cahuilla Substation located on the north side of 58th Avenue
and one-quarter mile west of Monroe Street. The new substation is scheduled to be in
service before June 1988 and would be utilized for electricity by the proposed project.
According to the County of Riverside General Plan Utility Map, there are no utility
transmission lines or corridors located within the project site.
Land Use Standards in the Comprehensive General Plan for Riverside County address the
issues of utility siting, routing, and design. Facilities should be placed underground where
possible and access roads should be limited.
6.7.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The proposed project is in an area where existing utilities are located and utilities are being
expanded for other development. All utilities will be improved within rights-of-way of
master planned streets.
Telephone service is provided by General Telephone Company of California which
indicated that it has the capacity to provide service to the project site. Will -serve letters are
included in the technical appendices (Appendix E).
6-13
Natural gas will be provided to the site by the Southern California Gas Company which
will provide adequate facilities to serve the proposed project`
The Imperial Irrigation District will provide electricity to the project site. A substation is
currently being constructed adjacent to the project site and will provide service to the
proposed development.
Development of the proposed project will create a demand for additional telephone, gas,
and electricity services. General Telephone Company, Southern California Gas Company,
and Imperial Irrigation District have indicated that the facilities needed to service the
proposed project are within their existing and proposed future capacities. The proposed
project would not have an impact on local utilities' long-term ability to service the area.
6.7.3 Mitigation
The local utilities providing service to the proposed project will not be impacted if
conservation standards set by the California Public Udliucs Commission are incorporated
into the design of the project. Utilities have provided "will -serve" letters, copies have been
included in the appendices for reference.
6.8 SCHOOLS
6.8.1 . Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The project area is within the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). The
closest schools to the project location are in Indio and include one high school, two junior
high schools and seven elementary schools. These schools are at or near capacity due to
the increasing population of the area. The General Plan requires that projects be evaluated
for their impacts on school districts.
6.8.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
At full buildout, the development would include 4000 to 8000 school age children, based
on a generation factor of one to two students per dwelling unit. This generation rate may
be higher than what occurs at buildout, because the resident population at similar
developments are often older and have fewer school -aged children. This size population of
6-14
►i
school age children would create the need for approximately four new school sites within
the area (less than one high school, two elementary schools, and one junior high schools).
No school sites are currently proposed on the project site. The proposed project will create
significant impacts to the CVUSD if mitigation measures are not implemented.
6.8.3 Mitigation
Implementation of the proposed project will create a significant impact to the CVUSD
facilities if not properly mitigated. The CVUSD requires a developers fee of $1.50 per
square foot of dwelling units and $0.25 per square foot of commercial development to
mitigate impacts to their district. Collecting a development fee will mitigate impacts of the
project to a level of insignificance. School sites within the development in lieu of developer
fees, would also mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance.
6.9 HEALTH SERVICES
6.9.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
There are hospital and medical facilities located near the project site in Indio, Palm Desert
and La Quinta. The closest hospital to the site is John F. Kennedy Hospital located in
Indio, with 130 beds. There are two outpatient clinics located in Palm Desert and
La Quinta. These outpatient clinics decrease the dependency of the area's residents on
John F. Kennedy Hospital. The Riverside County General Plan ensures that the County
will coordinate with health service agencies in determining the adequacy of health services
to meet the needs of new developments.
6.9.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
The two existing outpatient clinics located in Palm Desert and La Quints meet the needs of
health services by relieving the increasing capacity that would occur to the hospital services
due to the population growth in the area. Also, John F. Kennedy Hospital, is currently
developing a Master Plan to coordinate hospital and service expansion with population
growth in the area. Implementation of the proposed project will not have an adverse impact
on health services in the area.
6-15
6.9.3 Mitigation
No adverse impacts are expected to occur to health services in the area; therefore, no
mitigation measures are required.
6.10 CIRCULATION
A traffic analysis was conducted by Willdan Associates (1987) to evaluate*potential
transportation impacts related to project development. The complete report is included as
Appendix C and summarized below.
6.10.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
Regional access to the project site would be provided by Interstate 10 via Monroe Street or
Jackson Street and by State Route 86 (Harrison Street) via Avenue 58, Avenue 60 or
Avenue 62. Direct access to the project would occur at several locations, with the primary
entrances on Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenut 60, on the Avenue 60 and
Avenue 61 (Refer to Figure 6.10-1).
Streets serving the site vicinity which are designated in the Riverside County General Plan
Circulation Element include Avenue 58, Avenue 60 Avenue 62, Madison Street, Monroe
Street and Jackson Street. All are currently two-lane highways and are 24 to 30 feet wide.
Avenue 58 is classified as a major highway in the Circulation Element (76 feet -of pavement
in a 100 -foot right-of-way), and currently carries approximately 540 average daily trips
(ADT) between Madison Street and Monroe Street (Riverside County traffic count 1986).
Avenue 60 is classified in the Circulation Element as a secondary highway (64 feet of
pavement in an 88 -foot right-of-way) between Madison Street and Monroe Street and as an
arterial highway (110 feet of pavement in a 134 -foot right-of-way) east of Monroe Street.
It currently carries 130 ADT (Riverside County traffic count 1985) between Monroe Street
and Jackson Street. Avenue 62 is classified as a secondary highway (64 feet of pavement
in an 88 -foot right-of-way) in the project vicinity and currently exists as a two-lane
unpaved, graded roadway terminating approximately 0.6 miles west of Monroe Street and
two-lane paved road east of Monroe Street. The most recent traffic count data available
(Riverside county traffic count 1985) indicates Avenue 62 carries approximately 430 ADT
just east of Jackson Street.
6-16
IMs
NO SCALE
SOURCE: Willdan Associates, 1987
Trip Assignment (Average Daily Trips) Figure
6.1 0-1
6.17
Madison Street is classified as an urban arterial (110 feet of pavement in an 134 -foot right-
of-way) in the project vicinity, but currently exists as an approximately 30 -foot wide two-
lane roadway ^girth of Ave^ -e 58. South of the Avenue 58 it narrows to approximately
24 feet and then terminates at Avenue 60. The most recent traffic count data available
(Riverside County traffic count 1986) indicates that Madison Street carries approximately
540 ADT just south of Avenue 52. Monroe Street is classified as an arterial highway
(86 feet of pavement on a 110 -foot right-of-way). It is also a 30 -foot, two lane paved
roadway and carries approximately 1,100 ADT (Riverside County traffic court 1986)
between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60 and 1,880 ADT (Riverside County traffic court 1985)
just south of Avenue 60.
A number of Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element land use standards apply
to the proposed Rancho La Quinta project, including:
• Road rights -0f --way and dedication
• Roadway design, alignment, access and intersections
• On-site road i.�_cinvements
• Off-site road improvements
• Collector streets
• Commercial and industrial development
• Circulation hazards
• Congestion relief/levels of service
Parking
• Pedestrian facilities
Bikeways
6.10.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
Trip Generation and Distribution
The traffic which would result from the proposed project was estimated using accepted trip
generation and peak hour factors which have been developed by the Institution of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG). Assumptions made concerning these rates are discussed in Appendix C. The
project would be expected to generate approximately 47,010 ADT, with approximately
27,730 of these trips having either an origin or destination external to the project area
6-18
(Table 6.10-1). Approximately 1,640 external inbound trips and 1,130 external outbound
trips would be generated during the PM peak traffic hour.
Trip distribution is expected to be as follows:
To and from Interstate 10 to the north 10%
To and from the northwest 50%
To and from the east 40%
Figure 6.10-1 shows the assignment of project -generated trips to the nearby street network.
This assignment was based on the actual predicted routes of inbound and outbound traffic
generated by the site during the PM peak hour.
Street Segment Qpacily
To assess the impacts of the project on street segment capacities, Riverside County's
design capacities were used to determine existing and existing plus project levels of service
(LOS) on the Circulation Element streets. Table 6.10-2 shows the County's LOS C design
capacities for the different roadway classifications. Additional information concerning
street segment operating conditions for the various levels of service is included in
Appendix C. Figure 6.10-2 shows the existing and existing plus project ADT's on the
streets surrounding the project. As shown, existing plus project ADT's are less than
12,000 (the design capacity of a two-lane collector street) on all roadways in the project
vicinity. Because these roadways all meet collector street standards of 24 feet of pavement
for through traffic, they would be able to serve the existing project traffic at LOS C or
better.
To assess the potential cumulative traffic impacts of the Rancho La Quinta project, other
projects which are approved but unconstructed in the vicinity of the Rancho La Quinta
project were evaluated. These projects (as listed in the traffic analysis for Oak Tree West,
SP 85-006) will add approximately 125,000 ADT to the regional circulation system. Due
to the location of the Rancho La Quinta project, only a few of these additional trips would
utilize streets near the proposed project. The closest street which would carry any
substantial amount of this cumulative traffic is Avenue 54. That traffic would be traveling
in an east -west direction and, thus, would not substantially change the street capacity
calculations for those roadways carrying Rancho La Quinta traffic.
6-19
N
O
TABLE 6.10-1
RANCHO LA QUINTA TRIP GENERATION
Source: Willdan Associates, 1987
11
Total .
External
PM Peak
external
PM peak_H.ours
Land Ulk
Intensity
"Trip Rale
f'k Exlernall
An
AT
Hr. %
LR
ald
Residential
Medium Density
2,727 DU
5 trips/DU
(60)
13,635
8,181
10
573
(70%)
245
(30%)
Medium High Density 1,535 DU
5 trips/DU
(60)
7,675
4,605
10
322
(70%)
138
(30%)
Commercial
Community
Commercial
35 acres
700 trips/acre
(60)
24,500
14,700
10
735
(50%)
735
(!')96)
Golf Course
36 holes
600 trips/course
(20)
1.200
240
9
_6
(30%)
is
0-10%)
(2 *courses)
Totals:
47,010
27,726
1,636
1,133
Source: Willdan Associates, 1987
11
6-21
TABLE 6.10-2
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY HIGHWAY CAPACITY CRITERIA FOR
GENERAL
PLAN ROADS
Facility
Number of Design Capacity
Ultimate Capacity
(LOS C)
(LOS E)
Freeway
10 168,000
210,000
Freeway
8 132,000
165,000
Freeway
6 96,000
120,000
Freeway
4 60,000
75,000
Expressway
6 78,000
97,500
Expressway
4 50,000
62,500
Arterial
4 24,000
30,000
Major
4 24,000
30,000
Secondary
4 20,000
25,000
Collector
2 12,000
15,000
Source: Riverside County Road Department. Design capacity values indicate two- ,
duwtional ADT (LOS C or V/C = 0.8). Ultimate capacity values
= LOS 00.8.
x
6-21
11mr;
NO SCALE
SOURCE: Willdan Associates, 1987
Average Daily Trips Figure
Existing / Existing Plus Project 6,10-2
6-22
The intersections which would be affected by the proposed project include Avenue
58/Madison Street, Avenue 58/Monroe Street, Avenue 58/Jackson Street, Avenue
60/Monroe Street and Avenue 60/Jackson Street. All of these except Avenue 58/Madison
Street are two-way, stop -controlled intersections with the stop control on the east -west
street with Avenue 58/Madison Street being a four-way, stop -controlled intersection.
Results of an analysis of existing plus project PM peak hour conditions for the two-way,
stop -controlled intersections are summarized in Table 6.10-3 and the actual calculations are
found in Appendix C.
Table 6.10-3
Intersection Levels of Service
Avenue 58 & Monroe Street E
Avenue 58 & Jackson Street C
Avenue 60 & Monroe Street D
Avenue 60 & Jackson Street A
* existing plus project conditions with existing street geometry
As shown in Table 6.10-3, the intersections of Avenue 58 and Jackson Street, and
Avenue 60 and Jackson Street would be expected to operate satisfactorily with existing
controls and existing street geometry at the time of completion of the project
The intersections of Avenue 58/Madison Street would operate at LOS C as a four-way stop
if both streets were made four lanes through the intersections. Avenue 60 and Monroe
Street would operate better than Level of Service C as a four way stop with the existing
geometry. Avenue 58 and Monroe Street would operate better than Level of Service C as
a four way stop if Avenue 58 were widened to four lanes through the intersection.
6-23
Site Access and ln=al Circulatign
Three primary entrances to the project site are proposed. These would be on Madison
Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, on Avenue 60 between Madison and Monroe
Street, and on Monroe Street between Avenue 60 and Avenue 61. Secondary entrances on
Avenue 58 west of Madison Street and on Avenue 60 east of Monroe Street are also
proposed The number and location of access points is appropriate for the project size, and
should be able to accommodate the expected turning movements without congestion.
Reiation�hip to General Plan Policies
The location of the Rancho La Quints project site requires use of the City of La Quinta
circulation system as a means of access to the site.
All requirements to Circulation Element street systems (discussed in the following
wi9t aatioo wgtem) which would be necessary to reduce potential project-relateA t-affi-
impacts to below a level of significance are within the accepted designations for these
roadways in the circulation element.
6.10.3 Mitigation
The developer would be required to participate in a traffic analysis evaluating feasible
alternatives for the elimination of Westside Drive in its currently proposed alignment.
The project should construct Circulation Element roads within and adjacent to the project in
accordance with the County policy. This would require full width improvement when
development occurs on both sides of the street and half street improvements if development
occurs only on one side. Additionally, to avoid small unimproved areas which could
potentially cause traffic safety problems, the widening should include the frontage of the
"out parcels" along Monroe Street and at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60.
The recommended phasing of improvements is summarized in Table 6.10-4.
The intersection analyses have indicated that the approaches to the intersection of
Avenue 58 and Madison Street would need to be widened to two lanes in each direction.
In addition, upon completion of the final phase of development, Avenue 58 would require
6-24
Table 6.10-4
PHASING OF RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed Developing
Phase Portion of Site Recommended Improvements*
I NW • Improve streets internal and adjacent to the northwestern
portion of the site; no further widening required.
- No intersection improvements necessary.
II NW • Install four-way stop control at the intersections of
Avenue 58 with Monroe Street and Jackson Street.
• Improve any additional internal streets.
III SE - Improve internal roadways required for phase.
• Improve roadways at the Avenue 58/Madison Street
intersection to 4 -lanes through the intersection.
• Four-way stop control necessary at Avenue 60/Jackson
Street intersection.
• No improvements necessary at Avenue 58/Jackson Street
intersection.
IV NE and • Improve Monroe Street to secondary standards north of
SW project area.
• Improve Avenue 58 and Avenue 60 to 4 -lanes through
the intersections with Jackson Street.
- Improve balance of internal roadways.
* All other recommended improvements are not dependant upon phasing of development.,
6-25
widening to four lanes at Jackson Street, as would Avenue 60, and both intersections
should be controlled by all -way stops.
