A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
Hydrologic Conditions
Watershed
The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Planning Area of the Colorado River Basin (Region 7). Region 7 covers approximately 13,000,000 acres (20,000 square miles) in the southeastern portion of California, and includes all of Imperial County and portions of San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. It is bounded on the east by the Colorado River; to the south by Mexico; to the west by the Laguna, San Jacinto, and San Bernardino Mountains; and to the north by the New York, Providence, Granite, Old Dad, Bristol, Rodman, and Ord Mountain Ranges. 1 The Co achella Valley Planning Area consists of the Whitewater River Watershed and East Salton Sea Watershed, with the Project Site located within the Whitewater River Watershed. The Whitewater River Watershed covers 1,920 square miles in the west central portion of Region 7 and includes the majority of Riverside County and a small portion of southern San Bernardino County 2. The watershed consists mainly of sparsely populated mountains, desert, and agricultural lands. The watershed is bounded on the south by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains, on the west by the Santa Ana Watershed, on the east by the Salton Sea, the Hexie and Cottonwood Mountains, and Southern Mojave Watershed, and on the north east by the little San Bernardino Mountains and Southern Mojave Watershed. The highest elevation (upper reaches) of the watershed occur in the San Jacinto Mountains at 10,000 feet above
1 State Water Resources Control Board, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan:
Colorado River Basin—Region 7, (June 2006) 1-6.
2 Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRB RWQCB), (2006) 1-11. 12-552
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
mean sea level, while the Salton Sea at 230 feet below mean sea level forms the lowest elevation of the watershed.3
Regional Drainage
The Whitewater River, a channelized river, is the major surface drainage watercourse in the Coachella Valley. The Whitewater River also has a constructed downstream extension known as the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, which serves as a drainage way for irrigation return flows, treated community wastewater, and storm runoff .
4 The stormwater facilities operated and maintained by
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) include the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel, Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, West and East side dike systems, fifteen Cove Community channels from Rancho Mirage to La Quinta, Cove Community basins, Lower Valley stormwater channels in the agricultural areas, and detention channels that drain water impounded behind the dikes . 5 The
Whitewater River is typically a desert dry wash, flowing only in periods of intense rain.
The CVWD is the local jurisdiction, which operates and maintains multiple stormwater protection facilities in the region with a combined length of 135 miles. 6 CVWD delivers irrigation and domestic (drinking) water, collects and recycles wastewater, provides regional stormwater protection, replenishes the groundwater basin and promotes water conservation. Additionally, CVWD is involved with regional stormwater and flood p rotection, including planning, maintenance and construction of drainage improvements for regional flood control facilities, as well as watershed and watercourse protection related to these facilities.
The CVWD has conducted master studies to determine pot ential flooding hazards within their service boundaries. The master plan studies for the North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms areas indicate existing flood hazards from the sources in the Morongo Was Watershed, which consists of Morongo Wash, Long Canyon, East and West Wide Canyon and Willow Hole. 7 Floodwaters from these watersheds
coalesce along the valley bottom and flow southeast along the Interstate 10 (I-10) corridor.
The regional stormwater facilities that have been built in the area, and further southeast, consist of the flood channels or “greenbelts” built in the Classic Club Golf Course, Sun City Palm Desert, and Sun City
3 CRWQCB, (2006) 1-7.
4 CRWQCB, 2006.
5 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), “About CVWD and Stormwater Protection and Flood Control,” www.cvwd.org/about/stormwater.php. Accessed May 27, 2014. 6 CVWD, “About CVWD and Stormwater Protection and Flood Control,” www.cvwd.org/about/stormwater.php. Accessed May 27, 2014.
7 CVWD, North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan, Morongo Wash Watershed Hydrology and Hydraulics, April 25, 2014.
12-553
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Shadow Hills. CVWD is currently undertaking several projects to connect the existing regional facilities.
One project will design flood conveyance channels in North Indio that would connect the Sun City Palm Desert facilities to the Sun City Shadow Hills ones and then to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel.
Another project would complete of the design of the Thousand Palms Flood Control Project that was originally developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Thousand Palms Flood Control Project would collect stormwater from the Thousand Palms Watershed by intercepting flood flows with a series of levees on the fans uphill from community of Thousand Palms and conveying them through the Classic Club Golf Course and a new channel to Sun City Palm Desert.
CVWD is planning facilities to manage floodwaters from the Morongo Wash Watershed and the riverine flows under the assumption that the other regional projects are in place or complete. These facilities would likely either convey the riverine flows to the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel near Palms Springs or to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel through the regional facilities that are in the process of being designed, as described in the preceding paragraph. 8 Local Drainage
The Whitewater River is located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the Project Site. Water flows northwest to southeast through the City of Rancho Mirage (“ City”) and eventually empties into the Salton Sea. The Whitewater River has an intricate drainage network of several inte rmittent, north - flowing streams that drain the Santa Rosa Mountains and empty into the Whitewater River. T he two largest tributaries of the Whitewater River are Bradley and Magnesia Spring Canyon streams. Several unnamed smaller streams and drainages also feed these two streams. In the urbanized parts of the area, streams have been modified and are now mostly confined to open channels, culverts, and storm drains ; however, for most of their length, they remain natural and unmodified.
According to the Master Drainage Plan for the City, there are three local watershed zones (1, 2, and 3) within a 5.4 square mile area of the City. The Project Site is located within Zone 2 (1,645 acres) of the City’s Master Drainage Plan. This Zone has the greatest amount of undeveloped land and is divided by the Palm Springs Ridge Line. In general, the area north of the ridgeline drains toward I-10 and the area south of the Palm Springs Ridge Line drains towards the Whitewater River. System deficiencies include the need to imple ment several regional drainage improvements to collect runoff in this zone ( e.g., the proposed Mid -Valley Channel and a new culvert through the new Monterey Drive Interchange embankment at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR/I-10 crossing).
8 CVWD, North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan, Morongo Wash Watershed Hydrology and Hydraulics, (April 25, 2014) 1.
12-554
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Project Site
Topographically, the Project Site generally slopes downward to the northeast and southwest. Surface elevations range from approximately 350 feet to 250 feet above mean sea level, with the highest points located in the south - and west -central portions of th e Project Site. Based on surface topography, drainage across the Project Site is generally from the center of the Project Site to the north towards Ramon Road and to the south towards Dinah Shore Drive via sheet flow flowing natural drainage courses. The r unoff drains into the local storm drain system along Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map Number’s 06065C1585G and 06065C1595G, effective since August 28, 200 8, the Project Site is not in a designated 100 -year flood hazard area.
9 The nearest 100-year flood zone is located approximately
0.5 miles north of the I-10, and is designated as AO (100-year risk of flooding one to two feet deep).
A small portion of the northeast portion of the Project Site is within the floodplain limits of the Morongo Wash Watershed, as shown in Figure 5.8-1, Existing 100-Year Flood Hazard Areas.
Water Resources
The principal water sources of the Coachella Valley are local groundwater, recycled water, and imported water either through the State Water Project (SWP) or from the Colorado River via the Coachella Canal, a branch of the All-American Canal.
10 Although Colorado River water and SWP water are percolated into the groundwater supply, and are ultimately used through groundwater pumping, they are considered separate sources of water for CVWD. Local surface water is also present in the Coachella Valley in the form of streams; however, CVWD does not derive any of its direct supply from surface water.
Additionally, average precipitation in this arid region is only 3 to 6 inches per year and does not directly provide significant additional water supplies because most of the precipitation evaporates or is consumed by the native vegetation. However, the aquifers are recharged by precipitation and runoff from the local mountains.
CVWD currently has approximately 10 6,000 domestic water connections and has a groundwater production capacity of 240 million gallons per day. Areas served with domestic water by CVWD include a portion of lands near Desert Hot Springs, the Indio Hills area, and a portion of Cathedral City. CVWD serves all of Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and a portion
9 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County California, Panel 1585 of 3805, Map Number 06065C1585G and 06065C1595G, August 28, 2008.
10 CVWD, 2014. http://www.cvwd.org/about/wherewater.php. 12-555
Existing 100-Year Flood Hazard Areas
FIGURE 5.8-1
SOURCE: CVWD, North Coachella Valley Stormwater Master Plan - 2013; Google Earth - 2014 044-001-13
NOT TO SCALEN
Legend:
Project Site
12-556
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
of Indio and Coachella. CVWD also serves other rural communities, including Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Desert Shores, Salton Sea Beach, Salton City, North Shore, Bombay Beach, and Hot Mineral Springs, and other portions of unincorporated Riverside County.