Stop signage would be required at the intersections of Monroe Street with Avenue 58 and
Avenue 60 upon development of the second phase of the project. Monroe and Avenue 58
would be widened to four lane along Avenue 58 through the intersection. In addition to
the above mentioned street intersections, the individual entries to each area of the project
should be controlled by stop signs, and should be installed during the appropriate phase.
Entry treatments should be designed so that there are no sight distance constraints caused
by landscaping or signage.
To facilitate traffic flow through the site for all four phases of development, the internal
roadways (which would be private roads) should be sized appropriately. The four main
loop roads within the project site would be constructed to collector standards (44 feet of
pavement in a 66 -foot right-of-way) to accommodate anticipated volumes. Widening may
be appropriate at project entrances to accommodate any potential stacking as vehicles wait
to exit the project.
The portion of Monroe Street just north of the project area should be improved to
secondary highway standards upon completion of the final phase of the project and any
development occurring north of Ranch La Quinta on Monroe Street should contribute to
this improvement.
The commercial sites should front on the Circulation Element streets and should not be
accessed via the internal roadway system, as the current site plan indicates. It would be
appropriate to have pedestrian access between the residential and commercial areas, but
there should be no direct vehicular access. Left turn vehicular access to and from the
commercial sites should be located as far as possible from the intersections of Circulation
Element streets, per County standards.
In the four locations where golfers would be crossing Circulation Element streets, there
should be marked crossways or below -grade crossings to allow then to cross safely.
Since Madison Street, Avenue 60 and Monroe Street all terminate at the south and west
ends of the project area, marked crosswalks with flashing beacons should be installed to
provide sufficient protection in these areas.
6.26
The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable land use standards
outlined in the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element.
6.11 FISCAL IMPACT
6.11.1 Existing Conditions/General Plan Policies
The project site is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. There is some alfalfa, lemon
and date crop activity on the project site at the moment. There is minimal impact on both
public costs and revenues at this time. The project site lies entirely within the Riverside
County Redevelopment Project Area #4.
6.11.2 Project Impact/Relationship to General Plan Policies
County Costs
The am,wil ret county costs for serving the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan area at buildout
are projected to be as follows:
Function/Denartment
Expenditure
County -wide Functions
General Government
$ 370,548
Public Protection
545,949
Mental Health
46,191
Health
70,024
Public Assistance
43,467
Education/recreation
23,039
Other
24,765
Sub -Total County -wide
$1,193,983
"Municipal" Functions
Fur, Protection
$ 220,000
Law Enforcement
926,281
Community Park
512,208
County Free Library
392,656
Road
44.146
Sub -Total "Municipal"
$2,095,291
GRAND TOTAL
$3,2$9,274
6-27
County Revenues
The annual general county revenues projected to be derived from the Rancho La Quinta
Specific Plan area at buildout are as follows:
Revenue ourc
Revenue
Property Tax
$ 42,787
Sales Tax
456,697
M.V. In -Lieu
319,880
Property Transfer
26,041
Penalties on Taxes
1,399
Franchise Taxes
83,231
Transient Occupancy
36,255
Motor Vehicle Fines
29,954
Cigarette Tax
15,585
Federal In -Lieu
12,269
Civil Penalties
1,216
Investment Earnings
22,147
State Fuel Tax
291,805
Vehicle Code Fines
6 5.5 30
TOTAL
$1,407,794
Redevelopment Agency Revenues
Because the County has placed the site of this Specific Plan in the Redevelopment Project
Area #4, a little more than 76% of the property tax revenue collected from this area will
accrue to the Redevelopment Agency for use throughout the Redevelopment Project Area.
It is projected that this revenue alone will total $41.9 million over the projected twenty year
buildout of the specific plan. In the twentieth year, the property tax increment revenue to
the Redevelopment Agency is projected to be $3,740,197 in 1987 dollars. It should be
noted that this projection does not assume appreciation in market values of new residential
or commercial property beyond its original sale price.
Net Fiscal Impact
The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan is projected to have a positive net fiscal impact when
the County and Redevelopment Agency are considered together. At buildout, the total
6-28
rA
revenue from the sources analyzed is expected to equal $5,147,991 annually, while the
total net county cost is projected to be $3,289,274 annually.
Capital Costs
Capital costs related to the proposed Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan have been estimated
based on information provided by County departments (i.e., fire, library, and road
departments). Average capital cost information is, however, not necessarily reflective of
the actual impact of a project of this nature on the need for capital expenditures; therefore,
the cost estimates contained within the following table may not represent the actual capital
cost of the proposed project.
Buildout
Total
Year
Fire
Library
_ Roads
Average Cost
1
$102,800
$71,898
$1,276,368
$1,451,066
2
127,956
71,898
1,614,398
1,814,252
3
102,800
71,898
1,276,368
1,451,066
4
102,800
71,898
1,276,368
1,451,066
5
102,800
71,898
1,276,368
1,451,066
6
59,541
18,184
773,523
851,249
7
26,000
18,184
322,817
367,001
8
27,600
19,303
-342,682
389,586
9
27,600
19,303
342,682
389,586
10
27,600
19,303
342,682
389,586
11
194,587
114,981
2,446,832
2,756,400
12
164,400
114,981
2,041,196
2,320,577
13
164,400
114,981
2,041,196
2,320,577
14
164,400
114,981
2,041,196
2,320,577
15
164,400
114,981
2,041,196
2,320,577
16
80,095
30,214
1,032,150
1,142,459
17
43,200
30,214
536,373
609,787
18
43,200
30,214
536,373
609,787
19
43,200
30,214
536,373
609,787
20
_ 44,000
0.774
546.305
621,Q79
$1,813,380
$1,180,307
$22,643,444
$25,637,131
6.11.3 Mitigation
The fiscal impact analysis has concluded that the Rancho La Quints Specific Plan will have
an overall positive fiscal impact on the combined County of Riverside and Riverside
County Redevelopment Agency. The negative impact on the County is more than offset by
6-29
A
the significant amount of real property tax increment the area will be providing to the
Redevelopment Agency. It is expected that the capital costs identified for County facilities
needed to support the development of the Specific Plan area will be funded through a
combination of development exactions and County fees levied for such purposes.
Therefore, no mitigation is required.
6.12 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Wind erosion and blowsand, toxic substances, mineral resources, energy resources, scenic
highways nor disaster preparedness were not addressed in this EIR. Impacts associated
with these issues were considered insignificant and did not warrant, in accordance with
CEQA, detailed analyses.
6-30
SECTION 7.0
HOUSING ELEMENT
7.1 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
7.1.1 Applicable Housing Policies and Programs
Riverside County's Housing Element contains goals, policies, and programs intended to
guide housing development. The items that are most applicable to Rancho La Quinta are
listed below and their relationship to the project is discussed in the following section:
Conservation of Housing and Communities
Promote the conservation of existing communities and community housing
goals through the preparation of community plans and the development review
process.
Community Conservation through the Development Review Process:
Development projects are reviewed for contiguity with existing development to
ensure the best and most efficient use of infrastructure and services. Projects
are also assessed for their compatibility with the surrounding land uses and lot
sizes.
Affordable Housing
Policy
Encourage energy conservation in existing homes and new housing
developments.
7.1
U
FOR h
Plan resident; --I gmnvth in ?- orderly manner to make the best and most efficient
use of existing and future infrastructure.
• a ar
Building and Design Standards for Residential Energy Conservation: In
Riverside County, all building plans for residential units are examined by the
Department of Building and Safety to insure that design and construction
features comply with Title 24 Standards.
Density Provisions for Efficient Growth: The five Land Use Categories in the
Comprehensive General Plan have density ranges based on development
standards for water, sewer, circulation and land use capability, and are
consistent with planning area growth forecasts.
Housing Opportunity
Poligy
Promote equal housing opportunity.
Promote accessibility for the disabled and handicapped in residential
developments.
Residential Accessibility Site: Development and grading should be designed to
provide access to primary entrances from normal paths of travel.
7-2
Handicapped parldng spaces should be provided in community parking areas.
Curb ramps should be provided at the corners of street intersections and where
a pedestrian way crosses a curb.
Housing Supply
FM
Provide for a variety of housing that meets identified housing needs and
satisfies the varied price, type and location preferences of County residents.
Use of General Plan Standards to facilitate varied housing: The General Plan
promotes a range of housing types. The range, type and location of housing is
dependent upon a number of factors including density, environmental
constraints and public facility availability.
Job/Housing Balance: The County encourages balanced development,
emphasizing a mix of housing and employment opportunities to achieve
job/housing balance.
7.2 SPECIFIC PLAN
7.2.1 PROJECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
For the most part, the Rancho La Quinta project meets the general intent of the County's
Housing Element by supplying housing for the County's residents. The project is in basic
compliance with the policies and programs listed in the previous section.
• The proposed project is contiguous to approved development, the PGA West
development, and is partially within the City of La Quintas sphere of influence.
7-3
• The site is within the Coachella Valley Water District's service boundaries and
will obtain water service from this agency. The site will require annexation to
this Agency's Improvement District No. 55 to obtain sewer service.
• The project will provide a varied range of housing types for County residents.
• The project with its 75 acres of commercial development will create job
opportunities as well as providing housing.
Although the Rancho La Quinta project will not directly provide affordable housing, it will
provide relatively low cost units in the 70,000-100,000 dollar range.
7.2.2 Housing Inventory
The Rancho La Quinta project will provide approximately 4262 single family dwelling
units. The project will consist of a mixture of housing types, with low, medium,
medium-high residential densities. Tabic 7.2-1 suIT 11 L1aCLC:s ►;.c Rancho I.a Quinta housing
inventory.
Table 7.2-1
RANCHO LA QUINTA HOUSING INVENTORY
Gross Dwelling Gross
Density Rangf, Densiry UnitsDenAcreag& Price Range_
Medium 2-5 DU/acre 3 2727 612 90,000-130,000
Medium high 5-8 DU/acre 5 1 5JK 70,000-100,000
Total Dwelling Units 4262
Total Residential
Acreage 795
Projected Population 11,500
7-4
FI
7.2.3 Project Compatibility with Existing Housing Inventory
The majority of the housing units in Riverside County consists of single family dwelling
units. In 1980, 74 percent of the total housing stock of Riverside County was single-
family. This figure is expected to decrease by the year 2000 to 71 percent. In 1980 the
housing stock in the city of La Quinta consisted of 91 percent single family dwelling units,
6 percent buildings with 5 or more units, and the remaining percentage divided between
duplexes, buildings with 3-4 units, and mobile homes.
The proposed project is contiguous with the PGA West project. The product types
provided in both developments are similar. The Rancho La Quinta inventory is therefore
compatible with recent development practices in the vicinity.
7-5
7-6
SECTION 8.0
REGIONAL ELEMENT
8.1 REGIONAL GROWTH (SLAG) FORECASTS
8.1.1 Identification of Regional Forecasts for Project Site
Information obtained from the Southern California Association of Government (SCAG)
indicates that Riverside County had the highest annual average growth of any county in
southern California during the period from 1970 to 1980. County -wide population
increased 39 percent from 459,000 in 1970 to 757,500 in 1984 (SCAG, 1985). This trend
is expected to continue increasing Riverside County's population to 1,969,276 by the year
2010. This high growth rate is attributed largely to migration from Los Angeles and
Orange Counties.
The Rancho La Quinta development is located within Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 53.
This area is generally referred to as the Lidio area and includes the cities of La Quinta,
Indio, and Coachella as well as the unincorporated communities of Thermal, Mecca and
Oasis. The 1984 population for this area was 57,431 and is expected to increase to
152,655 by the year 2010, an increase of 167 percent. It is important to note that all
growth projections include an adjustment to include both permanent and seasonal
populations to adquately plan for infrastructure and other public services.
The number of housing units within the region is also expected to rise dramatically. In
1970 there were approximately 173,600 units in Riverside County. In 1984, there were
326,000 units in the County, an increase of 47% over a 14 -year period. By the year 2010,
892,278 units are expected in the County. This trend is expected to apply to RSA 53 as
well. The number of units in this area was 18,707 in 1984 and is expected to increase to
56,127 by the year 2010, a 200 percent increase.
Employment rates within the County do not follow the same trends as do housing and
population. The number of employed persons in 1984 was 247,000; this figure is expected
to increase 89 percent to 466,201 in 2010. The largest employment sectors prior to 1984
were government (19 percent), retail trade (18 percent), and services (16 percent). Future
employment growth is expected to be concentrated in the western portions of the County,
particularly along the I-15 corridors (SCAG, 82).
8-1
RSA 53, which includes the project site, is located in the eastern part of Riverside County,
away from the major employment centers. While employment rates in the western portion
of the County are expected to increase as high as 500 percent by the year 2010, these
growth rates do not apply to the eastern portion of the County. The number of employed
persons is expected to increase 79 percent from 1984 to 2010, from 16,562 to 29,571.
SCAG 82 predicts that as Riverside County matures, the large labor force and large
amounts of land would attract a high level of employment growth; establishing a trend of
employment growth following population growth
8.1.2 Land Use Area Profile
The County of Riverside's Comprehensive Plan is the primary statement of goals and
policies for implementing the development and conservation proposals for the County of
Riverside. To address the needs and concerns of communities and generally similar areas
within the region, certain land use planning areas and community policy areas have been
developer? : ithir. *.he C„,,.;ty. The subject property is within the Lower Coachella Valley
Land Use Planning Area, the Coachella Valley Community Policy Area, and the Eastern
Coachella Valley Plan Community Policy Area.
The Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area includes approximately 409 square
miles and is comprised of the Coachella Valley Census Division which encompasses the
cities of Coachella and Indio (see Figure 8.1-1). The predominant Land Use within this
area is agriculture including both dry farming and citriculture. This area of land contain
several sections of land under Indian and BLM ownership. Two specific plans have been
adopted by the County within this planning area (SP 113 and SP 115).
Population within the unincorporated areas of the Lower Coachella Valley Planning Area
was 16,835 in 1980 (Riverside County 1985). The population projection according to
SCAG-82 was 27,000. Housing projections also rose at a similar rate. Table 8.1-1 shows
population and housing forecasts for the unincorporated portion of the Lower Coachella
Valley Land Use Planning Area as taken from the County's Comprehensive Plan.
8-2
ii
Lower Coachella Valley
Land Use Planning Area
NO SCALE
Figure
8,1-1
Table 8.1-1
POPULATION AND HOUSING FORECASTS FOR THE
LOWER COACHELLA LAND USE PLANNING AREA
1980
1985
1990
1_995
200
Population 16,890
19,400
22,100
24,700
27,000
Housing (units) 6,030
7,000
8,000
9,000
9,800
Growth within this Land Use Planning Area has been projected to occur primarily within
the cities of Coachella and Indio and their limited spheres of influence. It is doubtful that
major growth would occur in unincorporated areas due to the extreme costs associated with
developing public services in these areas. A number of other elements may inhibit
development within this area, the most important of which is the protection of the desert
environment and its limited resources.
According to the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area, land uses within this
area should not be encouraged to chinge significantly i.. th-- fature. This area should
remain primarily agricultural in nature and house those persons working in the Coachella
Valley agricultural and service trades. Future land uses within the Lower Coachella Valley
Land Use Planning Area should generally be Category II land uses within the sphere of
influence of the incorporated cities, and Category III and Category IV elsewhere within the
Land Use Planning Area. However, open space and conservation land uses, such as
agriculture, should remain the predominant land use outside of the cities' spheres of
influence. Industrial development should generally be located along the Southern Pacific
main line tracks and around Thermal Airport.
The Coachella Valley Community Policy Area encompasses the entire Coachella Valley (see
Figure 8.1-2). Within this area certain land use policies outline aesthetic concerns,
commercial land uses, and environmental policies for the valley. These policies are as
follows:
• Land_�Lse Policy - Aesthetic Concerris
Billboards and other offsite directional and advertising signs shall be prohibited.
8.4
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
i�
Coachella Valley Community Policy Area
I SCALE
Figure
Sri1-2
Development review along major arterials and highways shall include
architecture, landscaping and setback, and such other elements as screening of
mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, and placement of utilities
underground. `
. Land Use Poligy - Q mmc+c al Land Uses
Commercial and industrial land uses shall be strictly segregated to insure that
industrial land uses are not allowed in commercial zones.
The "commercial centers" concept shall be encouraged in commercial land uses,
and "strip commercial" shall be discouraged.
• LaDd Usk -Policy - Environmental Policies
Blowsand mitigation measures and development controls shall be required for
all development within design"amd blowsW, -Vid-1 stein
6 rt dust c:,ruol
standards maintained as a condition of construction.
Air quality shall be preserved through the prohibition of polluting industries and
hazardous waste sites in the Coachella Valley.
The project also falls within the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan (ECVP) Community Policy
Area. The ECVP area is located within the southeast portion of the Coachella Valley, south
of the City of Indio and encompasses approximately 201,367 acres (see Figure 8.1-3).
The intent of the ECVP is to provide land use goals and policies not found in the county-
wide plan which would address the unique concerns and needs which exist in the Plan
area, thereby facilitating the implementation of the policies and programs of the
Comprehensive General Plan.
The county has estimated growth projections for housing and population based on the
SCAG 82 forecasts (Table 8.1-2). These numbers may have changed since the original
estimates were made. The County predicts a population of 15,390 for the area by the year
2000.
8-6
43�
NO SCALE
Eastern Coachella Valley Plan Figure
Community Policy Area 8.1-3
R-7
Table 8.1-2
POPULATION AND HOUSING FORECASTS FOR THE
EASTERN COACHELLA VALLEY PLAN AREA
1280
1985
1290
1995
2000
Population 9,627
11,058
12,597
14,079
15,390
Housing (units) 2,711
3,124
3,560
4,022
4,410
All incorporated areas are excluded from the growth projections, which accounts for
figures that are much lower than the RSA 53 total.
8.1.3 Comparison of Project Growth Forecast with Regional Growth
Forecast
The proposed project is to be phased over a 20 -year period, with the ultimate completion
date being scheduled for the year 2010. There will be four phases, each projected to be
completed at 5 -year intervals. Different amounts of the project will be completed at each
interval, with 30% completion for Phase 1, 17% completion for Phase 2, 26% completion
for Phase 3, and the final 27% of the project being completed in Phase 4. In that the
project will add a substantial number of dwelling units to the area (4262 DUs are targeted),
it is important to compare the project's contribution to housing and population in the area to
the projected housing and population in the area.
According to the County's Comprehensive Plan, those regionally significant projects with
projected populations that would exceed the regional forecasts (either alone or as a part of
the cumulative effects of projects in an area), indicate that impacts on public facilities and
the environment may also exceed regional planning for the area. Major land use projects
are required by the Comprehensive Plan to be compared with the regional RSA population
forecasts for consistency. If a development proposal would cause the regional RSA
forecasts to be exceeded, then the public facility and environmental implications of the
project must be fully assessed and adequately addressed. If a project which would exceed
the forecasts is found to adequately address regional impacts, then the regional population
forecasts may need to be reassessed.
The proposed project with its 4262 dwelling units will generate a population increase of
approximately 11,500 by the year 2010 based on SCAG-82 persons per dwelling unit
8-8
projections for the year 2000 (2.69 persons/DU for RSA 53). Because the project is
phased, the population increase will be phased as well. It can be expected that there will be
a population increase of 6160 by the year 1995, 3533 additional persons for the year 2000,
5326 additional persons for the year 2005, and the final 5385 by the year 2010. 'Riese
projections are assuming full occupancy at the completion date of each phase. The regional
forecast (baseline 1987) for RSA 53 predicts a population increase of 95,524 from 1984 to
2010. This project, by the year 2010, will have contributed 11,500 persons to the
population of the region. This represents 12% of the projected population increase for the
area. The RSA 53 projection takes into account cities when determining population and
housing projections. The Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area and the Eastern
Coachella Valley Plan Area include only unincorporated areas of the County when making
growth forecasts, as discussed earlier in this section.
The Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area profile suggests that growth within
this planning area will occur within unincorporated areas and their spheres of influence.
This project is partially located within the La Quinta sphere of influence, but is presently an
unincorporated area. The Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area growth
projection suggests a population of 27,000 for this area in the year 2000, while the Eastern
Coachella Valley Plan suggests a population of 15,390 for its area for the year 2000. This
represents a population increase of 7600 people from 1985 to 2000 in the Lower Coachella
Valley, and 4332 for the Eastern Coachella Valley Plan area. Population increases related
to this project would exceed the growth projected for the Lower Coachella Valley Area and
the Eastern Coachella Valley area. Therefore, unless this development is annexed to the
City of La Quinta, these growth projections for both housing and population should be
revised to account for this development.
Housing forecasts for RSA 53 indicate that there will be an increase in dwelling units from
18,707 to 56,420 from the year 1984 to 2010, resulting in a net increase of 37,420 units
(Baseline 1987). This project would contribute 4262 units by the year 2010. This
represents 11% of all the projected units for RSA 53. This represents a substantial portion
of the projected housing units. With respect to projections made for the Lower and Eastern
Coachella Valley Planning Areas, the number of units proposed by this project by the year
2000 exceeds the number of County -projected units for these unincorporated areas. As
discussed above, housing projections would have to be revised for these small regional
planning areas if this project were approved.
8-9
SCAG predicts that the number of employed persons with RSA 53 will be 29,571 by the
year 2010, an increase of 13,009 from 1985. The increase in employment levels is lower
in the eastern portion of We -county, contributing to a job deficient/housing rich
environment within this part of the County. It is hoped that the abundance of undeveloped
land and large labor force will attract industry to the area. It is a goal of the Eastern
Coachella Valley Plan to achieve a well-balanced and diversified economy within the ECVP
area with a variety of economic and employment opportunities.
8.2 APPLICABLE EMPLOYMENT/HOUSING BALANCE POLCIES
The County of Riverside, which has been divided into different subregions by the
SCAG 82 report, is described as a job-rich/housing deficient area by this report. The
report does not describe the eastern part of the County however, possibly due to the large
seasonal population within the region. The report does outline employment -to -population
ratios for each of the regional statistical areas within the southern California region. These
ratios suggest that the eastern half of the County could be classified as job-
deficient,/hoUsi--- :icz. This conclusion can be derived by looldng at the low employment -
to -population ratios for the eastern half of the County, which are very low when compared
to those of western Riverside County and regions such as Los Angeles, and comparing
them to the high growth rates expected for population and housing in the eastern half of the
County.
RSA 53 has a projected employment -to -population ratio of 0.28, while areas such as Lake
Elsinore, Hemet, and Banning have ratios of 0.57, 0.52, and 0.51 respectively. RSA 53
expects a 167% increase in population and a 200% increase in housing by the year 2010
according to SCAG's 87 Baseline study. These growth rates suggest that RSA 53 will be
job-deficient/housing rich by the year 2010, when the project is completed. Balanced
subregions are defined by SCAG 82 as those regions having an employment -to -population
ratio of 0.38 to 0.55.
The County of Riverside and SCAG have developed a number of policies to achieve a
job/housing balance in areas chat are job deficient/housing-rich. These policies include the
following:
• Designate these areas as high priority areas for receipt of available economic
development funds;
8-10
• Adopt relatively high employment growth forecasts for those subregions;
• In SCAGs review of development proposals, support commercial and industrial
development within these subregions. Work with other governmental agencies
(federal agencies, the State, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and
local governments) for incorporation into the project approval process;
• As part of the Development Monitoring effort, compare job growth with
population growth in these subregions. Should job growth substantially lag
behind population growth (significantly below the ratio shown in SLAG 82),
pursue the following actions (in sequence);
(1) Actively work with local governments in these areas to help particular
localities attract higher levels of employment growth;
(2) Should employment growth still lag significantly behind population and
housing growth in these areas, revise the forecast as appropriate (to
coincide with the regularly scheduled revision of the Development Guide)
and attempt to redirect housing construction to those areas undergoing high
employment growth rates;
• Work with local governments and the private sector to identify and implement
local economic development strategies. Although the Rancho La Quinta
development is predominantly residential with open space, it will include
35 acres of commercial development. The amount of jobs this commercial area
will create can not be determined at this time, as the type of commercial uses
that will occupy this area has not yet been determined
8-11
'0•
8.12
SECTION 9.0
ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT
9.1 LAND USE POLICY/SPECIFIC PLAN TIME FRAMES
9.1.1 Project Time Frames for Development
The Rancho La Quinta project is a phased development which is to be completed over a
20 year period with final buildout expected to occur in the year 2010. The development
will add approximately 4262 dwelling units and 35 acres of commercial uses to the area.
There are four phases to the project, as delineated in Figure 9.1-1, with each of the phases
being completed at 5 year intervals. The project schedule has 30 percent being completed
in the first phase, 17 percent in the second phase, 26 percent in the third phase, and the
final 27 percent being completed in the fourth phase. This phasing plan represents the
most likely time flame based on economic and market data available at the present time.
Changing economic conditions will determine whether this time frame is shortened or
extended; and what modifications to the approved specific plan, if any, will be necessary in
the future. If any of the changes which are made are not in substantial conformance with
the approved plan, further county approval may be required. This approval may either be
administrative or require a public hearing.
9-1
k1plir;
o DO
G•
BEET
Phasing for Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan Figure
9.1-1
SECTION 10.0
MANDATORY CEQA SECTIONS
10.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impacts of the Rancho La Quinta project must be viewed together with
other significant development in the immediate vicinity of the project. The 1665 -acre PGA
West development to the north of Rancho La Quinta has an existing approval for 5,000
dwelling units and 650 hotel rooms with an approximate gross density of 3 DU/acre. In
addition, 100 acres of commercial are zoned within the specific plan boundary of PGA
West.
The cumulative impacts of these projects will be as follows:
• Traffic volumes will increase, leading to street widening and improvement of
intersections.
• The projects will contribute to an increase in pollutants and a deterioration of air
quality in the region.
• The projects will create overall increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicintiy.
• The projects will have a cumulative impact on the quantity of water in the
Ground Water Storage Unit.
• There will be an increase in the solid waste generated, which will impact the
County's landfill.
• The projects have a predictable "build -out scenario" which conforms to an
established pattern of development which is expected to encourage the build -out
of portions of the remaining vacant land within the vicinity. This will lead to
the loss of additional prime agricultural land.
• There will be an increased demand for utilities and other services.
10-1
• The projects have a cumulative impact on domestic water service and storage
capacity in the area.
10.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The environmental effects of Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan #218 are discussed in detail
in sections 3.0 through 9.0 of this document and in the technical appendices. In most
cases, the potential impacts identified as significant can be adequately mitigated or reduced
to levels of insignificance through incorporation of mitigation measures and implementation
of sound environmental planning practices.
Some significant impacts, however, cannot evidently be fully mitigated or reduced to
insignificant levels by reasonably practicable measures. A summary of these significant
environmental effects which cannot be avoided is as follows:
• A site possessing natural scenic qualities, significant flora and fauna, and
topographic features (unique in the Coachella Valley) will be developed. Much
of the native vegetation will be removed and some wildlife habitat destroyed
• Removal of approximately 1140 acres of prime agricultural lands.
• Increased local air pollutant loading.
• Increased demand for domestic water.
• Increased traffic volumes on local streets and highways which will add to traffic
congestion and increase street maintenance costs.
• Some archaeological resources and sites would be altered or destroyed.
• Increased demand for police, fire and other governmental services.
10.3 ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT
CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126(d)) require that alternatives to the proposed project be
discussed Three alternatives are evaluated and compared here:
10-2
• No-Project/No Development
• Development Under Existing Zoning
• Independent Development
10.3.1 NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT
The No Project/No Development alternative allows the site to remain in its present
condition, without requesting any entitlements available under the existing general plan and
zoning classifications. The site would remain in open space and agriculture, with
development limited to the construction of minimal new structures for agricultural
purposes.
Historical data indicates that the project site has been marginally productive in terms of
agricultural output with no indication that this trend would change in the future, and no
significant contribution to food production of the nation anticipated In this sense, the No
Project/No Development alternative does not capture opportunities to generate positive
economic use of the property.
The No Project alternative would not require the installation of infrastructure, and therefore
an increase in water use would not be required. The area would not require annexation to
an improvement district to obtain sewer. No impacts to other public services such as police
and fire protection and medical services would occur. Biology, air quality, visual quality,
and the noise environment would not be affected as a result of this alternative.
The No Project alternative would not help meet the County's goals for recreation, housing,
adequate service facilities, or an expanded economic base.
The No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative; however, it
would also result in the under -utilization of the property's potential to implement general
plan policies and programs.
10.3.2 EXISTING ZONING
The project, as it is zoned, could be developed with single family dwelling units under the
existing land use. Portions of the property are within the La Quinta Sphere of Influence.
10-3
U
The land use policies of the lower Coachella Valley Planning Area and the Eastern
Coachella Valley Plan Area call for Category II land uses within the sphere of influence,
and Category III and IV uses elsewhere within the Land Use planning area. Category II
uses allow for residential densities of 5 to 8 DU/acre, while Category III land uses allow
for a maximum density of 2 DU/acre. Therefore the maximum number of units that could
be built on the 1251 acres of land would be 5862, given the existing zoning. This
assumption is based on the fact that 560 acres of land are within the sphere of influence and
691 acres are outside the sphere of influence. This also assumes that all land would be
developed, which in all reality it would not.