Groundwater
Groundwater Supplies
Development throughout the Coachella Valley has been dependent on groundwater as a source of supply. The demand for groundwater has annually exceeded th e limited natural recharge of the groundwater basin. Therefore, imported water is used to recharge the aquifer and reduce groundwater overdraft. Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 108 is the most current bulletin published by DWR that characteriz es the condition of the aquifer as a whole. 11 In Bulletin 108, DWR notes that the
amount of usable supply in the over -drafted aquifer is decreasing. The annual overdraft for the Coachella Valley is estimated to be approximately 62,500 acre-feet per year, with a cumulative overdraft of 5.1 million acre -feet from 1964 through 2006. 12 The average rise in water levels observed in monitored wells in the West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit from 2012 to 2013 was 1.1 feet.
13 Please refer to the discussion u nder Public Water Supply, in Section 5.15.1, Utilities and Service Systems: Water Service, of this EIS for additional information on groundwater supply and overdraft mitigation efforts.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater is the main source of domestic water s upply for residents and businesses within CVWD’s service area. Water quality and the character of groundwater are determined by a number of factors including: mineral content of sediments, recharge and drainage patterns, stormwater infiltration, historic land use practices, and casing screening intervals and depths of wells sampled.
As required by the California Safe Drinking Water Act, public water suppliers are required to provide annual Water Quality Reports to its customers (also known as Consumer Confidence Reports). This mandate is governed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA ) and the California Department of Health Services to inform customers of their drinking water quality. In accordance with
11 California Department of Water Resources, Coachella Valley Investigation; Bulletin 108, (July 1964). 12 Engineer's Reports on Water Supply and Replenishment Asse ssment 2014/2015, prepared by the Coachella Valley Water District, (April 2014).
13 Coachella Valley Water District, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2040-2015. Coachella, California. (April 2014). 14. 12-557
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the public wate r supplier monitors regulated and unregulated compounds in its water supply. CVWD analyzes more than 22,000 water samples annually to ensure that domestic water meets State and federal standards. Every year, CVWD is required to analyze a select number of these samples for more than 100 regulated and unregulated substances.14 Surface Water Quality
As previously stated, the Project Site is within Region 7. Regional drainage of this area is via the Whitewater River, which flows northwest to southeast and passes approximately three miles south of the Project Site. The Project would indirectly discharge into these receiving waters. The benefic ial uses of the downstream receiving waters (Whitewater River, Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel, and Salton Sea) of the P roject include but are not limited to agriculture supply, water- contact recreation, and warm fresh water habitat.
The Colorado Rive r Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board ( Colorado River Basin RWQCB) is charged by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act with the protection of water quality for waters within the region. Colorado River Basin RWQCB is also responsible for imple menting provisions and pollution control requirements that the federal Clean Water Act specifies for surface waters of the United States. The Colorado River Basin RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan identifies all waters in the region and establishes water quality standards (WQSs) for those waters. WQSs consist of limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics that are established for the reasonable protection of the beneficial uses of a water body.
15 The Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel is listed as an impaired water body for pathogens (bacteria and viruses). The sources of the pollutants/stressors for the Coachella Valley Storm Water Channel are unknown. The Salon Sea is also listed as an impaired water body for nutrients, salinity, and selenium.
The sources of pollutants/stressors for the Salton Sea include major industrial point source, agricultural return flows, out-of-state source, and point source.
16 In 2010, the Colorado River Basin RWQCB prepared and amended the Basin Plan for bacteria indicators of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. The plan was subsequently sent to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for review and approval in 2011. 17 14 CVWD, Annual Review and Water Quality Report, 2014. 15 Colorado River Basin RWQCB, 2009.
16 RQWCB, 2007.
17 State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution No. 2011-0060, December 2011. 12-558
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
2. Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) 18 is intended to restore and maintain the cleanliness of the nation’s bodies of water in order to achieve a level of water quality that provides for recreation in and on the water and for the propagation of fish and wildlife. Section 208 of the CWA and the requirements of the Code of Federal Regulations require local water management plans. Preparation of these water management plans is delegated to individual states by the US EPA, which is charged with implementing the CWA.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. 19 “Waters of the United
States” are defined in USACE regulations such that navigable waters of the United States are those that are navigable in the traditional sense.
20 “Waters of the United States” is a broader term than “navigable waters of the United States” and includes adjacent wetlands and tributaries to navigable waters of the United States and other waters, the degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce.
The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. The water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a pro gram created to implement the Clean Water Act. In November 1990, the US EPA published final regulations that establish requirements for specific categories of industries, including construction projects that encompass greater than or equal to 5 acres of land. The Phase II Rule became final in December 1999, expanding regulated construction sites to those greater than or equal to 1 acre. The regulations require that stormwater and non-stormwater runoff associated with construction activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4), must be regulated by an NPDES permit.
18 U.S. Code, Title 33, sec. 1251–1387.
19 U.S. Code, Title 33, sec. 1344.
20 U.S. Code, Title 33, Part 328.3, “Definitions.”
12-559
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The USEPA has delegated management of California’s NPDES program to t he SWRCB and the nine regional board offices that grant permits to regulate point source discharges of industrial and municipal wastewater into the waters of the United States. The NPDES program was established in 1972 to regulate the quality of effluent discharged from easily detected point sources of po llution such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial discharges. The 1987 amendments to the CWA21 recognized the need to address non-point-source stormwater runoff pollution and expanded the NPDES program to operators of MS4s, construction projects, and industrial facilities.
The State of California is required by Section 303(d) of the CWA 22 to provide the USEPA with a list of water bodies considered by the State to be impaired (i.e., not meeting water quality standards and not supporting their beneficial uses). The list also identifies the pollutant or stressor causing impairment, and establishes a schedule for developing a control plan to address the impairment, typically a total maximum daily load (TMDL). The TMDL specifies the amount of the target pollutant that the water body can sustain on a daily or annual basis and is established by amending the water quality control plan.
TMDLs are prepared by the RWQCBs a nd result in amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP), which must be approved by the USEPA. The 303(d) list is used by the USEPA to prepare the biennial federal CWA Section 305(b) Report on Water Quality.
The Project Site is located within the 1 3-million-acre Colorado River Basin, which is governed by the Colorado River Basin RWQCB, also known as Region 7. The SWRCB administers the NPDES permit program regulating stormwater from construction activities for projects greater than 1 acre in size. Th is is known as the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, Order No. 2009 -0009-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2012 -0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 . The main compliance requirement of NPDES permits is the development a nd implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of a SWPPP is to identify potential on -site pollutants and identify and implement appropriate stormwater pollution prevention measures to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges.
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction and grading, as well as post -construction BMPs will be outlined in the SWPPP prepared for the proposed P roject consistent with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) Ordinance controlling pollutant discharges into the waters of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”).
21 US Code of Regulations, Title 33, Section 402(p), Clean Water Act, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Discharges, (2008). 22 US Code, Title 33, Section 303(d), Clean Water Act, Water Quality Standard and Implementation Plans, (1972). 12-560
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
In 2011, the Tribe received an exemption from NPDES Permit requirements from the USEPA because those portions of the Reservation under Tribal jurisdiction (i.e. areas outside of the Land Use Agreements) do not qualify for maintaining permit coverage.
USEPA Toxics Rule
The USEPA has developed water quality cri teria for priority toxic pollutants and other provisions for water quality standards to be applied to inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries in the State of California. 23 The rule includes ambient aquatic life criteria for 23 priority toxic pollutants, ambient human health criteria for 57 priority toxics, and a compliance schedule.
State
California Porter-Cologne Act
The California Porter- Cologne Act of 1970 24 is largely re sponsible for creating the State’s extensive regulatory program for water pollution control. As discussed previously, preparation of water quality control plans has been delegated to the individual states by the US EPA. Pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Act, t he responsibility for protection of water quality in California rests with the SWRCB. In turn, the SWRCB has delegated the regulation of the hydrologic basin to nine RWQCBs to regulate the nine hydrologic basins in the State. The Porter -Cologne Act gives t he SWRCB and RWQCB broad powers to protect water quality by regulating waste discharges to water and land and by requiring cleanup of hazardous conditions.
California Water Quality Control Board
The SWRCB administers the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit Order 2009 -0009-DWQ). 25 Construction activity
subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The General Construction Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain a site map which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and
23 US Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Standards, Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California, May 18, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA -WATER/2000/May/ Day- 18/w11106.htm
24 California Water Code, Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act, sec. 13000-14958. 25 California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, General Construction Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ.
12-561
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs) the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and the placement of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non- visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Project Site is located within the 13 -million-acre Colorado River Basin, which is governed by the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), also known as Region 7. The Colorado River Basin RWQCB has adopted a Water Quality Control Plan 26 (Basin Plan) in accordance
with criteria contained in the CWA, California Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and other pertinent State and federal rules and regulations. The intent of the Basin Plan is to provide definitive guidelines and give direction to the scope of Colorado River Basin RWQCB activities that will optimize the beneficial uses of the State waters within the Colorado River Basin by preserving and protecting the quality of these waters. The intended beneficial use of water determines the water quality objectives.