If development were to occur on a dwelling unit by dwelling unit basis under the existing
zoning, scattered utilization of the land would occur, resulting in an undefined growth
pattern scenario. Infrastructure would be installed in a piecemeal fashion, possibly leading
to the installation of services inadequate to serve the needs of the community. Circulation
could suffer in that street improvements of the magnitude necessary to bear traffic from
5862 units could not be paid for by a small landowner. Piecemeal development might also
create visual impacts that would not be associated with a well planned development.
Fragmented development would not create economic incentives or_an employment basis
appropriate for the area and would not be consistent with the County's stated goals and
objectives for orderly, self-contained growth. The absence of a comprehensive plan for the
entire site creates disadvantages in terms of master planning for flood control, circulation,
water and sewer, fire, police, park, and other public facilities.
Development under the existing zoning on a house -by -house basis has the potential to
create impacts to the environment which could be mitigated through an integrated,
comprehensive planning approach. Development under the existing zoning would create
fewer impacts to air quality, water supply, region -wide traffic, and some public services.
However, to achieve the County's goal of controlled, orderly development, the proposed
project would be the preferred alternative.
10.3.3 INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT
Independent development would involve the development of the project site on a parcel by
parcel basis. There are 36 individual parcels within the project site. Development could
occur on only one parcel or a group of parcels, but on a much smaller scale than the
10-4
proposed development. This type of development would involve the adoption of a number
of specific plans within the project area. In other words, development would occur in a
piecemeal fashion as discussed above, but would receive more intensive review than the
development that is discussed above.
Development of the area in an independent manner could result in well planned
development, however, an assessment of the potential buildout of the land would need to
be performed to determine adequate public service needs for the area. Also, strict
development review standards would have to initiated by the County to assure that land
uses between parcels are compatible. This effort is eliminated when a comprehensively
planned development, such as the one proposed, is submitted for a large piece of property.
A parcelized development could amount in less continguous open space and other benefits
such as recreational areas that are associated with a comprehensively planned development.
The independent development alternative has the potential to cause impacts to the
environment in the long-term that could be solved through an alternative approach of
comprehensive planning for the entire site. Impacts from the independent development
alternative are difficult to assess due to a lack of a master plan for future development.
10.3.4 ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project deals with the area as a logical unit of land with geophysical, fiscal,
and infrastructural limits. The plan evolved from a planning process which has dealt with
the land as such, detailed in the Specific Plan/EIR.
The result is an economically viable development plan that is sensitive to the dynamics of
the environment and will result in the logical and orderly development of the site in concert
with the goals and objectives of Riverside County. Outside of the No Project/No
Development alternative, the proposed project would result in the least environmental
degradation of the four development alternatives over the long term. Table 10.3-1 provides
a matrix of the impacts associated with the development strategies described in the three
alternatives. The project integrates public and private sector planning goals and objectives
with cognizance of an in-depth environmental study. The result is a sound master plan for
future development of the property.
10-5
TABLE 19.3-1
COMPARATIVE MATRIX OF ALTERNATIVES
Ili)• i I nfll 11.s ►, ill ft • r- i . i .0.1 a i -
Description
Landform and
Topography
Seismic
Safety/Slopes and
Erosion
Rancho La Quinta site is 1251
acres of undeveloped land,
primarily utilized for agricul-
tural purposes; i.e., dates,
citrus and alfalfa
Relatively flat, less than 1%
slope. Minimal topographic
relief.
The San Andreas and San
Jacinto fault zones are located
near the project area. Two
inferred fault traces occur in
immediate project vicinity; one
within eastern site boundary.
Potentim impacts regarding
seismically induced effects,
erosion and geologic stability.
No development, continued Plan proposes:
laid use of agriculuue. 2727 reed density
(2-5 DU/ac)
15.0 medium high density
(5-8 DU/ac)
Retain existing topography
No landform alteration.
Limited exposure of
a'riculaural uses and asso-
dated structures to seismic
and erosional hazards, and to
geologic stability. No mitiga-
tion of existing hazards.
4262
35 acres commercial
41 acres public uses
380 acres open e
(golf carrx�
Minor alteration to topog-
raphy. Overall, topography
will still be relatively flat.
A geotechnical investigation
required prior to project
development; the results to be
used in final project design,
including all mitigation mea-
sures.
Buildout under the existing
zoning and General Plan
would allow for it maximum
of 5862 dwelling units. This
assumes all land is
developable. No commercial
development would occur
under this alternative, result-
ing In lack of a job opponun-
ities. The County's goal of
controlled, orderly develop-
mrnt is unfull-tlled.
Independent development by
each parcel, or combination.
No master plan. Could in-
clude any variety of residen-
tial, industrial or commercial.
Minimal modification to to- Minimal modification to to-
pography would be expected. pography would be expected.
Structures would be designed
to meet buildin`` codes. Haz-
ards mitigated by implemen-
Wion of grading and stabili-
zation techniques.
Structures would be designed
to meet buildin` codes. tiaz-
ards mitigated by impluucn-
tadon of grading and stabili-
Mum techniques.
Agriculture
Flooding and
Water Qualify
Open Space and
Conservation
Current onsite agricultural
uses include approximately
710 acres (57 percent of site)
utilized for growing dates,
citrus, and alfalfa. Prime
agricultural land accounts for
1140 acres or 91 percent of
the site.
A number of levees and chan-
nels divert and carry storm
runoff in the project site and
vicinity. Surface water con-
aislsprimarilyy of intermittent
flood runoff, Five wells
Operate onsite:. Water quality
to the Coachella Valley is
generally high.
The project site is primarily
used for agricultural pur-
poses. There are several
archaeology sites. mesquite
thickets. an inferred fault and
a liquefaction hazard res.
Aesthetics and The visual quality of the
o Visual Quality existing site is considered
v low, consisting primarily of
agricultural land.
COMPARATIVE MATRIX OF ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
Existing uses would be
retained onsile. No loss of
prime agricultural land would
occur. See Existing Condi-
tions.
No changes to water quantity
or quality would occur. See
Existing Conditions
The no -project altcrnalive
would continue existing land
uses, creating no impacts to
open space resources.
No developrncnr would result
in continued agricultural uses
and retaining existing visual
quality.
Elimination of existing onsite
agricultural uses. Loss of
1140 acres of prime agricul-
tural land, which amounts to
an incremental decrease of one
ppccrrcnt within the Coachella
Valley,
Potential, nonsignificant
changes to onsite water quan-
tity and quality expected. The
project would contribute to ■
regional increase in water
quality contaminant levels.
Geolechnical investigation
required prior to development
and any recommendations
implemented
Impacts from the project are
not expected to be significant,
however adverse mitigable
impacts could occur from the
liquefaction hazard area
The proposed project would
be contiguous visually with
other developments In the
area No significant impacts.
Although development would
be limited, the loss of pro-
ductive agricultural land and/
or prime agricultural land
con occur.
Potential, nonsignificant
changes to onsile water quan-
tity and quality would be
expected. Development would
contribute to regional increase
in water quality conraminara
levels.
If the land is developed under
existing zoning it may be
developod with no contigtrous
Open space.
This alternative would allow
for no open space desig-
nations nor design element to
control aesthetic features. In
the area within the sphere of
influence a higher density
resulting in an adverse vi%W
impact.
Development would disturb
much, if not all, of existing
evicuhure and prime agricud-
lural land.
Changes to onsile water
quantity and quality would be
expected. Flood control mea-
sures developed on a purcel-
by-parcel basis. could result
in lack of comprehensive
flood control. Regional con-
tribution to increased water
quality contaminant levels.
lndep mderu devcioprneat may
result in no contiguous open
Space.
This alternative would allow
for no open space designa-
tions and; may result in more
commercial and industrial
developmeni. This would
result in an adverse visual
impact.
Air Quality The Coachella Valley area
currently experiences oxidant
and particulate exceedances.
Much of baseline air quality is
a result of wind transported
pollutants from L.A. basin.
Wildlife/ Approximately 910 acres are
Vegetation under agricultural uses, while
251 acres are natural habitat
including mesquite thickets
(31 acres), salibrush scrub
(191 acres), creosote bush
scrub (28 acres), and fresh-
water marsh (less than 1
acre).
COMPARATIVE hIA'IRIX ON ALTERNATIVES (Ccaiinued)
No increase in stationary or
mobile emissions in project
vicinity. Existing air quality
would remain. Pollutants
generated by agricultural
activities, including fugitive
dust, would remain.
The no -project alternative
would continue exiting land -
uses creating no additional
impacts to biological re-
sources.
The projected emissions for
the Specific Plan are not a
significua portion of those in
the local air basin. An incre-
arental degradation of local air
quality will occur.
Impacts from the project are
no; expected to be significant,
however, adverse impacts
would occur to potential flat -
tailed homed lizard habitat and
Crissal thrasher habitat in the
mesquite thickets.
Decreased traffic volumes
would similarly decrease pro-
jected emissions for the pro-
jecL Area would continue to
experience exceedances due to
wind-uansponed pollutants.
If the laird is developed under
the existing zoning it could be
developed in a piecemeal
fashion with no consideration
given to contiguous open
space, funlur jeopardizin¢ the
habitats outlined as sensitive
in this E1R.
The total emissions projected
for the site would be
unknown dire to the lack of
buildout characteristics. May
produce significant increases
in emissions if land use
intensities increase.
If each of the 36 parcels were
developed under individual
specific plans, adequate
review would occur to insure
that impacts to biological
resources were mitigated to an
insignificant level.
Historic and Cultural resources are located No impacts to cultural Potential impacts b cultural Potentially adverse impacts Potential impacts to cultural
Prehistoric on site. resouces. resources, requires testing for could occur to cultural resources would require
Resources significance and mitigation if resources becasue of limited testing for significance and
necessary, environmental review. mitigation if necessary.
Noise Existing traffic volumes are
minimal, therefore existing
noise levels range between 35
and 55 dB(A) depending on
time of day.
No increase in traffic and,
therefore existing ambient
noise levels would remain the
sane u described in the
Existing Conditions.
Portions of site may be
subjected to adverse noise
conditions. Mitigation
measures irtciudin; setbacks
and acoustical barriers would
be required.
Reduced units would reduce
traffic volumes and thus noise
levels on project site.
However, portions of site
may still be adversely
impacted by ambient noise
levels and would require
futher study.
Traffic volumes and noise
sources would vary upon
independent development.
Land use incompatibility
based on noise may impact
future residents of the area.
Detailed acoustical analyses
would be required to
adequately assess any
impacts.
Libraries
Water and Sewer
Facilities
Solid Waste
Currently the closest library to
the site is located in Indio. A
new library is under
construction in La Quints
which will serve
approximately 5000-9000
people.
The Rancho La Quints site lies
within the CVWD service
area, which curmndy provides
sgricullurA irrigation services
to the project site. Two irri-
gation water mains and a
sewer force main are the only
onsite facilities. No domestic
water facilities exist
Solid waste is umuported by
private hauling service to the
county -owned Coachella
Saniwy f.andfitl. The land-
fill's lifespan has been pro -
jested to year 2010.
COMPARATIVE MATRIX OF ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
With the no project alternative
existing conditions would
continue with no additional
impacts b library services.
No negative impact to water
or sewer facilities would
occur. The site would con-
tinue to utilize CVWD water
for agricultural irrigation. No
additional water or sewer
imfirovements would be re-
quucd.
No additional solid waste
would be generated onsite
besides that which is already
produced by agracultwal uses.
IM lifespan of the landfill
would not be impacted.
Specific plan is expected to
create adverse. Wt mitigable
impatns on Iibrary services.
The Specific Plan would
require the extension of water
and sewer facilities, including
the construction of expanded
scwa$gr treatment capacity.
t4l, additional irrigation facil-
ities. Adverse impacts are not
anticipated, although project
would incrementally reduce
regional watts supplies.
The Specific Plan will
incrementally contribute to the
reduction in Landfill capaciny at
the Coachella facility. No
other service impacts are
anticipated.
Under existing zoning a
smaller population would be
produced from the project
than proposed in the Specific
Plan but still resulting in an
adverse impact, Developer
fees would likely not be
provided under this plan.
Existing zoning would reduce
the number of wnits serviced
by CVWD, thus reducing
amount of onsite sewage
Generation end water demand.
Project would still require
water/sewer facility extension
Find expansion.
Development under existing
zoning would reduce the
amount of solid waste
r—ated by the project- The
pmjort would still contribute
to the reduction in landfill
capacity, although to a leaser
degree.
Any increase in population
size from the existing condi-
tions will create an adverse
but miligable impact
The impacts of independent
development are unknown at
this time because the intensity
of use may vary. Wates and
sewer facility extension and
expansion would still be re -
=aired. The amount of water
demand and sewage generated
would be determined by
buildout potential of area -
The impacts are unknown at
this time; the amount of solid
waste generated by the 36
parcels would be dependent
on the type of development
proposed. May create ■
significant impact if more
intense uses are proposed
overall.
Airports
Parks and
Recreation
Fire, Sheriff and
Emergency
Services
Thermal Airport is located 1
mile east of project site, the
site is .not sublated to adverse
noise/ safety conditions
because of its location outside
of the influence area.
There are no park or
recreational facilities currently
onsite. Adjacent to the site is
Lake Cahuilla Park, a regional
county park.
Currently there are no
emergency services onsite.
Fire, paramedic and ambu-
lance services re provided
from a station just north of the
site. Sheriff services are pro-
vided from a station located in
Indio.
Utilities Currently there are no electric,
gas, or phone easements on-
site. i.ocul utilities, gas, elec-
trip, and telephone utilities,
service the area.
COMPARATIVE MATRIX OF ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
No impacts to aviation facil-
ity, no increased service
needed in Coachella Valley
area
The no project alternative
would continue existing land
uses in the arca creating no
additional impacts to parks
and recreational facilities.
The no project alternative will
not create any demands for
emergency services and will,
therefore, result in no
impacts.
The oo project alternative
would create no additional
demand for utilities than
existing conditions and
would, therefore, result in no
impacts.
Project may contribute to
increased aviation needs, and
thus expansion of airport
facility. No noise or safety
impacts anticipated.
Park impacts from the project
are mitigated by the dedication
of land for parks and
provision of open space (golf
courses).
No impact to fire, paramedic
or arnbulance services are
expected to occur. Adverse
impacts to sheriff services will
occur, but arc miligable.
No impacts to local utilities
are expected to occur.
Infrastructure will be
expanded to support demand.
Will serve letters provided by
all affected utilities.
Fewer residents would lessen
the need for an expanded
aviation facility. No noise or
safety issue.
If the land is developed under
the existing zoning no con-
sidcration will be given to
contiguous community and
neighborhood parks resulting
in an increased demand on
park facilities.
PGA West Foe Station would
be required to service
increased residential uses.
Adverse impacts to sheriff
services will occur but are
mitigabk
Potentially significant impacts
to local utilities could occur.
Unplanned growth resulting
in increased demand without
appropriate infrastructure in
place•
btdependent developmur may
Produce a significant increase
in aviation needs in the area.
provided more intense uses
arc proposed. Exact impacts
are unknown at this lime.
If each of the 36 parcels were
developed under individual
specific plans, adequate
review would occur in insure
that impacts to park and rec-
reation facilities were miti-
gated to an insignificant level.
As Irmg as a site is designated
for a fire station no impacts to
fire service are expected to
occur. Adverse impacts to
sheriff services will occur but
we miligable
If, under independent devel-
oprncnt, more commercial and
industrial rises we developed,
the possibility exists that
adverse impacts to utilities
could result.
Schools
I Icalth Services
Circulation
Fiscal Impact
Existing Conditions
Presently there are no schools
onsite. The project area is in
die CVUSD.
There are no hospitals or
clinics on the rxojccl site. The
closest hospital is located in
Indio and the nearest health
clinic is located in La Quints
Streets serving the site ore
Ave. 58, Ave. 60, Ave. 62,
Madison St., Monroe St., and
Jackson St.
The project she is currently
used tot alric� lium. there-
fore. Were is no minimal
impact on costs acid revenues.
COMPARATIVE MATRIX OF ALTERNATIVES (Continued)
No Proiccl/Nu Dcvclo rt netts Spmific Plan Existing Zming indcRodlMa Development
Under the no project aherna- The implementation of the Adverse but miligable impacts Adverse but mitigable impacts
live existing conditions would Specific Plan would result in ate expected to occur. are expecled b occur.
remain the same and no im- adverse but mitigable impact&
pact to the school system
would occur.
The no project alternative No impacts to health services No impacts to health services No impacts io health services
would not create any addi- in the area are expected to in the area are expectcd to in the area are expected to
tional demands on health ser- occur. occur. occur.
vices.
The no project alternative
would retain existing circula-
tion conditions.
Existing fiscal impacts w
County would be maintained.
No economic incentive or
emloynienl base potential
under exislmg limited agricul-
orral operation.
Potentially significant traffic
impacts could occur.
Piecemeal development could
generale substantial traffic
without providing circulation
improvements.
The Rancho La Quints Spe-
cific Pam is projected to have
a positive net fiscal impact
when considering both the
County cost and dee Rede-
velopment Agency costs lo-
gedwr.
Potentially significant traffic
impacts could occur.
Piecemeal development,
undergoing Independent
environmental review.
Cumulative impact possible.
Disjointed infrastructure and
service systems could resell in
economic liability to county.
Pmvision of employment ban
uncertain.
Potentially significant traffic
Impacts could occur.
Piecemeal development,
undergoing independent
environmental review.
Cumulative impact possible.
Disjointed infrastructure and
service systems could result in
economic Ubiltty to county.
Pmvis> of eamploymic:u base
uncertain.
i
10.4 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Rancho La Quinta is located in Riverside County RSA 53, whir -l+ is a!so Carted the Indio
RSA. This RSA comprises the Coachella Valley Census Division, and includes the cities
of La Quinta, Indio and Coachella, and is bounded by the All American Canal and Dillion
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 proposed project with its 4262 dwelling units will generate a population increase of
approximately 11,500 by the year 2010 based on SCAG82 persons per dwelling unit
projections for the year 2000. Because the project is phased, the population increase will
be phased as well. It can be expected that there will be a population increase of 3450 by the
year 1995, 2875 additional persons for the year 2000, 2875 additional persons for the year
2005 and the final 2300 by the year 2010. These projections are assuming full occupancy
at the completion date of each phase. The regional forecast (baseline 1987) for RSA 53
predicts a population increase of 95,524 from 1984 to 2010. This project, by the year
2010, will have contributed 11,500 persons to the population of the region. This
represents 12% of the projected population increase for the area. The RSA 53 projection
takes into account cities when determining population and housing projections.
Population increases related to this project would exceed growth projected for the Lower
and Eastern Coachella Valley areas. Therefore, unless this development is annexed to the
City of La Quinta, these growth projections for both housing and population should be
revised to account for this development.
Land in the vicinity of Rancho La Quinta is primarily agriculture. The project site is located
approximately 0.5 miles from the PGA West development, which represents the La Quinta
city limits. Approval of this project would likely encourage the residential development
between PGA West and Rancho La Quinta. Two out -parcels are generally surrounded by
the Rancho La Quinta development. Development of these parcels to the density proposed
by Rancho La Quinta would be feasible, because infrastructure has been made available to
service this level of development. This project will provide increased infrastructure, but
only to levels that support this development. This project does not extend infrastructure a
substantial distance, thereby providing intervening undeveloped land with infrastructure
and inducing substantive growth. If agriculture uses in areas surrounding the Rancho La
10-12
Quinta project are not currently profitable, then surrounding land owners may perceive
conversion of their lands to urban uses as a more viable enterprise.
Overall, this development does contribute a significant portion of the growth anticipated
within this region. For the most part, however, this development is contiguous to a major
development and is included in La Quinta's sphere of influence. Growth is being planned
and phased with the appropriate infiastructure in place when the demand is generated This
development would not inhibit adjacent properties from being developed if a market is
perceived for that growth. This project would not generate that market, because
commercial development is small and no industrial uses are proposed.
Because the Rancho La Quinta project is generally contiguous with existing development
and is consistent with the product type, growth inducing impacts are probably limited to the
area between PGA West and Rancho La Quinta and potentially out -parcels surrounded by
this project.
10.5 RELATIONSHIP B ETWEEiv LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT IN MAINTENANCE/ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
The Rancho La Quinta project will affect short-term uses of the project area environment
and the maintenance and enhancement of its long-term productivity. Because the project
will be phased over a 20 year period, alternate short-term uses for undeveloped portions of
the property would be possible until full development is achieved. It is likely that such
uses would be limited to recreational activities or continuation of existing uses. At full
development, use of the property for alternate purposes (short-term or long-term) would be
precluded.
The development project would contribute to long-term adverse impacts on air quality,
noise, traffic and circulation, energy consumption, and demands on utilities and services.
Furthermore, natural open space and wildlife habitat would be reduced. Mitigation
measures have been recommended in this EIR to reduce the significance of these impacts.
See sections 6.0 and 7.0 and Technical Appendices.
The project will provide beneficial impacts. Local employment opportunities will be
created for both construction and operation of the project. Housing will be available to
10-13
meet local market demands. Property tax and sales tax revenues will be substantial and
more than offset government expenditures to service the project.
No long-term risks of health and safety are expected to result from implementation of the
proposed project.
10.6 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES
AND OTHER RESOURCES SHOULD THE PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources associated with development of
Rancho La Quinta project would include:
• Consumption of fossil fuels used to generate heat and electricity.
• Energy required for the fabrication of building materials.
Materials used during construction.
• Loss of land which cannot be restored to its original condition.
• Loss of some sensitive biological resources.
• Degradation of air quality in the region as a result of automobile -general
pollutants.
10-14
SECTION 11.0
ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
11.1 REFERENCES
Aslan, Sam. 1987. U.S. Soil Conservation Service District Conservationist, Indio Office,
personal communication November 10.
Borchardt, Glenn, and Michael W. Manson, 1986. North Palm Springs Earthquake,
California Geology, Volume 39, No. 11, November.
Brown, Arthur R., and Robert W. Ruff, 1981. Geology of the San Jacinto Mountains,
South Coast Geological Society Annual Field Trip Guidebook No. 9.
California Air Resources Board, 1983-1986. Summary of Annual Air Quality Data.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1980. At the Crossroads. A report on
California's endangered and rare fish and wildlife. The Resources Agency.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Designated endangered or rare plants.
The Resources Agency, June 19.
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1966. Ge,jlab c Map of Calu--rn a Santa Ana
Sheet.
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1985. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Special Publication 42.
California Water Resources Control Board 1975. Comprehensive Water Quality Control
Plan, San Diego Basin, July.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). 1979. Coachella Valley Master
Environmental Assessment.
Coachella Valley -Water District. 1987x. Personal communications with Alan Harrell and
Robert Meleg, November 10, 16 and 18.
Coachella Valley Water District. 1987b. Written response to La Quinta Notice of
Preparation, Specific Plan 218, July 28.
Crowell, John C., 1975, San Andreas Fault in Southern California, California Division of
Mines and Geology Special Report 118.
Crowell, John C., and Arthur G. Sylvester, 1979. Tectonics of the juncture between the
San Andreas Fault System and the Salton Trough, Southwestern California,
University of California at Santa Barbara, November.
Elders, W.A. 1979. Guidebook for the Geology and Geothermics of the Salton Trough,
University of California at Riverside Campus Museum Contributions No. 5,
November.
Engineering Service Corporation. 1987. Hydrology Study for the La Quinta Specific
Plan area, November.
Federal Highway AdminiSUMUo►I, 1962. Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedures
Stamina 2.0 Optima: User's Manual
Gilmore, Thomas D., and Robert O. Castle. 1983. Tectonic preservation of the Divide
Between the Salton Basin and the Gulf of California, Geology, Volume H,
pp. 474-477, August.
Harris, C. 1979. Handbook of Noise Control.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
California. State of California, The Resources Agency.
Jennings, Charles W. 1975. Fault Map of California, California Division of Mines and
Geology Geologic Data Map No. 1.
Kennedy, Michael P. 1977. Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault
Zone in Southern Riverside County, California, California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Report 131.
Leighton and Associates. 1984. Geotechnical Reconnaissance "Xochimilco",
November 1.
Leighton and Associates. 1985. Geotechnical Reconnaissance La Quinta Hotel Golf
Club, February 8.
La Quinta, City of. 1985. General Plan, adopted November 19.
Nickerson, Lloyd. 1987. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, telephone
communication, November 9.
Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb. 1976. Geology of California, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Perry, Michael. 1987. County of Riverside Solid Waste Division, Administrative
Assistant, telephone communication, November 9 and 17.
Remsen, V. 1978. The species of special concern list: an annotated list of declining or
vulnerable birds in California. Western Field Ornithologist, Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology, University of California, Berkeley.
Riverside, County of, 1986. Comprehensive General Plan, December 31.
Riverside, County of, 1986. Comprehensive General Plan, Second Edition,
December 31.
Riverside, County of, 1984. Eastern Coachella Valley Plan, Environmental Report
No. 189.
Ross, Judy. 1987. County of Riverside Aviation Department, Assistant Director,
telephone communication, November 18.
11-2
Seed, Bolton H., and I.M. ldriss. 1970. A simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil
Liquefaction Potential, University of California at Berkeley Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Report No. EERC-70-9, November.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1987. Air Quality Handbook for Preparing
EIRs, April.
Southern California Association of Governments. 1982. SCAG-82 Growth Forecast
Policy, October.
Southern California Association of Governments. 1985. SCAG-82 Modified Forecast,
February.
Southern California Association of Governments. 1987. SCAG Baseline, August.
Tate, J. Jr., and D. J. Tate. 1982. The Blue List for 1982. American Birds 35(1):3-10.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of
Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Important Farmlands
Inventory as applied to the State of California, February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Water Quality and Biological Effects of
Urban Runoff on Coyote Creek, August.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985x. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants: Review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; Notice
of review; Federal Register, 50(188):39526-39527, September 27.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants: Review of vertebrate wildlife; Notice of review; Federal Register,
50(181):37958-37967, September 18.
Wigington, Parker J., Clifford W. Randall, and Thomas J. Grizzard. 1983. Accumulation
of Selected Trace Metals in Soils of Urban Runoff Detention Basins, Water
Resources Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 5, October.
Willdan Associates, 1987. Analysis for Rancho La Quinta, November.
Zabriskie, J.G. 1979. Plants of Deep Carryon and the central Coachella Valley,
California. Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, University of
California, Riverside. 289 pp.
11-3
11.2 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
City of Indio Sherif s Department
Sgt. Dye
City of La Quinta
Jerry Herman
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Lloyd Nickerson
Coachella Valley Water District
Vince Alvarez
Bruce Clark
Paul Cockrell
Alan Harrell
Robert Meleg
Jim Zimmerman
County Riverside, Aviation Department
Judy Ross
County of Riverside, Fire Department
Ralph Glenn
County of Riverside Library Headquarters
Billie Dancy
County of Riverside Planning Department
Steve Kuferman
Ron Goldman
Engineering Services Company
Steve Robbins
11-4
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Brian Ferris
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Indio Office
Sam Aslan
William Dignon
11-5
.oe
11-6
SECTION 12.0
REPORT PREPARATION STAFF AND CONSULTANTS
This report was prepared by WESTEC Services, Inc. of San Diego, California. Members
of WFESTEC Services' professional staff and consultants contributing to the report are
listed below:
Gordon Bell; B.A. Environmental Studies/Geology
Mark Chomyn; Estrada Land Planning, Planning Consultants
June Collins; JBF Associates, Planning Consultants
Betty Dehoney; M.S. Biology
Steve Estrada; Estrada Land Planning, Planning Consultants
Ann French; Wildan Associates, Traffic Consultant
Dennis Gallegos; B.A. Anthropology
Kimberly Glasgow; B.A. Geography/Environmental Studies
Patricia Gordon -Reedy, M.A. Botany
Mike J. Komula; B.A. Geography
Kathryn E. Kulzer, M.S. Fisheries Biology
Dennis R. Marcin; B.S. Geology
John McTighe; Public Affairs Consultants, Fiscal Consultant
Elyssa Robertson; B.S. Biology
Robert Sergeant; Wildan Associates, Traffic Consultant
Mary Tazik; B.A. Geography, Resources/Environmental Studies
I hereby affirm that to the best of our knowledge and belief, the statements and information
herein contained are in all respects true and correct and that all known information
concerning the potentially significant environmental effects of the project has been included
and fully evaluated in this EIR.
IlLit-
94ty Dehoney
Project Manager
12-1
.r'
12-Z
r
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Rancho La Quinta
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
H. R. LUCHS, LAND USE SUPERVISOR
Environmental Health Services has received and reviewed the above
development anticipated to be constructed over a twenty year period and
has the following comments:
The referenced documents advise that water supply and sanitary
sewer facilities to serve the project will be provided by the Coachella
Valley Water District. Existing utility facilities need to be enlarged
or added on or expanded to meet system demands. Total irrigation
and domestic water supply demands can be met per the documents.
Comment noted; appropriate water and sewer facilities will be sized to meet project
demands.
The EIR must calculate the amount of solid waste to be generated
daily or weekly for the proposed residential, commercial and golf
course development.
The document has been revised to include a calculation of the amount of solid waste
to be generated by the project; approximately 185,832 pounds/day or 33,914
tons/year (see Section 7.3.2).