For example, drinking water must be of higher quality than the water used to irrigate pastures. Both of these are benef icial water uses, but the quality requirements for irrigation water are different from those for drinking water.
The SWRCB administers the NPDES permit program regulating stormwater from construction activities for projects greater than 1 acre in size. This is known as the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities, Order No. 99 -08-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002. The main compliance requirement of NPDES permits is the development and implementation of a Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The purpose of a SWPPP is to identify potential on -site pollutants and identify and implement appropriate stormwater pollution prevention measures to reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface water from stormwater and non- stormwater discharges.
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction and grading, as well as post-construction BMPs, will be outlined in the SWPPP prepared for the proposed Project.
The Colorado River Basin RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements for appropriate persons and groups; these can include individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges may affect water quality. These requirements can be either Sta te Waste Discharge Requirements for discharge to land, or federally delegated NPDES permits for
26 Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan, June 2006. 12-562
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
discharges to surface water. Dischargers are required to meet water quality objectives and, thus, protect beneficial uses.
Senate Bill 1557
Senate Bill (SB) 155 727 was signed into law on September 29, 2006 , and became effective January 1, 2007. The bill prohibits the use of potable water for non- potable purposes when non- potable water is available within the jurisdictional boundaries of the CVWD. The intent of the legislation is to preserve potable water within the Coachella Valley because potable water is supplied primarily by groundwater from the Coachella Valley groundwater basin, which is currently in a state of overdraft.
Cobey-Alquist Flood Control Act
The Co bey-Alquist Flood Control Act 28 states that a large portion of land resources of the State of California is subject to recurrent flooding. The public interest necessitates sound development of land use, as land is a limited, valuable, and irreplaceable reso urce, and the floodplains of the State are a land resource to be developed in a manner that, in conjunction with economically justified structural measures for flood control, will prevent loss of life and economic loss caused by excessive flooding. Th e primary responsibility for planning, adoption, and enforcement of land use regulations to accomplish floodplain management rests with local levels of government. It is State of California policy to encourage local levels of government to plan land use regulations to accomplish floodplain management and to provide State assistance and guidance.
California Drainage Law
California Drainage Law is essentially case law. As such, it is complex, but the courts have established the following general principles, which apply in general to development projects:
• The downstream property owner is obligated to accept and make provision for those waters that are the natural flow from the land above.
• The upstream property owner shall not concentrate water where it was not concentrated before without making proper provision for its disposal without damage to the downstream property owner.
• The upstream property owner may reasonably increase drainage runoff by paving or construction of other impervious surfaces, including buildings without liability. The upstream property owner may not further increase drainage runoff by diversion of water that previously drained to another area.
Reasonableness is often based on prevailing standards of practice in the community or region.
27 Government Code Section 65041.1, Senate Bill No. 1557 28 California Water Code, Cobey-Alquist Flood Plain Management Act, (1965 as amended), Sec. 8400-8401. 12-563
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-13 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• No property owner shall block, or permit to be blocked, any drainage channel, ditch, or pipe. No property owner shall divert drainage water without properly providing for its disposal.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Manage ment Planning Act 29 (UWMPA) requires urban water suppliers that provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or more than 3,000 acre -feet per year of water, to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The intent of the UWMP is to assist water supply agencies in water resource planning given their existing and anticipated future demands.
The UWMP must include a water supply and demand assessment comparing total water supply available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over a 20 -year period. It is also mandatory that the management plans be updated every five years.
Government Code 65302
Government Code Section 65302(a) requires cities and counties located within the State to review the Land Use, Conservation, And Safety elements of the general plan “for the consideration of flood hazards, flooding, and floodplains” to address flood risks. 30 Any amendment to the Land Use, Conservation, Or Safety elements requires a review of other general plan elements for internal consistency, including the Housing Element.
The code also requires cities and counties in the State to annually review the land use element within “those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by floodplain mapping p repared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources.” FEMA’s floodplain mapping includes:
• Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)
• Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM)
DWR’s floodplain mapping includes:
• Awareness Floodplain Maps
• Best Available Mapping (BAM)
• Levee Flood Protection Zones (LFPZ) Maps
• Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation (CVFED) Maps
29 Department of Water Resources, Urban Water Management Planning Act, Water Code Sec. 10610–10656. 30 California Government Code, Sec. 65300-65303.4, Authority and Scope of General Plans. 12-564
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-14 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Additionally, the location and designation of land uses in a general plan Conservation Element now “need to consider the identification of land and natural resources” that are used “for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management.”
Regional and Local
Riverside County Municipal Code
Stormwater Drainage System Protection Regulations includes a series of regulations intended to protect and enhance the water quality of county water courses, water bodies, groundwater, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the CWA, California Porter-Cologne Act, and any associated State or federal regulations, administrative orders or permits. 31 Tentative Tract Maps require that the proposed method of control of stormwater, including data on the amount of runoff and the approximate grade and dimensio n of the proposed facilities, be included on a proposed tentative tract map.32
Tract Drainage includes several regulations pertaining to flood control facilities within new development projects. These regulations require that proposed drainage facilities be designed to convey flows associated with a 100-year storm event.33
Riverside County NPDES Permit
Riverside County has been issued NPDES Permit No. CAS 618033 for stormwater runoff by the Colorado River Basin RWQCB. Riverside County and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District are principal permittees and the CVWD along with 10 nearby cities are listed as co -permittees.
On June 7 , 2013, the renewal of Board Order No. R8 -2013-0024 and NPDES No. CAS 618033 was certified by the Executi ve Officer of the Colorado River Basin RWQCB to supersede Order No. R8 -2010- 0033.34
Whitewater River Region Stormwater Management Plan
The County of Riverside; the CVWD; the Cities of Banning, Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage ; and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (permittees) developed the White Water River Region
31 Riverside County, Municipal Code, Sec. 13.12, “Stormwater Drainage System Protection Regulations.” 32 Ibid., Sec. 16.12.060 (B)(1), “Tentative Tract Maps.” 33 Ibid., Sec. 16.36.100, “Tract Drainage.”
34 California Regional Water Quality Control Board —Colorado River Basin Region, Order No. R8-2010 -0033 and NPDES No.
CAS 618033, 2013.
12-565
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-15 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) to address stormwater pollution from new development and redevelopment by the private sector with the region. The SWMP describes those activities and programs implemented by the permittees to manage urban runoff to comply with the requirements of the NPDES MS4 permit (Order No. R7 -2013-0011) for the Whitewater River Region. One of the major elements of the SWMP is a Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Some of the permittees with land use authority, including the City, have adopted such an ordinance as well as ordinances addressing grading and erosion control (collectively, the “Storm water Ordinance”). The purpose of eac h Stormwater Ordinance is to prohibit pollutant discharges in the MS4 and to regulate Illicit Connections and Illegal Discharges and non-stormwater discharges to the MS4. The SWMP also contains a list of the minimum required BMPs that must be used for a designated project. Private developers and pub lic agencies must then include these SWMP requirements in their project plans, which are reviewed and approved as part of the development approval process prior to issuing building and grading permits.
Coachella Valley Water District
Water Management Plan
CVWD updated its Coachella Valley Water Management Plan ( 2010 CVWMP Update) in January 2012 to continue to a ddress the overdraf t c onditions in the Coachella Valley groundwater basin, and to ensure that CVWD and other water agencies in the Coachella Valley can reliably meet current and future water demands . The CVWD recognizes the need to update the Plan periodically to respond to changing external and internal conditions.
The 2010 Water Management Plan Update is a 35-year blueprint for wise water management and the basis for a ll of the water district’s efforts to preserve the va lley’s groundwater so urce, and calls for a multifaceted approach including:
• increased water conservation by all types of water users; • increasing the imported water supply from the Coachella Canal and State Water Project; • increasing the use of the impo rt ed supply and re cycled water, instead of groundwater, for irrigation; and
• expanding groundwater replenishment efforts, especially in the east valley.
The 2010 CVWMP Update identifies several water conservation measures with the overall goal to reduce urban water consumption by 20 percent by 2020, and the overall goal to maintain this level of reduction through 2045. These measures include water efficient landscaping and irrigation controls, water efficient plumbing, tiered or seasonal water pricing, public information and education programs, 12-566
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-16 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
alternative water supplies, water restrictive municipal development policies, appointing a CVWD conservation coordinator and refining the maximum water allowance budget for landscaped and recreational areas. The 2010 CVWMP Update reduces reliance on groundwater sources by fully utilizing Colorado River water, SWP water and recycled water supplies and implementing more conservation over the long term.