3. The EIR must address the impact and proper handling of the
construction waste generated during the development of the project,
i.e., amount of construction waste that will be generated.
The Coachella Valley Sanitary Landfill has reviewed the project and has indicated
that adequate capacity exists to service the site. Construction waste will be properly
handled and promptly disposed of at the Coachella Valley Landfill or other site as
designated by the County of Riverside.
4. The EIR does not address waste collection. Are the streets adequate
and accessible for collection vehicles?
The development's internal circulation system will accommodate waste collection
vehicles; the adequacy of the circulation system will be reviewed by County staff
prior to project implementation.
1
5. Solid waste bin enclosures should be addressed for the commercial
uses.
Solid waste containers shall be emptied on a regularly scheduled basis. As
discussed within the document, "evergreen shrubs and trees shall be used in
screening trash containers..." and "trash enclosures, rubbish bins,...shall be
situated away from the street and should be architecturally screened". (Sections
3.11, 3.8 and 3.13, respectively).
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE GRADING DIVISION
OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
ERIC TRABOULAY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
6. The Grading Division of Building and Safety has reviewed the above
referenced project with regard to the following items:
Seismic Safety
Illustrative Grading Concepts
Landform and Topography
Slopcs 2nd Erosion
Wind Erosion and Blow Sand
Flooding and Water Quality
Mineral Resources
These items have been adequately addressed and we have no
objections in recommending approval document.
Comment acknowledged; no response necessary.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PAUL CLARK, SUPERVISING PLANNER
7. I have reviewed portions of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan No.
218 documents. Several areas of the planned development should be
redesigned to provide additional buffering of adjacent agricultural
and county park lands. Also several onsite biological and
archaeological issues addressed within the technical appendices do
not appear to be dealt with as part of the specific plan development,
design and land use elements.
Sufficient buffer areas, in the form of walls/fences and rearyard setbacks, are
incorporated into the project design. The document has been revised to include an
expanded description, in narrative and graphic form, of project interfaces both
2
within the development and with surrounding offsite land uses (see
Section 3.11.3.3).
Biological and archaeological issues have been addressed for the project site.
Recommendations for mitigation of impacts to mesquite habitat and potentially
occurring sensitive species, as discussed in Section 6.8.3, will be incorporated into
the project as a condition of tentative map approval. Potentially significant cultural
resource impacts, as discussed in Section 6.9.2, require further analysis, at which
time all required mitigation measures will be incorporated as a condition of tentative
map approval.
' i !
The specific plan technical appendices contain a fairly detailed
biological assessment. The assessment findings are depicted in
Figure 3 (page 6). Approximately 31 acres of mesquite thicket
habitat was identified in the northeasterly corner of the project. The
biological consultant noted "loss of all mesquite habitat on site will
be considered a significant impact" (page 23). The consultant
recommended that development be prohibited within the existing
mesquite habitat to the greatest extent possible. Specifically, a
minimum six (6) acre natural open space park with adjacent
interpretative facilities was proposed to be established. The total
park acreage was recommended to be about nine (9) acres (page 24).
Other recommendations were made for appropriate buffering of this
area such as 70-100 foot road and building setbacks and further
biological surveys (page 25). A second portion of the biological
recommendations was for replacement of mesquite habitat elsewhere
in the project within the specific plan golf courses and other
landscaping. The proposal for replacement of mesquite habitat
assumes a very high profile within the specific plan design, not the
proposed nine (9) acre natural open space park as recommended.
Figure 3.1-1 of the specific plan indicates "Low Density Residential"
and "Golf Course" within Planning Area 3 rather than "Public Use";
"Public Use" is defined on page 3-3 as park, school, open space.
Given the biological recommendations within the technical
appendices, I request that the specific plan text and maps be redrawn
to address this conflict.
Mitigation measures recommended to reduce impacts to onsite biological constraints
will be incorporated into the project as a condition of tentative map approval, as
discussed in response No. 7. The higher quality mesquite is being retained in the
northeastern portion of the site. When tentative maps are proposed, any loss of
mesquite will be required to be mitigated on a 1 to 1 basis. Implementation of these
measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to an acceptable level.
3
Figure 3.1-1 indicates Open Space/Golf Course in the area of the mesquite thicket
in planning areas 3 and 5. T lie mtaqulw will be designated as open space, but is
not considered to be public use. This area is being retained and protected for its
biological resources, not for potential park uses.
The technical appendices indicate important cultural resources exist
on the project. In particular, a rock art site lies adjacent to the
project's most westerly boundary. Provisions for conveyance of
land to protect this site should be included in the specific plan. As
the rock art site is adjacent to the County Regional Park, Lake
Cahuilla, this area could be attached to that agency's land. Golf
course rather than the proposed residential, as shown on
Figure 3.1-1, should be placed adjacent to the project's westerly
boundary to better buffer archaeological and county park uses and
resources. I suggest that the specific plan be conditioned to require
"site specific" archaeological reports prior to approval of any
subdivisions, plot plans or other permits, including having an
archaeologist review preliminary and final plans for development.
The rock art site has been incorporated into the public park system. Additional
mitigation measures have been discussed in Section 6.9.3 for cultural resources, if
determined to be significant. Such measures will be incorporated into the project as
a condition of tentative map approval, as discussed in response No. 7.
Implementation of such measures will be sufficient in reducing identified impacts to
an acceptable level. Requirements for testing programs prior to approval of any
development permits are already incorporated into the EIR.
c 112U
As I mentioned above, the Lake Cahuilla County Regional Park is
adjacent to the project's westerly boundary. Rather than a strip of
residential (Medium Density), a golf course or other open space
feature is more appropriate. Also, when PGA West was approved by
the City of La Quints, Landmark agreed to place a golf course
adjacent to Lake Cahuilla. Planning Area 1 should be rethought with
this in mind.
Residential development adjacent to Lake Cahuilla County Park will be properly
and sufficiently buffered to mitigate any potential land use incompatibilities.
The project proposes two 18 -hole golf courses situated among varying densities of
residential development which have been located within the project area in a way
that reduces incompatibility with adjacent land uses. High density residential
development has been located on the interior portions of the site, buffered by golf
courses, while low and medium residential development has been located around
the periphery of the site with appropriate buffering techniques. The specific plan
(i.e., Section 3) discusses the various project interfaces and provides graphic
depictions of such interfaces.
11. The anticipated land uses to the south and east of the specific plan
will likely remain light agriculture or rural residential, including
increasingly an estate horse ranch lifestyle. Tentative Tract 22676
northerly of Avenue 61 and southerly of Avenue 60 proposes eight
lots on 80 acres adjacent to Rancho La Quinta and reflects this land
use trend (see attached exhibit). It makes no sense to approve a
specific plan for "medium" density urban development adjacent to
horse ranches! The specific plan should be redesigned to place "very
low density," one acre lots, or golf course and other open space in
these areas!
The project will be buffered from potentially incompatible land uses through the
incorporation of walls/fences and rear yard set backs. These buffering criteria are
included in the Specific Plan (see Section 3).
12. Please have each Planning Area mapped within the text at better,
more detailed scale. The summary of uses in Tables 3.1-2 through
3.1-7 should be tied to specific Planning Area maps.
The Specific Plan has been revised to include the planning areas in more detail.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
MARTHA NEWMAN, RESEARCH ASSISTANT
13. The project proposes to develop 1,251 acres for a Planned
Community. Development will convert 1,140 acres of prime
farmland, of which 920 acres are designated for agricultural use in
the County General Plan and 710 acres are currently in agricultural
production. Agricultural activities include date, citrus, and alfalfa
production. Three parcels, totaling 68 acres, are under Williamson
Act contracts; notices of non -renewal were filed in November 1987.
Land surrounding the site is in agricultural production.
Project development is in conflict with the General Plan standard to
protect productive agricultural lands. The project is also inconsistent
with the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning Area which
states, "This area should remain primarily agricultural in
nature ... open space and conservation land uses, such as agriculture,
should remain the predominant land use outside the cities' spheres of
influence." The DEIR states that approximately 560 acres of the
project are located within the City of La Quinta's sphere of
influence. This land is designated as Open Space on the La Quinta
General Plan; the Plan policy encourages the maintenance of existing
agriculture as long as possible as a means of interim open space.
The Specific Plan/EIR quantified agricultural activities associated with the Spec
Plan. Agricultural uses will continue on three sides of the Specific Plan; however,
the Specific Plan is contiguous to existing residential development. A portion of the
Specific Plan is part of the Sphere of Influence for the City of La Quinta, while a
portion of the Specific Plan is outside the Sphere. The development is contiguous
with existing development and does not represent leap frog development. The
analysis in the Specific Plan/EIR states that the loss of agricultural lands is adverse;
however, because the infrastructure is in place to support the development and the
development is continuous with existing development, the impacts are not
considered significant. The land use policies have included the potential that some
agricultural lands will be developed in the future, bec:RIS.0 it cncou:aiFc-r agriculture
uses as interim open space. The Specific Plan has also indicated that agricultural
uses may be continued prior to development under the plan. Of paramount
importance is for orderly and phased development, provision of infrastructure to
support development and the elimination of unplanned leap frog development.
14. Population growth in the Lower Coachella Valley Planning Area is
anticipated to be 60 percent. As stated in the DEIR, the majority of
this growth is expected to occur in the urban areas of Indio and
Coachella. Approval of the Rancho LaQuinta Specific Plan will
represent 21 percent of this anticipated growth. The project is
considered growth inducing and may encourage urban development
on surrounding agricultural properties.
Section 11.4 addresses the potential for growth inducing impacts. Infrastructure is
available to support the development. The project does contribute a significant
portion of the growth anticipated for the region. The development is contiguous
with existing development. Growth is being planned and phased with the
appropriate infrastructure in place when the demand is generated. Therefore, in and
of itself, the project is not growth inducing. The EIR does recognize that
surrounding land owners may perceive conversion of their lands to urban uses as a
more viable enterprise than continuing agricultural uses.
15. The DEIR does not discuss the need for a project of this scale on
land that is not planned for urban development. The alternatives do
not discuss the possibility of a smaller scale development on land
that is within the sphere of influence of the city of La Quinta.
In accordance with CEQA, an EIR does not address the need or purpose for a
project. The EIR did address the impacts associated with development under the
Specific Plan scenario. Alternatives to the proposed action included several
development strategies, including no project/no development, development under
existing entitlements and independent development without planning. There were
no significant impacts associated with development under the proposed Specific
Plan. Potentially significant impacts were identified under the alternative
development plans.
16. Since this project will convert 710 acres of productive, prime
agricultural land, is inconsistent with the Riverside County General
Plan and Lower Coachella Land Use Planning Area policy, and is
considered growth inducing, the CDFA recommends the No Project
Alternative.
The CDFA recognizes the reality of California's growing population
and the concomitant need for additional residential development, but
we are especially concerned about the rate at which farmland is being
converted to urban uses. We are also concerned about projects such
as this which are a serious deviation from existing plans and
policies. The CDFA encourages Riverside County to direct growth
towards urban areas and away from prime agricultural land. The
purpose of these comments is to register the Department's concern.
Ultimate decisions regarding the project are of local concern and rest
with local agencies.
These issues were addressed in detail in responses 13 and 14.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
DENNIS J. O'BRYANT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR
17. The Department of Conservation has reviewed the County of
Riverside's Specific Plan, referenced above. The Department is
responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide basis
and also administers the California Land Conservation (Williamson)
Act. Because the proposal involves the loss of valuable farmland
7
and the termination of Williamson Act contracts, the Department
offers the following comments.
The nr^posal calls for the development of 1251 acres of agricultural
land for two eighteen -hole golf courses, and residential and
commercial development. Prime agricultural land exists on over 90%
of the site (1140 acres). About 68 acres of the project site,
involving three parcels, are under Williamson Act contract. A notice
of non -renewal was filed and recorded in November, 1987.
The Department is disturbed by the increasing loss of agricultural
land, especially prime farmland, which is occurring statewide. The
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) summarized
Riverside County development projects that they have reviewed
during the last year. These projects represent over 11,170 acres of
farmland conversion. As part of a trend that a recent American
Farmland Trust study has quantified as occurring at a rate of 44,000
acres annually, the farmland conversion proposed by this project
represents a significant cumulative impact.
The Department is also concerned about the growth -inducing impacts
of the project. Page 6-17 of the DEIR describes the project site as
being surrounded by agricultural land uses on virtually all sides.
Thus, the potential for induced conversion of farmland posed by this
pr^ject is great.
These issues were addressed in detail in responses 13 and 14.
18. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should identify and
treat the loss of prime agricultural land as a significant environmental
impact (see California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.,
Appendix G (y)). In doing this, the FEIR should provide
information on the number of acres of agricultural land to be
developed, the potential agricultural value of the site, the farmland
conversion impacts, and mitigation actions to be taken.
Appendix G states that a project will normally have a significant impact if prime
agricultural lands are converted to non-agricultural uses or the project impairs the
agricultural productivity of prime agricultural lands. The project will convert prime
agricultural lands to non-agricultural use, but will not impair agricultural
productivity of prime agricultural lands. This impact has been considered adverse,
yet not significant because a portion of the Specific Plan is planned for future
growth, contiguous with existing urban development and the economic infeasibility
of continued agricultural use on this property. Buffering urban uses from adjacent
agricultural lands is incorporated into the project design. The County of Riverside
policies indicate that agriculture is to be maintained as interim uses. These issues
reduce the impacts below the level of significance.
8
U
19. We recommend that the Rancho La Quinta FEIR contain the following
information to better assess these impacts of the Svecific Plan on the
farmland resource.
A map which identifies the location of agricultural preserves in
the planning area, the number of acres and type of land in each
preserve (i.e., prime/non-prime).
The economic impacts of the farmland conversion. (In assessing
these impacts, use could be made of economic multipliers, such as
those developed in the University of California Cooperative
Extension's study, "Economic Impacts of Agricultural Production
and Processing in Stanislaus County.")
Section 6.3 addressed the agricultural uses within the Specific Plan. There are
1140 acres classified as Prime Farmlands, 710 acres currently utilized for
agricultural production (dates, citrus and alfalfa), SS acres of Farmlands of
Statewide Importance, and 68 acres under the Williamson Act Preserve. A fiscal
analysis was conducted to assess the economic impacts associated with the
implementation of the Specific Plan and this analysis indicated a net positive
benefit.
20. The DEIR considers "No mitigation (measures) for the loss of
1140 acres of Prime Farmland..." (p. 6-19). 'While buffering
between the project development and adjacent agricultural uses will
be provided to ameliorate land use conflicts, we recommend that
mitigation measures and alternatives be proposed in the FEIR to
lessen the farmland conversion impacts of the project. Some of the
possibilities are:
Direct urban growth onto lower quality soils in order to protect
prime agricultural land.