Urban Water Management Plan
CVWD comple ted an update of the Urban Wa ter Managemen t P lan ( 2010 UWM P) in July 2011, a s required under California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6. Much of the da ta used in the 2010 UWMP was b ased on infor mation in the 2005 CVWMP. Howeve r, dome stic water demand projections and SWP purc hases and r eliability we re updated i n the 2010 UWMP to r eflect c hanges sin ce 2005. It is important to note that projected water demand and s upply data, and water conservation programs in the 2010 UWM P, apply only to the CV WD servi ce ar ea, as opposed to the entire Whi tewater River Subbasin (WWRSB).
Coachella Valley Water District Ordinance No. 1302.1
CVWD mandates efficiency in newly installed landscape irrigation systems via Ordinance 1302, Valley - wide Water Efficient Landscaping Model Ordinance. 35 The purpose of this ordinance is to establish effective water-efficient landscape requirements for newly installed and rehabilitated landscapes. It is also the intent of this ordinance to implement the requirements of the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act.
36 The requirements can be found in the General Landscape Guidelines and Irrigation System Design Criteria book.
Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Reservation The purpose of this Tribal Ordinance is to regulate and control all pollutant discharges into the waters of the Reserv ation.
37 Per this Ordinance, no pollutant discharges are allowed into the waters of the Reservation unless there is prior consultation with the Federal, Tribal, or State agency with jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and/or the Safe Drinking Water Act, and if required, appropriate permit(s) are obtained.
35 Coachella Valley Water District, Ordinance 1302.1, Valley -wide Water Efficient Landscaping Model Ordinance, October 1, 2007.
36 State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Statutes of 1990, Chapter 1145 (AB 235). 37 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, “Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation,” http://www.aguacaliente.org/downloads/Ordinance 24.pdf 12-567
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-17 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Tribal Land Use Ordinance
The purpose of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Land Use Ordinance (“Tribal Land Use Ordinance”) is to provide standards and regulations to control land uses on Indi an Reservation Lands, maintain and protect the Reservation’s unique natural and cultural resources, and to preserve the natural environment. Article VII, Landscaping Standards, of the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance promotes the use of native, desert, and other drought tolerant plants to reduce water demand on the Reservation.
The landscape management practices identified in this article of the Tribal Land Use Ordinance ensure maximum water efficiency, comprehensive landscaping plans, irrigation plans, plant mat erials, decorative water features, and limitations on turf material.
Tribal Ordinance for Floodplain Management
The purpose of the Floodplain Management Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, general welfare, and to minimize the public and pr ivate losses due to flood conditions in specific areas. The Floodplain Management Ordinance was modeled after the ordinance prepared by the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Flood Management. In order to accomplish the primarily purpose of the Ordinance, the following methods and provisions are included to reduce flood losses:
• Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, and streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; • Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities. • Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. • Control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters.
• Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage. • Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas.
City of Rancho Mirage Safety Element
The City of Rancho Mirage Safety Element addresses natural and manmade environmental hazards that might occur in the City and surrounding areas. It provides information, as well as goals, policies, and 12-568
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-18 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
programs to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community from seismic, geological, flooding and hydrology, and hazardous and toxic materials hazards. The assessment of and planning for these hazards or constraints is the primary purpose of the Safety Element.
City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code identifies land use categories, development standards, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the City’s General Plan and propo sed development projects. The following provisions from the City’s Municipal Code related to drainage facilities are relevant to the Project: Title 3, Chapter 3.29 (License Tax on New Construction), Title 7, Chapter 7.03 (Stormwater Management and Discharg e Control), and Title 13, Chapter 13.05 (Required on-site Retention).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have a significant hydrology and water quality impact if it would:
Threshold 5.8-1: Violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements.
Threshold 5.8-2: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted.
Threshold 5.8-3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Threshold 5.8-4: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.
12-569
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-19 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Threshold 5.8-5: Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Threshold 5.8-6: Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Threshold 5.8-7: Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.
Threshold 5.8-8: Place within a 100- year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.
Threshold 5.8-9: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
Threshold 5.8-10: Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
2. Methodology
Regional off-site analyses of pre- and post-project drainage conditions was included in the evaluation of potential flood hazards associated with flows originating in the Santa Rosa Mountains that flow along the Morango Wash and along the I- 10 to the southeast. Additio nally, pre - and post -Project drainage analyses were prepared to address local on -site and off- site drainage flood conditions. The following impact analysis related to flooding is based on information from Tribal, Riverside County, and CVWD flood control requirements. Water quality impacts are evaluated based on proposed stormwater filtration techniques and requirements under the Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Reservation. Impacts to groundwater recharge were evaluated using information contained in the 2010 CVWMP Update and retention basins proposed as part of the Project.
3. Project Design Features
The following Project Design F eatures (PDFs) incorporated into the Project would reduce the potential hydrology and wat er quality impacts of the Project. These features were taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts.
12-570
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-20 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Water Conservation
PDF 5.15.1-1 Application of Low Impact Design (LID) standards to all interior and exterior plumbing features, including low flow toilets, low gallons per minute plumbing fixtures, and tankless water heaters.
PDF 5.15.1-2 Utilization of xeriscape planting principles and use of native, drought -tolerant plant materials that require little or no irrigation. Plants with similar water requirements should be grouped together, a technique known as hydro zoning. Decorative water features are to be designed to minimize water consumption and evaporation.
PDF 5.15.1-3 Automated, high-efficiency irrigation systems (such as bubbler irrigation and low -angle, low-flow spray heads) shall be installed to reduce water demand and use. Moisture sensors and other similar irrigation technology shall be utilized to ensure that landscaping is watered only as needed.
PDF 5.15.1-4 Minimize use of turf except within active outdoor recreation uses.
PDF 5.15.1-5 Grey and recycled water infrastructure should be integrated in the landscape design so that grey water, recycled water and/or collected rainwater can be used wherever feasible for landscape irrigation.
PDF 5.15.1-6 Reduced width streets (32 feet) that reduce impervious surfaces that generate run-off.
PDF 5.15.1-7 Retain and treat all stormwater on-site from up to a 100-year storm event.
Stormwater Management
PDF 5.15.2-4 Development within the Project Site shall use linear bioswales, landscaped with native or drought -tolerant grasses, and smaller scale bio -retention cells in surface or subsurface storage areas where feasible.
PDF 5.15.2-5 Development within the Project Site shall use tree box filters as “mini-retention areas,” where feasible.
PDF 5.15.2-6 Development within the Project Site shall use permeable interlocking concrete pavers in parking courts, where feasible.
PDF 5.15.2-7 Development within the Project Site shall use pervious concrete and asphalt for other paved areas, where proper maintenance can be achieved.
12-571
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-21 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
4. Project Impacts
Violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements Water quality standards are attained when designated beneficial uses are achieved and water quality objectives are being met. Beneficial uses include drinking, swimming, industrial, and agricultural water supply, and the support of fresh and saline aquatic habitats. The regulatory program of the Colorado River Basin RWQCB is designed to minimize and control di scharges to surface and groundwater within the region, largely through permitting, such that water quality standards are effectively attained.
Pollutants of concern (POC) that are anticipated from the Project implementation include sediment/turbidity, nutrients, organic compounds, oxygen-demanding substances, and bacteria and viruses. Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been designed to address the POCs and will reduce the impacts on water quality to less than significant levels.
Potential negative impact s from Project Site devel opment include an increase of impervious surfaces which will increase the amount of surface runoff generated from the Project Site. Paved areas and streets will collect dust, soil, and other impurities that will then be assimilated into surface runoff during rainfall events. Pollutants such as trash and debris, oil and grease, metals, sediment, pathogens, organic compounds, nutrients, pesticides and oxygen -demanding substances can be expected to be present in surface water runoff on ce Project development occurs. Without appropriate Project Design Features or Mitigation Measures incorporated into the Project , significant adverse impacts to water quality objectives may be expected to occur.
The Colorado River Basin RWQCB sets water quality standards for all ground and surface waters within its jurisdiction. Water quality standards are defined under the Clean Water Act to include both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of water quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses (water quality objectives). Per the Tribe Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Reservation, no pollutant discharges are allowed into the waters of the Reservation unless there is prior consultation with the Federal, Tribal, or State agency with jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and/or the Safe Drinking Water Act, and if required, appropriate permit(s) are obtained.
Construction—Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas The dev elopment of the P roject would invol ve construction activities on the Project Site over the duration of Project development (approximately 20 years). Proposed grading and construction activities would involve earth movement and the use of heavy equipment. S urface elevations range from approximately 350 feet to 250 feet above mean sea level, with the highest points located in the south - 12-572
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-22 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
and west-central portions of the Project Site. Peak stormwater runoff could result in short -term sheet erosion within areas of exposed or stockpiled soils. Additionally, the compaction of soils by heavy equipment may reduce the infiltration capacity of soils and increase runoff and erosion potential. Given the above, pollutants such as soil, sediments, and other substances asso ciated with construction activities (e.g., oil, gasoline, grease, and surface litter) could enter the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel during Project construction.
In 2011, the Tribe received an exemption from NPDES Permit requirements from the US EPA because those portions of the Reservation under Tribal jurisdiction (i.e. areas outside of the Land Use Agreements) do not qualify for maintaining permit coverage. Since the Tribe received an exemption from NPDES Permit requirements, implementation of Mitig ation Measure MM 5.8 -1 requires each individual project proponent to prepare a project-specific water quality management plan.
In order to reduce the discharge of POCs into receiving waters during construction of the proposed development, the Project proponent will be required to prepare a site- specific SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES Program Individual or General permits authorized under the Clean Water Act for Construction Activities, as identified in PDF 5.5 -1 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils . The G eneral Permit requires a development and implementation of a site -specific SWPPP to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to minimize or eliminate the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. In addition, BMPs for managing sources of non -stormwater discharges and waste are required to be identified in the SWPPP. Examples of construction BMPs include silt fencing, gravel bag berms, fiber rolls, and street sweeping. In addition, the SWPPP is required to identify post-construction BMPs, which are permanent features maintained in perpetuity by the owner, developer, or the building occupant. Furthermore, the City also requires stormwater management and discharge control as identified in Title 7, Chapter 7.03 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control) and Title 13, Chapter 13.05 (Required on-site Retention).
Through compliance with the SWRCB and USEPA permits , and SWPPP requirements along with adherence to the P roject grading concept plan, as shown on Figure 3.0 -17, Conceptual Mass Grading Plan, potential impacts to water quality within the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel during Project construction would be less than significant.
Operation—Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas The development of the Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the Project Site , which would potentially increase runoff within the Project Site . As shown in Figure 3.0 -12, Conceptual Drainage Plan, up to 15 retention basins would be needed in the Active Adult Community and up to 11 retention basins would be developed in the Tribal Planning Areas. The design capacity of the retention 12-573
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-23 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
basins would retain the 100 -year controlling storm event. Based on preliminary calculations, the proposed on-site retention basins would be designed for the 6 -hour storm prior to percolation and the 1-hour storm with percolation. Precipitation, nuisance water, or storm -drain flows that fall onto streets south of the center of the Active Adult Community would flow to the lo w points on the southern end, while flows north of the center of Active Adult Community would flow to the low points in the northern end of the Planning Area. Flows within the Tribal Planning Areas would flow to the northern and eastern ends of each P lanning Area. Stormwater runoff from the half- streets abutting the Project Site would be conveyed and retained on-site within the retention basins.
The on-site storm drain improvements would convey runoff to the proposed on -site retention basins. In addition t o the retention basins and measures, the Project would implement other Project Design Features that would help remove anticipated pollutants of concern from on -site runoff. Project Design Features PDF 5.15.1-6 and PDF 5.15.1-8 require reduced street widths to minimize surface water runoff and on-site stormwater facilities which retain and treat 100 -year storm events. In order to ensure that the on -site flood control facilities are clear of debris, Mitigation Measure MM 5.8 -3 and MM 5.8-4 require that each individual project proponent provide a detailed operation and maintenance plan , and that each homeowner’s associations conduct periodic inspections of the flood control facilities.
Overall, the PDFs and BMPs would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from operation of the Project. Degradation of water quality from the Project would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, State, Tribal, and local water quality rules and regulations in order to effectively minimize the P roject’s impact on water quality. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
The historical depletion of groundwater in the Coachella Valley has led to a condition kn own as overdraft, in which the demand for groundwater exceeds the amount of recharge into the groundwater basin over a period of time. Overdraft conditions can result in significant adverse social, environmental and economic impacts, including an increased potential for land subsidence which can result in ground fissuring and damage to buildings and their foundations, sidewalks, and subsurface pipelines. 12-574
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-24 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The 2010 UWMP projects that water demand by all uses in the CVWD service area, except agriculture, will increase to 596,000 acre-feet per year by 2015, and 689,400 acre -feet per year by 2035.38 The total water demand from all users by the 2010 CVWMP Update, including agriculture, was estimated to be 668,000 acre-feet per year in 1999, is projected to increase to 719,100 acre -feet per year by 2020, and may reach 885,400 acre-feet per year by 2045.39
The historic declining water table in the Palm Springs and Thousand Palms Subareas and the west portion of the Thermal Subarea led to a determination by CVWD and DWA that a management program is required to stabilize water levels and prevent other adverse effects such as water quality degradation and land subsidence within the west portion of the Whitewater River Subbasin. CVWD’s West Whitewater River Subbasin Groundwater Replenishment Program is reducing declining water levels in this subbasin.
Groundwater and surface water are not found to be present on the Project Site recently or historically.
According to the Geotechnical Study prepared for the Project Site, investigation of a well located on the west of the Project Site indicated that groundwater depth may be between 160 and 175 below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater at this depth does not pose a constraint to development. Water conditions may vary depending on rainfall and irrigation conditions and surface runoff from elevated portion of the Project Site should be expected.
From 1973 through 2013, CVWD and DWA have reple nished the Whitewater River and Mission Creek Subbasins with approximately 2,630,572 acre-feet (2,493,239 acre-feet to Whitewater River Subbasin and 137,333 acre -feet to Miss ion Creek Subbasin) of exchange deliveries (Colorado River water exchanged for State Water Project water ).
40 A recharge program is currently operating in the West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit. The West Valley Whitewater Recharge Facility has a recharge capacity in excess of 300,000 acre -feet per year. Currently, the S WP Exchange supply is expected to provide about 78,000 acre -feet per year for the Whitewater facility on average. Under future conditions, it is possible that average recharge at Whitewater could be limited to the available future supply of about 61,400 acre -feet per year of SWP Exchange, unless it is augmented with other supplies. To reach the 100,000 acre -feet per year recharge goal for the Whitewater facility, CVWD and DWA would need to acquire additional SWP Table A Amounts or other imported water sources. DWA has requested its maximum 2014 Table A State Water Project wate r allocation (formerly known as
38 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July, 2011). 39 Coachella Valley Water District, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 40 Desert Water Agency, Engineer’s Report: Groundwater Replenishment and Assessment Program for the Whitewater River Subbasin 2014/2015, (April, 2014).
12-575
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-25 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
"entitlement") of 55,750 acre -feet pursuant to its State Water Project Contract for the purpose of groundwater replenishment. CVWD plans to do the same with its maximum 2014 Table A water allocation, which was increased in quantity to 138,350 acre-feet in 2010.41 Total basic Table A amount for CVWD and DWA is currently 71,000 acre-feet per year.42 The Project provides over 234 acres of open space and recreational amenities. These areas represent approximately 40 percent of the Project Site and will provide for groundwater recharge. Retention Basins proposed within the Active Adult Community and the Tribal Planning Areas would serve as multi - functional facilities and may include groundwater recharge.
The Project would begin construction in 2016. Total water demand of the Project is estimated to be 1,780 acre-feet per year , which represents approximately 0. 06 percent of the UWMP total demand in 2015 and 0. 7 percent of the total anticipated 2010 CVWMP Update’s urban demand in the Coachella Valley through 2035, as discussed in Section 5.15.1. As the remaining development of the higher-density mix of retail, entertainment, office, hotel and residential land uses will begin construction at a later date following the completion of the Active Adult Community component and occur over a longer period of time, the 20 -year demand forecasts are considered conservative. Therefore, the Project water demand is within the 2010 CVWMP Update groundwater supply projections.
The 2010 CVWMP Update assumes continued growth in demand and sets forth how that growth wi ll be served. The Project includes Project Design Features which are consistent with the goals of the 2010 CVWMP Update by incorporating the water conservation measures identified in PDF 5.15.1-1 through
5.15.1-5.
Based on the above, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies and would have a minimal impact on groundwater supplies . T he Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level as it would contribute to local recharge through use of the retention basins and the amount of de dicated open space within the Project Site . Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
41 Desert Water Agency, Engineer’s Report: Groundwater Replenishment and Assessment Program for the Mission Creek Subbasin 2014/2015, (April, 2014).
42 Coachella Valley Water District, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2014-2015. Coachella, California. (April 2014). 12-576
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-26 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Construction—Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas One of the hydrological concerns during construction of the Project Site would be potential erosion and sedimentation impacts during site clearing and grading. Erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities are dependent on climatic and site conditions, as well as the degree of soil disturbance during construction. Site clearing and grading operations, in particular, would have the greatest potential for discharging sediment downstream during storm events.