Protect other, existing farmland of equivalent, or better, quality
through the use of Williamson Act contracts.
Establish buffers such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts and open
space areas to separate farmland from urban uses. (Although
buffering is mentioned, no details are given.)
Implement right -to -farm ordinances to diminish nuisance impacts
of urban uses on neighboring agricultural operations, and vice -
versa.
Also, farmland trusts, which have been established by other
counties, such as the Santa Barbara Farmland Trust, can be used
effectively to preserve agricultural land, and should be considered in
the analysis of mitigation alternatives.
9
The impact analysis for the agriculture issues have been discussed in detail in
responses 13, 18 and 19. The direction of land uses, Williamson Act contracts and
right -to -farm ordinances are not within the ability of the private landowner to
implement but are the responsibility of the County of Riverside. Buffering, in the
form of walls/fences and rearyard setbacks are discussed in the Specific Plan,
Section 3.
21. A notice of non -renewal has been filed for approximately 68 acres
which are currently under Williamson Act contract. However,
page 6-19 of the DEIR includes the caveat that, "if development
occurs prior to the expiration of the contract, then a petition for
cancellation of the contract and payment of any associated fees would
be required." If application for cancellation of the contract occurs,
specific findings, identified in Section 51282 of the Government
Code, will need to be made by the local government, and substantial
cancellation penalty fees paid by the landowner(s), before action can
be certified. Specifically for the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors to grant tentative cancellation, it must make one of the
following findings: (1) that the cancellation is consistent with the
purposes of the Williamson Act; or (2) that cancellation is in the
public interps=. ( a dditior+al required findings that must be made
before a cancellation can proceed, are spelled out in associated
sections of the Government Code.)
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.
We hope that the farmland conversion impacts and the Williamson
Act contract issues are given adequate consideration in the FEIR. If
I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at (916)
322-5873.
If the applicant proposes to cancel the Williamson Act Preserve, the County and the
applicant shall meet all applicable government requirements, including finding and
penalty fees.
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
TOM LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
22. rage 7-4: The plan does not address the impacts that the project will
have on local groundwater supplies. Water demand is discussed and
the Coachella Valley Water District's (District) physical facilities,
however, prior to serving water, the impacts upon groundwater
sources must be considered. The project should recognize the
District's Water Conservation plans and water supply recharge
activities that are being developed to provide source supplies to the
project.
10
Groundwater resources in the Coachella Valley are discussed in Section 6.4
13. A. Specifically, the project shall utilize the existing Coachella
Canal for golf course and common area irrigation in order to
mitigate impacts to groundwater.
B. Landscape and irrigation plans for both the golf course and
common area shall be submitted to the District for a water
conservation analyses and review.
C. The draft should mention that preconstruction conferences shall
be coordinated with the District's Water Management Specialist
in order to maximize water conservation efforts.
D. Additionally, the draft should mention that a continuing effort
toward emphasizing water conservation and irrigation efficiency
shall include using the District's Water Management Specialist.
The applicant agrees to incorporate all of the Coachella Valley Water District water
conservation plans as listed above.
SIERRA CLUB -SAN GORGONIO CHAPTER
BILL HAVERT, CONSERVATION COORDINATOR
- 24. For purposes of analysis, Rancho La Quinta should be considered a
Category V project.
The Draft EIR discussed the land use designation extensively in section 4.4.5, and
the analysis indicates that the proposed project should not be considered a
Category V/Planned Community land use. The Planned Community Category is
intended for areas that are self-sufficient, whereas, Rancho La Quinta is expected to
rely upon outside areas for some commercial and the majority of employment and
public needs (i.e., schools and libraries). Furthermore, Category V land uses are
considered as new towns and communities, while the proposed project is an
extension of existing urban development. For this reason, and because the overall
density of the project lies within the acceptable range, Category U/Urban land use is
considered most appropriate for this project (see Section 4.4.2).
25. The EIR does not address impacts associated with the proposed
General Plan Amendment to delete the prime ag lands from their
Open Space designation. At a minimum, the EIR should propose
some rationale for deleting these lands from the Agriculture
designation, provide a detailed cumulative impact analysis of the loss
of ag land in the Coachella Valley and in Riverside County generally,
11
assess impacts to other ag lands in the area from the changes
wrought by this project, and analyze alternatives to amending the
Open Space and Conservation Map, including alternative project
sites.
Impacts regarding the loss of Prime Agricultural land as a result of the proposed
development, i.e., General Plan amendment, have been discussed in
Section 6.3.2. The project is an extension of existing urban development
(infrastructure is in place), which will offer increasing residential, commercial, and
recreational opportunities for the area and greater economic value to the County.
The document has stated that Rancho La Quinta would adversely affect prime
agricultural lands; however, over 40 percent of the site designated as prime
agricultural land is not currently being utilized for agricultural production. This also
is the scenario throughout the region, where large areas of undeveloped prime
agricultural lands occur. From a regional standpoint, project impact on prime
agricultural land will amount to about a 1 percent loss within the Coachella Valley.
The specific plan has been analyzed relative tc d e pmao .cras : sire to develop this
property. A number of alternatives to the proposed project were proposed,
including No Project/No Development, Existing Zoning, and Independent
Development Alternatives (see Section 11.3). As concluded, outside of the No
Project/No Development alternative, the proposed project would result in the least
environmental degradation over the long term.
26. The EIR does not adequately mitigate liquefaction hazards. The
promise of a future geotechnical investigation is not a mitigation
measure, but merely a statement that insufficient data exists to
evaluate the impacts. The necessary geotechnical investigation
should be performed prior to certification of any EIR. Failing that,
the current EIR should be viewed as a staged EIR and it should be
noted that a subsequent EIR would have to be prepared at a later
stage; i.e., after completion of geotechnical investigation and other
deferred studies.
Liquefaction hazards routinely can be mitigated through construction techniques
such as those listed in Section 6.2.3. When development plans are proposed, i.e.,
prior to tentative map apr.oval, a geotechnical investigation will be required and
reviewed for approval by County staff.
27. It is utterly inadequate to propose no mitigation measures for loss of
1140 acres of prime farmland. The loss of this agricultural land is
clearly a significant adverse impact for which the EIR must propose
12
mitigation measures, including, if necessary, consideration of
alternative project design or location, or other off-site mitigation
techniques, such as land -banking.
Loss of prime farmland from implementation of the proposed project is considered
an adverse, though not significant, impact. Proposed development represents a
continuation of existing urban development and represents positive economic
potential for the County. See also response No. 13, 17, 18.
The retention of other agricultural lands (i.e., prime agricultural land, Williamson
Act lands) are not the responsibility of the applicant but of the County of Riverside.
28. Mitigation measures ,proposed for wildlife/vegetation impacts are
inadequate. Replacement of mesquite thicket habitat on a 1:1 ratio is
insufficient to ensure that usable habitat is not lost. Adequate
surveys were not carried out for the flat -tailed horned lizard or for
Cryptarttha. Stating that surveys will be performed is not a
mitigation measure. The suggestion is made (page 6-54) that
mitigation for any impacts to the flat -tailed horned lizard could occur
via mitigation fee assessments; however, no such program exists.
Mesquite thickets are generally not considered significant except where they support
sensitive species. The Crissal thrasher, a sensitive bird species, was located in the
northeastern portion of the site. The Specific Plan proposes to retain this area in
natural open space and provide buffers from residential encroachment.
Replacement of the remainder of mesquite thickets on a 1 to 1 basis will be adequate
to mitigate potentially significant impacts to this habitat. Potential habitat for the
flat -tailed horned lizard and cryptantha is restricted to creosote bush scrub which is
located in the northwestern portion of the site. Prior to development plans being
finalized, spring surveys will determine the presence of these species in the creosote
bush scrub habitat. If the flat -tailed lizard is found on site and development plans
are found to conflict with the habitat, then contribution to the Coachella Valley
Fringe Toed Lizard HCP would permit the acquisition of suitable habitat. As to the
cryptantha, the presence of this species would only represent constraints to
development if found in large populations. Effective mitigation would then likely
include retention of all or a portion of the population(s) onsite. A portion of this
habitat is currently designated a public use and could effectively be retained in its
natural habitat.
13
U
2 9 . The archaeological resources section is inadequate as, once again, it
depends on future studies for developing mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures have been recommended for potentially significant
archaeological resources associated with the project site. Project design has
retained a potentially significant archaeological site (RIV-193) in park use (see
response No. 9). Future studies, prior to tentative map approval, would establish
specific measures to reduce identified significant impacts to acceptable levels.
30. The water resources section is inadequate as it does not substantively
address the impact on the local water table or indicate that water is
available into the future.
The Coachella Valley Water District has indicated that they can provide service to
the project site. The District has taken into consideration development plans for the
project site and no significant impacts were identified.
31. The cumulative impact analysis does not meet CEQA criteria as found
in the Guidelines, Section 15130, subd. (b). The analysis of
%;,—,-.,r.ulative impacts is much too general and vague.
The cumulative impact analysis centered on potentially significant impacts. Those
issues identified, i.e., for traffic, air quality, noise, water, solid waste, public
services, and prime agricultural land, are adequately discussed within Sections 6.0
and 7.0 of the document. Other issues addressed within the document were not
considered potentially significant cumulative impacts and, therefore, were not
discussed within the cumulative analysis.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
CHARLES R. WHITE, CHIEF, PLANNING BRANCH
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
32. Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of
Water Resources staff. Recommendations, as they relate to water
conservation and flood damage prevention, are attached.
After reviewing your report. we also would like to recommend that
you further consider implementing a comprehensive program to use
reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water
supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water supplies.
14
The proposed development will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
laws regarding water resource issues upon implementation of the project.
The project will incorporate a program for the utilization of adequately treated
wastewater, where available, for irrigation of landscaped areas, golf courses, and
man-made lakes and parks (see Section 7.2.1).
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
JUDY ROSS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
AVIATION DEPARTMENT
33. Upon review of the project location, the project does not fall within
Thermal Airport Land Use Plan as designated by the Riverside
County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Therefore, it need
not go before the ALUC for their review and determination.
Comment noted; no response necessary.
CITY OF COACHELLA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
34. The EIR
and Specific Plan seem to
be adequate, especially
considering
the size
of the project. However, the transportation
element is
lacking.
This is partly due
to current County road
standards
not being
coordinated with
the project needs. The
mitigation
measures
do not address
regional traffic impacts
sufficiently.
to 88 feet.
On page 7-16,
on the first
paragraph of Section 7.10.1, the regional
access problem
is briefly mentioned. Monroe
Street and Harrison
Street cannot be
expected to
handle the regional
access. Monroe and
Jackson both
are heavily
travelled now and
are bottlenecks at
Highway Ill.
Now, north
of Avenue 50, the
roads narrow down
from 110 feet
to 88 feet.
Highway 86 (Harrison Street) is heavily travelled now. It cannot be
expected to handle increased traffic in the next three years. After the
new Highway 86 is constructed some of this traffic will be
re-routed. Even then, the new Highway 86 will only be two lanes
wide (No mention was made of the new Highway 86 in the Specific
Plan).
These streets are all currently two -land roadways and do handle significant volumes
of traffic near Highway 111 (Monroe and Jackson handle approximately
7000 ADT and Highway 86 approximately 10,000 ADT south of Highway 111).
15
Q
However, much of the existing congestion is due to turning movements in and out
of commercial sites on Highway 111. The project's commercial areas will attract
some of this commercial traffic and will therefore reduce the turning movement
congestion in these areas (even though the project overall will add traffic to the
roadways).
The mitigation measures suggested for the project include a recommendation that
"Monroe Street just north of the project area should be improved to secondary
highway standards upon completion of the final phase of the project"
(Section 7.10.3). Regarding Harrison Street (Highway 86), there will be less
traffic on this two-lane facility in the future because a new Highway 86 which will
be a four -lane expressway/freeway facility and will be constructed in an alignment
east of the current alignment. Thus, project traffic will either use the two-lane
roadway with less traffic on it or the four -lane new facility to reach Highway 111
and Interstate 10 and both roadways should operate at acceptable levels of service.
The proposed Rancho Coachella Parkway will also facilitate traffic flow between
the project site and Highway 111 and Interstate 10.
35. Avenue 58 and Avenue 60 are expected to handle most of the east -
west traffic. This does not seem feasible. Avenue 58 does not
connect to Harrison Street and Avenue 60 will not connect to the
new Highway 86 (by way of an interchange).
The Specific Plan does not address the increased traffic demands
sufficiently. The mere overlay of the Riverside County General Plan
Circulation Map over the project site does not mitigate the impacts.
I respectfully request that the La Quinta City General Plan be
amended to include the roadways affected by the project, and that the
City of Coachella General Plan be consulted. The proposed Rancho
Coachella Parkway was designed to offset traffic and non-contiguous
land use impacts caused by this project.
Avenue 58 does intersect Harrison Street (Highway 86), and should accommodate
the expected after -project 8,640 ADT as a two -land roadway.
It is true that Avenue 60 is not planned to be an interchange on the future
Highway 86, but Avenue 62 (which has a lower classification than Avenue 60 on
the County Circulation Element) is planned as an interchange. In the future, if
Highway 86 is constructed as proposed, there may be more project traffic using
16
Avenue 62 than Avenue 60, since it will be able to access Highway 86 from
Avenue 62. If this is the case, Avenue 62 should be widened to four lanes from
the project to the future Highway 86 by completion of the project. The cost of this
improvement should be borne by the project and by any other developments
approved for the area between the project and the future Highway 86. If there is
no interchange at Avenue 62, then it is likely that it would not require widening,
but that Avenue 60 would need to be widened to four lanes between the project site
and Harrison Street (Highway 86).
36. Also, there is concern about the impacts on use of Lake Cahuilla
County Park. The park is the most heavily used park in Riverside
County. No mention was made as to the impacts on travel to or use
of the park. It would seem that these two heavily used uses would
impact each other.
The traffic study addresses weekday traffic, and not traffic expected to be generated
on weekends, which would likely be the time of heaviest use of the park. The
project would generate less traffic on weekends than on weekdays.
Since the park is located just north and west of the project, improvements to the
roadways providing access to the project will also improve access to the park.
37. Finally, the City of Coachella strongly feels that sufficient
discussion and evaluation be given to project impacts on:
A. Prime Farmland
B . Affordable Housing
C. All Services
D. Thermal Airport
E. Water Supply
Adequate analysis has been provided for prime farmland in Section 6.3, affordable
housing in Section 8.0, services in Section 7.0, Thermal Airport in Section 7.4,
and water supply in Section 7.2.
17
LETTERS OF COMMENTS
Rancho La Quinta
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
�
j/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. February 1, 1988
/�'"�ATTN: Ron Goldman ^ .,r,;-^, -.