Grading of the Project Site will be conducted during construction to create residential and commercial pads, roads , basins, etc. Implementation of the Project will result in alteration of the Project Site’s surface and contours as well as introducing additional asphalt, concrete, and other impervious surfaces that do not currently exist on the Project Site. This will result in an alteration of the existing drainage patterns on site.
In its undeveloped condition, no drainage features are present on the Project Site. An on -site drainage system is required to accommodate stormwater flows generated on site and those generated off site that flow onto the Project Site, such as those from tributary areas of the Morongo Watershed .
Development of the P roject will result in an increase of impervious surfaces within the Project Site , which could generate increased stormwater flows from the Project Site. For this reason, drainage facilities will be constructed as part of the Project.
As illustrated in Figure 3.0-12 (see Section 3.0, Project Description), the conceptual plan utilizes streets, underground storm drains, open channels, and retention basins to collect the on -site and of f-site stormwater from the streets adjacent to the Project Site, and convey it through the Project Site and into the retention basins . Project Design Feature PDF 5.15.1 -8 will require retention facilities to accommodate the governing 100-year storm event ( 1 hour event with percolation) and runoff through the Project Site. The retention basins would be a maximum of 5 -feet deep with maximum slopes of 5 to 1 unless erosion control methods are implemented. The top of the basin’s elevation would have one foot of freeboard and would be one floor below the lowest building pad. The backbone drainage plan facilities are designed to protect habitable dwelling units from flooding.
As described above, the SWRCB administers the NPDES General Construction Permit, which applies to all projects disturbing areas of 1 acre or more during construction. For those areas of the Project under Tribal Jurisdiction that are exempt from the USEPA C onstruction General Permit the Project Design 12-577
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-27 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Features will ensure that appropriate BMPs are implemented during construction . As the Project is constructed over approximately 20 years, each construction contractor would be required to file a notice of intent under these permits.
Through compliance with the Project Design Features which are consistent with SWRCB, USEPA permits, and SWPPP requirements along with adherence to the Project grading concept plan, potential erosion and siltation impacts would be less than significant.
Operation—Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas The operation phase of the Project would contain a number of features to reduce the amount of runoff that would occur within the Project Site, and to limit the amount and rat e of surface water flow downstream of the Project Site. The Project would include open space and landscaped areas, pervious concrete and asphalt paving, and the P roject-related water quality design features (e.g. retention basins).
The Project would imple ment other si te design features that would help reduce erosion and siltation impacts. PDFs 5.15.2-4 through PDF 5.12.2-7, PDF 5.5-3, and PDF 5.5-4 include the use of bioswales, particularly with native or drought -tolerant grasses, to collect and filter wat er runoff; the use of stormwater retention/infiltration basins; the use of wind -resistant non vegetative groundcover to allow for sand filtration; and the requirements to stabilize the sand and soil to minimize blowsand prior to and during site construction. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
As discussed previously, drainage across the Project Site is generally from the northeast and southwest following natural drainage courses. The runoff continues to drain into the local storm drain system along Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. No storm drain exists within the undeveloped portion of the Project Site and no natural water bodies or mapped drainage courses are present.
A preliminary Synthetic Unit Hydrograph was used to determine the retention volume needed to accept 100 percent of the st ormwater runoff of the 100 -year flood level event. The 1- hour event would produce 1.35 inches of rain and is considered the governing 100-year flood level event. The Active Adult Community would produce 40.98 acre -feet of stormwater run- off and the Tribal Planning Areas would 12-578
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-28 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
produce 51.18 acre-feet of stormwater run -off that would need to be retained. The ov erall Project Site would generate 92.16 acre-feet of stormwater runoff during the 100 -year flood level event that would need to be retained.
As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Active Adult Community will be designed with 15 retention bas ins and the Tribal Planning Areas will be designed with 11 retention basins within the Planning Areas. The retention basins would be a maximum of 5-feet deep with maximum slopes of 5 to 1 unless erosion control methods are implemented. The top of the basin’s elevation would have one foot of freeboard and would be one floor below the lowest building pad. The retention basin system will be designed to accommodate the 100-year stormwater runoff event during the 100-year flood event. Since the preliminary analyses indicate that the stormwater drainage plan would not result in on -site or off- site flooding, impacts would be less than significant.
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff
Initial analyses indicate that the proposed on -site stormwater conveyance system would not result in on-site flooding because the system incorporates existing drainage characteristics and would comply with Tribal, City, CVWD, and/or Riverside and County requirements for management of 100 -year storm flows. As the preliminary analyses indicate that the stormwater drainage plan would not result in on-site flooding and more detailed studies will be required as the proposed Project is bu ilt out, impacts would be less than significant. As described under impact discussion above, the Project would not provide substantial sources of polluted runoff . Consequently, impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality
Please refer to the impact analysis under “violate water discharge requirements” above, for a discussion of water quality impacts.
In order to reduce the discharge of expected pollutants, such as sediment into receiving waters during construction of the proposed development, the project proponent will be required to prepare a site - specific SWPPP consistent with Tribal requirements and the SWRCB General Permit for Construction Activities as identified in PDF 5.5-3. The PDF requires development and implementation of a site-specific SWPPP to identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control BMPs to minimize or eliminate the discharge of pollutants into receiving waters. In addition, BMPs for managing sources of non-stormwater discharges and waste are required to be identified in the SWPPP. 12-579
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-29 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
In order to reduce the discharge of expected pollutants related to post-construction development of this type (such as oil, grease, and trash) into receiving waters following development, individual project proponents located within the P roject Site will be required to be in compliance with the Tribe’s Ordinance for discharges into receiving waters of the Reservation. P roject design would comply with all NPDES permit requirements. Consequently, impacts to water quality are considered less than significant.
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
According to the FEMA FIRM maps No. 06065C1585G and No. 06065C1595G, effective since August 28, 2008, the Project Site is not in a designated 100 -year flood hazard area. 43 The nearest 100 -year flood zone is located approximately 0.5 miles north of the I -10, and is designated as AO (100 -year risk of flooding one to two feet deep). However, a small portion of the northeast portion of the Project Site is within the floodplain limits of the Morongo Wash , as shown in Fig ure 5.8-1. Further discussion related to the placement of structures within this floodplain is discussed below. As shown in Figure 3.0-3 Conceptual Land Use Plan, proposed residential dwelling units would be located in the central, western, and southern po rtions of the Project Site. The locations of these units would be located outside of the 100-year floodplain identified by the CVWD. Therefore, the Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and, as such, impacts would be considered less than significant.
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows
Active Adult Community
According the FEMA FIRM m aps and Figure 5.8 -1, which was developed by CVWD , the Active Adult Community is located outside of an identified existing 100 -year flood hazard area. Therefore, structures within the Active Adult Community would not impede or redirect 100 -year flood flows. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Planning Areas
Planning Area 3 is located within the northeast portion of the Project Site and will be developed with community retail uses. According to the FEMA FIRM maps , which include the Project Site, the Tribal
43 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Riverside County California, Panel 1585 of 3805, Map Number 06065C1585G and 06065C1595G, August 28, 2008.
12-580
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-30 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Planning Areas would be located outside of a 100 -year flood hazard area. However, CVWD has developed more localized flood models which indicate that the northeast portion of the Project Site is located within a 1 00-year flood hazard area, as shown in Figure 5.8-1 . T he existing flood flows are projected to travel southeasterly along the I- 10 with a floodplain width ranging from 100 to 1,500 feet.
The projected depth of flow is approximately 0 to 10 feet at the northeasterly portion of the Project Site.
However, the P roject includes a drainage master plan designed to convey flows without substantial modification to existing off- and on-site drainage conditions. Off-site flows from the half streets adjacent to the Project Site would be collected at natural concentration points along the northeastern boundary of the P roject Site and within the southern portion of the site and conveyed via engineered channels that follow existing drainage patterns and CVWD facilities, as required by Mitigation Measure MM 5.8-2.
The proposed drainage system is also designed to adequately detain and convey 100-year storm flows in accordance with Tribal, City, CVWD, and/or Riverside County requirements. As stormwater would be conveyed within the proposed drainage system to the Coachella Valley Storm Water Canal and would prevent on - and off -site flooding, proposed structures would not impede or redirect flood flows.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
According to the FEMA FIRM m aps No. 06065C1585G and No. 06065C1595G, effective since August 28, 2008, the Project Site is not in a designated 100-year flood hazard area.
According to the Riverside County General Plan, the Project Site is not located within a levee or dam inundation zone.44 Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Accordingly, i mpacts would be less than significant.
Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
The San Andreas Fault system is located approximately 5 miles north of the Project Site. Due to the proximity to the San Andreas Fault, the area is seismically active. The nearest large body of water that
44 Riverside County Integrated Project, Figure S-10, “Dam Failure Inundation Zones” (2003). 12-581
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-31 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
would generate a seiche is Lake Cahuilla approximately 15 miles southeast of the Project Site. While it is possible that a large earthquake could result in a seiche at Lake Cahuilla, the likelihood of such an event is very low. Therefore, the risk that the Project Site would be inundated by a seiche, is de emed less than significant.
The Project Site is not in a coastal area, and as such, the Project Site would not be inundated by a tsunami. The Project Site is located within the central portion of the Coachella Valley floor. The topographically surrounding the Project Site is generally level with elevation changes less than one percent. Therefore, the likelihood that a mudflow would inundate the Project Site is very low.
Accordingly, no significant impacts to the Project from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur.
5. Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact analysis in this Draft EI S considers related development projects in the area. In summary, the related projects include, but are not limited to, the construction of the Pelagic Residential project, the Rancho Mirage Rehab Hospital, development of Section 13 to the north, and Section 19 to the east.
The Colorado River Basin RWQCB has issued a MS4 permit for stormwater discharges. The County, CVWD and other co -permittees have prepared a sto rmwater management program addressing requirements for meeting this MS4 permit. The County reviews all plans and developments for compliance with existing ordinances (e.g., grading ordinance) and stormwater management program requirements. The Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Reservation regulates and controls all pollutant discharges into waters of the Reservation. Per this Ordinance, no pollutant discharges are allowed into the waters of the Reservation unless there is prior consultation with the Federal, Tribal, or State agency with jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and/or the Safe Drinking Water Act, and if required, appropriate permit(s) are obtained.
With regard to water quality, the related projects would be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit, including the implementation of a site -specific SWPPP, to prevent polluted runoff from entering local stormwater drainage systems during construction activities. Additionally, each related project would be subject to NPDES requirements after buildout and applicable municipal code requirements such as Stormwater Drainage System Protection Regulations, of the Riverside County Municipal Code.
45 Related projects located on Reservation land, for are as outside of Land Use
45 Riverside County, Municipal Code, Section 13.12, Stormwater Drainage System Protection Regulations. 12-582
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-32 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Agreements, would not be subject to NPDES permit requirements as the Tribe received an exemption from the USEPA in 2011. However, these related projects would be subject to the Tribes Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into Waters of the Reservation which does not permit pollutant discharges from construction activities to enter into receiving waters. As each related project would be required to comply with NPDES requirements and local regulations designed to prevent polluted runoff from entering local storm drain systems and receiving water bodies during construction and after buildout, the cumulative impact to water quality would be less than significant. Further, as compliance with NPDES , local municipal code requirements , and Tribe requirements would prevent substantial erosion and siltation, the cumulative impact related to erosion and siltation would also be less than significant.
With regard to flooding and storm drain capacity, the related projects would be required to adequately convey stormwater runoff such that flooding does not occur. Projects within Riverside County are subject to the Riverside County Municipal Code, which includes several regulations pertaining to flood control facilities within new development pro jects.
46 These regulations require that proposed drainage
facilities be designed to convey flows associated with a 100 -year storm event. Similarly, the Project is designed to convey flows associated with a 100 -year event. Compliance by the related projects with applicable municipal code requirements, Tribe Building and Safety Code, CVWD regulations, and California Drainage Law would result in less than significant cumulative impacts.
Section 5.15.1 includes a detailed analysis of the water demand associated with the related projects and the effect on groundwater supply and recharge. As discussed, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwa ter recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
Groundwater supply and aquifer overdraft are currently being assessed and management plans implemented by CVWD to minimize impacts with increased development on groundwater supplies. Over the next 20 years, groundwater extraction is expected to decrease slightly as groundwater basin management activities are executed and sustainable levels of pumping are achieved. Increased future demands are expected to be met with imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project, and groundwater management activities are expected to maintain groundwater levels and safe yields.
These groundwater management activities will ensure that groun dwater supplies are not depleted or degraded. Therefore, the cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
46 Riverside County, Municipal Code, Section 16.36.100, Tract Drainage. 12-583
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-33 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Development projects, including commercial, industrial, and residential, individually and cumulatively will create more impervious surfaces thus reducing the total groundwater recharge area. However, projects located within the local watershed also have the possibility of adding to the Indio groundwater subbasin through the addition of imported and/or recycled water. The water used for irrigation could offset the difference in the reduction of groundwater recharge area to rainfall- related recharge that occurs today.
As discussed above, while it is possible that a large earthquake could result in a seiche at Lake Cahuilla, the likelihood of such an event is very low. Cumulative impacts related to tsunamis, seiches, and mudflows would be less than significant.
With regard to the failure of a levee or a dam, none of the related projects is proposed within an inundation zone. According to the Riverside County General Plan, none of the related project sites within Riverside County is located within a levee or dam inundation zone. 47 Accordingly, the cumulative
impact would be less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition to the PDFs identified in Section B.3 above, the following Mitigation Measures would reduce hydrology and water quality impacts:
Construction
MM 5.8-1 Prior to issuance of a final grading permit for each individual project proponent, a project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall be submitted to the appropriate jurisdiction for review and approval.
MM 5.8-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for development within Tribal Planning Area 3; a detailed hydrology study shall be prepared and submitted to the Tribal Engineer and/or CVWD for review and approval. This study shall evaluate the potential flows from the Morongo Watershed and will identify facilities to be constructed to c ollect, route and discharge flows in a manner compatible with pre -project/existing conditions across the Project Site. At the completion of construction of the flood control facilities, submit “as - built” topography, construction drawings and engineering an alysis for CVWD review to verify that the design capacity is adequate to meet a performance standard requiring the maintenance of pre-project condition flows exiting the Project Site.
47 Riverside County Integrated Project, Figure S-10, “Dam Failure Inundation Zones,” (2003). 12-584
5.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Meridian Consultants 5.8-34 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Operation
MM 5.8-3 Prior to final grading, individual project proponent s shall submit a detailed operation and maintenance plan to the appropriate jurisdiction and CVWD for review and approval of the as -built project conditions that satisfies the required performance standard set forth in MM 5.8-2.
MM 5.8-4 Periodic inspection of the conditions of the open channels, retention basins, and storm drains will need to be performed year round , and after significant precipitation events will be required to be performed by each homeowner association (HOA). Annual inspection reports s hall be prepared by each HOA, and submitted to and filed with the Tribe, City and/or CVWD by June 30th each year calendar year.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Project Design Features PDF 5.5-3 through PDF 5.5 -5 in Section 5.5, Geology and Soils; PDF 5.15.1 through PDF 5.15.1-7 in Section 5.15.1 , Utilities and Service Systems: Water Service; PDF 5.15.2-4 through PDF 5.15.2-7 in Section 5.15.2 Utilities and Service Systems: Sewer ; and Mitigation Measures MM 5.8-1 through MM 5.8-4 would ensure that Project -level impacts on surface water, hydrology, and water quality would be less than significant. Also, compliance with existing regulations and standard conditions of approval identified above would reduce potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Therefore, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to hydrology and water quality would result on a Project-specific or cumulative basis. 12-585
Meridian Consultants 5.9-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.9 LAND USE
This Section of the Draft EI S evaluates the potential land use impacts in the S phere of I nfluence of the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) from the proposed Project. Land use impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts are those that result in land use incompatibilities, or the division of neighborhoods or communities, or interference with other land use plans, including habitat or wildlife conservation plans. Indirect impacts are secondary effects resulting from land use policy implementation, such as an increase in demand for public utilities or services, or increased traffic on roadways. Indirect impacts are addressed in other topical sections of the Draft EIS. This Section also evaluates the consistency of the proposed Project with land use plans addressing the area the Project Site is located in. Please see Section 9.0 for a glossary of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in the Draft EIS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed Project consists of the proposed adoption of a specific plan to regulate the development and use of approximately 577 acres of land located within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”). The Project Site is bounded by the following roadways: Ramon Road on the north; Bob Hope Drive on the east; Dinah Shore Drive on the south; and Los Alamos Road on the west.
1. Existing Conditions
Existing On-Site Land Uses
The Project Site consists of undeveloped land. Topographically, the Project Site slopes downward to the northeast. Surface elevations range from approximately 350 feet to 250 feet above mean sea level, with the highest points located to the south and west.
Existing Surrounding Land Uses
Figure 5.9-1, Surrounding Land Uses, provides an aerial photograph of the Project Site and surrounding uses. The Mission Hills resort community is located immediately south and west of the Project Site .
Mission Hills includes the Mission Hills Golf Resort and Spa, a 360-acre resort, which includes a variety of vacation rental units and hotel rooms along with golf courses, a tennis facility , and other amenities to the south of the Project Site and private homes to the west of the Project Site and Los Alamos Road. The Mission Hills Country Club is located southwest of the Project Site.