FROM: H. R. LUCHS, Land Use Supervisor
13EIR NO. 232/SP218 - RANCHO LA QUINTA
o
Environmental Health Services has received and reviewed the
above development anticipated to be constructed over a
twenty year period and has the following comments:
WATER 8 SEWER:
The referenced documents advise that water supply and
sanitary sewer facilities to serve the project will be
provided by the Coachella Valley Water District. Existing
utility facilities need to be enlarged or added on or
expanded to meet system -demands. Total irrigation and
domestic water supply demands can be met per the documents.
JCS:tml
SOLID WASTE:
The EIR must calculate the amount of solid waste to be
generated daily or weekly for the proposed residential,
commercial and golf course development.
The EIR must address the impact and proper handling of the
construction waste generated during the development of the
project, i.e., amount of construction waste that will be
generated.
The EIR does not address waste collection. Are the streets
adequate and accessible for collection vehicles?
Solid waste bin enclosures should be addressed for the
commercial uses.
SLS:rz
HRL:tac
„ "Ron GoTdma-'Sunervi' int Pinner- January 29. 1988
r;i C.r;%rabpu�dy�,-_D,.eputy D i.rector
_ .
ansa• *Specific P1�anP�218� - R"ancho"La uinta
The Grad ing'"D O's i on-of'.-'Buildi,ng. and Safety has reviewed the above referenced
project-wTtn �egard?,tai�tMe fol'lowing items:
' ,,, .....
Seismic : Safety_ _
I11'ustr.ative Grading Concepts
Landform and. Topography
Slopes & Erosion
Wind -Eros.ion & Blow Sand
`.<Fl.00ding�and Water. Quality
-Mineral-,Resources
These item- have;,been 'adequately addressed. and we have -no: abj�ctions in -recommend
, '� �,.:.. Y , .• ry ...
i ng approval document,.
GEN.: FORMc4, 3/63
- ysw {� � � ..T1q .yam w • •y ' a ._ `
.. } � ��a �Lfi.•°`.�S..i7 4� ��-'Ip'^h '�. } ��'• + I' •'.�.`�.afi1�'�s,a, _ ...
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL LETTER
+:o- acc, UNTY ri COUNTY V
TY OF AIV'Eg'SIDE
R/V6RSlAB�:.. �.
PFC:10047DO
TO: Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner p g e DEC 231987
FROM: Paul Clark, Supervising Planner e✓
RIVEHSIDL 6UONTY
DATE: December 22, 1987 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: Comments on Rancho La Quinta (SP 218)
I have reviewed portions of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan No. 218 documents.
Several areas of the planned development should be redesigned to provide additional
buffering of adjacent agricultural and county park lands. Also several on-site
biological and archaeological issues addressed within the technical appendices do
n,Dt appear to be dealt with as part of the specific plan development, design and
land use elements.
BIOLOGICAL
The specific plan technical appendices contain a fairly detailed biological
assessment. The assessment findings are depicted in Figure 3 (page 6). Approx-
imately 31 acres of mesquite thicket habitat was identified in the northeasterly
corner of the project. The biological co-nsultant noted "loss -of all mesquite
habitat on site will be considered a significant impact" (page 23). The consultant
recommended that development be prohibited within the existing mesquite habitat to
the greatest extent possible. Specifically, a minimum six (6) acre natural open
space park with adjacent interpretative facilities was proposed to be established.
The total park acreage was recommended to be about nine (9) acres (page 24). Other
recommendations were made for appropriate buffering of this area such as 70-100
foot road and building setbacks and further biological surveys (page 25). A
second portion of the biological recommendations was for replacement of mesquite
habitat elsewhere in the project within the specific plan golf courses and other
landscaping. The proposal for replacement of mesquite habitat assumes a very high
profile within the specific plan design, not the proposed nine (9) acre natural
open space park as recommended. Figure 3.1-1 of the specific plan indicates "Low
Density Residential" and "Golf Course" within Planning Area 3 rather than "Public
Use;" "Public Use" is defined on page 3-3 as park, school, open space. Given the
biological recommendations within the technical appendices, I request that the
specific plan text and maps be redrawn to address this conflict.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
The technical appendices indicate important cultural resources exist on the project.
In particular, a rock art site lies adjacent to the project's most westerly boundary.
Provisions for conveyance of land to protect this site should be included in the
l
Ron Goldman
December 22, 1987
Page 2
specific plan. As the rock art site is adjacent to the County Regional Park,
Lake Cahuilla, this area could be attached to that agency's land. Golf course
rather than the proposed residential, as shown on Figure 3.1-1, should be placed
adjacent to the project's westerly boundary to better buffer archaeological and
county park uses and resources. I suggest that the specific plan be conditioned
to require "site specific" archaeological reports prior to approval of any sub-
divisions, plot plans or other permits, including having an archaeologist review
preliminary and final plans for development.
ADJACENT LAND USE
As I mentioned above, the'Lake Cahuilla County Regional Park is adjacent to the
project's westerly boundary. Rather than a strip of residential (Medium Density),
a golf course or other open space feature is more appropriate. Also, when PGA
West was approved by the City of La Quinta, Landmark agreed to place a golf course
adjacent to Lake Cahuilla. Planning Area 1 should be rethought with this in mind.
The anticipated land uses to the south and east of the specific plan will likely
remain light agriculture or rural residential, including increasingly an estate
horse ranch lifestyle. Tentative Tract 22676 northerly of Avenue 61 and southerly
of Avenue 60 proposes eight lots on An acres adiacent to Rancho La Quinta and
reflects this land use trend (see attached exhibit). It makes no sense to approve
a specific plan for "medium" density urban development adjacent to horse ranches!
The specific plan should be redesigned to place "very low density," one acre lots,
or golf course and other open space in these areas!
SCALE OF TEXT MAP
Please have each Planning Area mapped within the to%t at better, more detailed
scale. The summary of uses in Tables 3.1-2 through 3.1-1 should be tied to specific
Planning Area maps.
Should you or the specific plan consultant have any questions about my comments,
please feel free to contact me at (619) 342-8277.
cc: C. J. Crotinger
Joe Richards
State of California
Memorandum
To 'Mr. John Keene Dare January 21, 1988
State Clearinghouse
Office of Plannina and Research PlOCe Sacramento
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, California 95814
From D"rtrrrent of Food and Agriculture. -1220 N Street, Room 104
Sacramento,' -CA 95814
Subj"i : SCH No. 87071302 --Rancho LaQuinta Specific Plan
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
above referenced project and has the following comments and
recommendation.
The project proposes to develop 1,251 acres for a Planned Com-
munity. Development will convert 1,140 acres of prime farmland,
of which 920 acres are designated for agricultural use in the
County General Flan and 710 acres are currently in agricultural
production. Agricultural activities include date, citrus, and
alfalfa production. Three parcels, totaling 68 acres, are under
Willaimson Act contracts; notices of non-renewel were filed in
November 1987. Land surrounding the site is in agricultural
production.
Project development is in conflict with the General Plan standard
to protect productive agricultural lands. The project is also
inconsistant with the Lower Coachella Valley Land Use Planning
Area which states, "This area should remain primarily agricul-
tural in nature . . . open space and conservation land uses, such
as agriculture, should remain the predominaht land use outside
the cities' spheres of influence." The DEIR states that approxi-
mately 560 acres of the project are located within the City of
LaQuinta's sphere of influence. This land is designated as Open
Space on the La Quinta'General Plan; the Plan policy encourages
the maintenance of existing agriculture as long as possible as a
means of interim open space.
Population growth in the Lower Coachella Valley Planning Area is
anticipated to be 60 percent. As stated in the DEIR, the major-
ity of this growth is expected to occur in the urban areas of
Indio and Coachella. Approval of the Rancho LaQuinta Specific
Plan will represent 21 percent of this anticipated growth. The
project is considered growth inducing and may encourage urban
development on surrounding agricultural properties.
SURNAME
SO -1045
Mr. John Keene
Page 2
January , 1988
The DEIR does not discuss the need for a project of this scale on
land that is not planned for urban development. The alternatives
do not discuss the possibilty of a smaller scale development
on land that is within the sphere of influence of the city of
LaQuinta.
Since this project will convert 710 acres of productive, prime
agricultural land, is inconsistent with the Riverside County
General Plan and Lower Coachella Land Use Planning Area policy,
and is considered growth inducing, the CDFA recommends the No
Project Alternative.
The CDFA recognizes the reality of California's growing popula-
tion and the concomitant need for additional residential develop-
ment, but we are especially concerned, about the tate at which
farmland is being converted to urban uses. We are also concerned
about projects such as this which are a serious deviation from
existing plans and policies. The CDFA encourages Riverside
County to direct growth towards urban areas and away from prime
agricultural land. The purpose of these comments is to register
the Department's concern. Ultimate decisions regarding the
project are of local concern and rest with local agencies.
Martha Neuman
Research Assistant
(916) 322-5227
State of California
Memorandum
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
Assistant Secretary for Resources
Mr. Ron Goldman
Riverside County Planning Depa
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92501
From . Department of a of the
THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORN
Date : JAN 15.1988
Subject: Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR;
for Rancho La Quintz
.3 Specific Plan
RECEIVED SCH# 87071302
JAN 2 6 '988 ►
ASS Ah4CE
The Department of Conservation h'he County of
Riverside's Specific Plan, referen der The Department is
responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statewide
basis and also administers the California Land Conservation
(Williamson) Act. Because the proposal involves the loss of
valuable farmland and the termination of Williamson Act
contracts, the Department offers the following comments.
The proposal calls for the development of 1251 acres of
agricultural land for two eighteen -hole golf courses, and
residential and commercial development. Prime agricultural land
exists on over 90% of the site (1140 acres). About 68 acres of
the project site, involving three parcels, are under Williamson
Act contract. A notice of non -renewal was filed and recorded in
November, 1987.
The Department is disturbed by the increasing loss of agri-
cultural land, especially prime farmland, which is occurring
statewide. The California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) summarized Riverside County development projects that they
have reviewed during the last year: These projects represent
over 11,170 acres of farmland conversion. As part of a trend
that 'a recent American Farmland Trust study has quantified as
occurring at a rate of 44,000 acres annually, the farmland
conversion proposed by this project represents a significant
cumulative impact.
The Department is also concerned about the growth -inducing
impacts of the project. Page 6-17 of the DEIR describes the
project site as being surrounded by agricultural land uses on
virtually all sides. Thus, the potential for induced conversion
of farmland posed by this project is great.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should identify and
treat the loss of prime agricultural land as a significant
environmental impact (see California Administrative Code Section
15000 et seq., Appendix G (y)). In doing this, the FEIR should
provide information on the number of acres of agricultural land
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
Mr. Ron Goldman
Page Two
to be developed, the potential agricultural value of the site, the
farmland conversion impacts, and mitigation actions to be taken.
We recommend that the Rancho La Quinta FEIR contain the following
information to better assess these impacts of the Specific Plan on
the farmland resource.
- A map which identifies the location of agricultural preserves in
the planning area, the number of acres and type of land in each
preserve, (i.e., prime/non-prime).
- The economic impacts of the farmland conversion. (In assessing
these impacts, use could be made of economic multipliers, such a
those developed in the University of California Cooperative
Extension's study, "Economic Impacts of Agricultural Production
and Processing in Stanislaus County.")
The DEIR considers "No mitigation (measures) for the loss of
1140 acres of Prime Farmland..." (p. 6-19). While buffering between
the project development and adjacent agricultural uses will be
provided to ameliorate land use conflicts, we recommend that
mitigation measures and alternatives be proposed in the FEIR to
1-sse..n the farmland conversion impacts of the project. Scme cf the
possibilities are:
- Direct urban growth onto lower quality soils in order to protec._
prime agricultural land.
- Protect other, existing farmland of equivalent, or better,
quality through the use of Williamson Act contracts.
- Establish buffers such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts and open
space areas to separate farmland from urban uses. (Although
buffering is mentioned, no details are given.)
- Implement right -to -farm ordinances to diminish nuisance impacts
of urban uses on neighboring agricultural operations, and
vice -versa.
Also, farmland trusts, which have been established by other counties
such as the Santa Barbara Farmland Trust, can be used effectively to
preserve agricultural land, and should be considered in the analysis
of mitigation alternatives.
A notice of non -renewal has been filed for approximately 68 acres
which are currently under Williamson Act contract. However, page
6-19 of the DEIR includes the caveat that, "if development occurs
prior to the expiration of the contract, then a petition for
cancellation of the contract and payment of any associated fees woulc
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
Mr. Ron Goldman
Page Three
be required." If application for cancellation of the contract
occurs, specific findings, identified in Secciu:. 501";1 of the
Government Code, will need to be made by the local government, and
substantial cancellation penalty fees paid by the landowner(s),
before action can be certified. Specifically for the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors to grant tentative cancellation, it must
make one of the following findings: (1) that the cancellation is
consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act; or (2) that
cancellation is in the public interest. (Additional required
findings that must be made before a cancellation can proceed, are
spelled out in associated sections of the Government Code.)
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.
We hope that the farmland conversion impacts and the Williamson Act
contract issues are given adequate consideration in the FEIR. If I
can be of further assistance, please feel free to call me at
('916) 322-5873.
Dennis J. O"Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
0534H
cc: Stephen Oliva, Chief
Office of Land Conservation
ATr;,q
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
bISTRtC
COACHELLM VALLEY TVM 1 K D STRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN POWELL KEITHM AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRIL.L, ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
January 28, 1988
"04.21.2
JQ6 5.3
'= 1988
Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner
Riverside County Planning Department RIVERSIDIIE COUNTY
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Riverside, California 92501
Dear Mr. Goldman:
Subject: Draft EIR No. 232, Rancho La Quinta
SDecif.ic Plan No. 218
We have reviewed subject plan and offer the following comments:
1. Page 7-4: The plan does not address the impacts that the project will have
on local groundwater supplies. Water demand is discussed and the Coachella
Valley Water District's (District) physical facilities, however, prior to
serving water, the impacts upon groundwater sources must be considered. The
project should recognize the District's Water Conservation plans and water
supply recharge activities that are being developed to provide source supplies
to the project.
A. Specifically, the project shall utilize the existing Coachella Canal
for golf course and common area irrigation in order to mitigate impacts to
groundwater.
B. Landscape and irrigation plans for both the golf course and common
area shall be submitted to the District for a water conservation analyses
and review,
C. The draft should mention that preconstruction conferences shall be
coordinated with the District's Water Management Specialist in order to
maximize water conservation efforts.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
11
Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner -2- January 28, 1988
D. Additionally, the draft should mention that a continuing effort toward
emphasizing water conservation and irrigation efficiency shall include
using the District's Water Management Specialist.
If you have any questions please contact Warren Norried, Water Resources
Engineer.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
WAN: lmf
'Phis page intentionally left blank