North of the Project Site and Ramon Road is undeveloped land in Section 13 that extends north to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), which is locate d approximately 750 to 3,450 feet to the north. Rancho 12-586
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Mirage High School is located approximately one half of a mile northwest of the Project Site on Rattler Road.
The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa is located on approximately 35 acres immediately east of the Project Site on the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive. This facility includes a 340 - room hotel, 70,000 square feet of gaming floor, a 2,000 - seat showroom, 13,000 square feet of flexible meeting space, six distinct dining venues, a resort pool, spa and fitness center, and parking areas including both surface parking and a parking structure).
An existing retail commercial center, the Desert Plaza shopping center, is located to the southeast of the Project Site on the corner of Dinah Shore and Bob Hope Drives.
Existing Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations
Local and regional laws, regulations, plans , or guidelines that address the Project Site and the surrounding area are described below. While land located within the Reservation is subject to Tribal land use regulations, the plans and policies adopted by other local jurisdictions are discussed to provide context for assessing the consistency of the proposed Specific Plan with existing and planned land uses around the Project Site.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Land Use Ordinance
The Agua Ca liente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Council adopted a Land Use Ordinance for the Reservation on July 14, 2009. This Land Use Ordinance applies to all development, public and private, within the areas of the Reservation not covered under a Land Use Agreement between the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“ Tribe”) and a local jurisdiction. All structures and land uses constructed or commenced after adoption of the Land Use Ordinance and all enlargements of, additions to, changes in, and relocations of existing structures and uses are subject to the Land Use Ordinance.
The Land Use Ordinance includes a zoning map identifying zoning districts. Currently, the northern portion of the Project Site, consisting of approximately 120 acres on Ramon Road, is designated as Tribal Enterprise, a zoning designation applied to Tribal Trust land. Uses allowed on land zoned Tribal Enterprise is subject to determination by the Tribal Council.
The remainder of the Project Site is designated as “Specific Plan ,” a zoning designation that allows for greater flexibility to focus regulations and standards on a specific geographic area, and “Land Use Contract, Riverside County,” a zoning designation applied to Allotted Trust lands, which were lands 12-587
Surrounding Land Uses
FIGURE 5.9-1
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2014
044-001-13
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
0.50.250 1
N
Legend:
Project Site
Section 13Section 13
Mission Hills
Country Club
Mission Hills
Country Club
Rancho Mirage
High School
Rancho Mirage
High School
Section 19Section 19
Agua Caliente
Casino Resort Spa
Agua Caliente
Casino Resort Spa
Westin Mission Hills
Westin Mission Hills
Retail /
Commercial
Retail /
Commercial
Union Pacific RailroadUnion Pacific Railroad
12-588
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
allotted in Trust to individual members of the Tribe (Allottees). Uses allowed on land zoned Land Use Contract, Riverside County include uses allowed by the County Zoning Code.
The Land Use Ordinance includes standards for specific plans that are generally consistent with California Government Code requirements. Section 9.12.1 of the Land Use Ordinance, the primary purpose of a Specific Plan is to allow for greater flexibility and provide an opportunity to focus regulations and standards on the goals of a specific geographic area. The Ordinance states that Specific Plans provide a mechanism to tailor unique and desired development standards and implementation measures in a spe cific area while preserving and enhancing areas of cultural, environmental, and/ or economic significance on the Reservation.
Section 10.12.3 of the Land Use Ordinance requires that a specific plan include a text and a diagram or diagrams which address the following aspects of development:
• The distribution, location, and extent of the all proposed land uses within the area covered by the plan;
• The proposed distribution, location, and extent, and intensity of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other utilities and public services proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan;
• Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable; • A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to implement the plan; and • Any other information deemed necessary by the Tribal Council for adequate review and consideration of the proposal.
Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan
The Reservation includes appro ximately 31,500 acres of land within the Coachella Valley. These lands contain natural resources and habitat that are very integral to the Tribe’s heritage and culture. A ny development on the Reservation would be subject to the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP), which was approved in August 2010. The THCP appropriately contributes to the conservation of listed and sensitive covered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Future development within 12-589
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Tribal lands is required to comply with the provisions of the THCP, including the payment of development mitigation fees.
Based on the conservation program defined in the THCP , the Tribe is seeking to enter an Implementing Agreement with, and obt ain a Section 10(a) Permit from USFWS to authorize the incidental take of covered species of wildlife in connection with certain activities undertaken by the Tribe, Tribal members, and in some cases, third parties. The THCP has not yet been approved by the USFWS and a Section 10(a) Permit has not been issued. Until take authority is granted to the Tribe through the issuance of a 10(a) Permit, incidental take permits would continue to be obtained directly from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as allowed by the FESA. The Tribe has independent authority to enforce its obligations under the THCP and the Tribe is implementing the plan to mitigate impacts to sensitive resources on Tribal lands.
City of Rancho Mirage
The Project Site is located within the S phere of Influence (SOI) of the City , as approved by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) . The Rancho Mirage SOI includes lands adjacent to the City’s borders identified by the Riverside County LAFC o as likely to be serviced or annexed to the City and represents the probable ultimate limits of the City. For this reason, the City addresses the land within the City’s SOI in the City’s General Plan.
The City’s General Plan discusses the coordination of land use planning activities with the Tribe. The General Plan notes there are approximately 2,077 acres of Trust land within the City’s SOI. The City and the Tribe entered into a land use contract in 1998 to specifically address the regulation of land uses for Allotted Trust lands , which were lands allotted in Trust to individual members of the Tribe (Allottees).
Under this agreement, the Tribe retains ultimate authority over Allotted Trust lands . With regard to the City’s SOI, this contract states that while the Tribe does not formally recognize the SOI, the Tribe will participate in joint planning efforts with the City to assure the coordinated development of Tribal land within the City’s SOI. The City’s General Plan identifies areas within the City’s SOI targeted for the preparation of specific plans. The Project Site is identified in the City’s General Plan as an area targeted for the preparation of a specific plan.
The City’s General Plan designates the Project Site for residential and commercial use s. The northwest 40 acres of the Project Site is designated High Density Residential. This designation allows development at a density of 9 dwelling units per acre. T he adjacent 80 acres on Ramon Road is designated for Community Commercial uses. This designation allows community and regional retail commercial shopping centers at a floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.35. The City’s General Plan designates the remainder of the Project Site as Medium Density Residential. This designation allows development at a 12-590
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
density of 4 dwelling units per acre. Development of the Project Site consistent with these designations would inc lude approximately 2,200 dwelling units and 1.2 million square feet of retail commercial development. The 193 -acre portion of Section 13 located immediately north of the Project Site and Ramon Road, east of Rattler Road and south of the UPRR was annexed by the City in April 2013. The City land use and zoning designation for this portion of Section 13 is Regional Interstate Commercial. This designation allows a broad and flexible range of commercial and mixed uses within a planned, freew ay- oriented business environment. The City’s General Plan requires the preparation and approval of a specific plan for this area prior to development.
The Section 19 Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 2010, addresses approximately 270 acres located east of Bob Hope Drive and north of Dinah Shore Drive, directly east of the Project Site. The Section 19 Specific Plan area borders the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa facility. The Section 19 Specific Plan established 26 Planning Areas and eight land use categories and allows the development of approximately 3 million square feet of commercial uses and 1,899 residential units. The eight land use designations applied to the 26 Planning Areas include resort flex, retail, mixed use core, regional mixed - use, residential, public facility, open space, and drainage.
Retail uses are planned on Dinah Shore Drive and the southern portion of Bob Hope Drive with resort uses planne d north of the retail area on Bob Hope Drive. The mixed use core area is located in the central portion of this specific plan area with residential uses planned on the eastern portion. Regional mixed uses are allowed on the northeast edge of the Section 19 Specific Plan area along the UPRR and I-
10. Riverside County
The Riverside County General Plan is implemented through area plans. The Riverside County Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (Area Plan), updated in 2012, depicts the general planned pattern of the land uses in unincorporated Riverside County. One of the primary goals of the Area Plan is to contain and concentrate growth in several strategic unincorporated areas while preserving the rural and open space characteristics of the outlying areas. The Area Plan recognizes that the Project Site and other nearby unincorporated land located within the City ’s SOI have significant development potential and, for this reason, joint planning efforts involving the City and the Tribe are encouraged. The following are policies that have been designated by the Area Plan as critical to sustaining the character of the Western Coachella Valley:
WCVAP 1.1 Form a joint planning effort with the City of Rancho Mirage and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to address land use planning and environmental review of development projects within the Policy Area. 12-591
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
WCVAP 1.2 Coordinate with local agencies to ensure adequate service provision for all development within the Policy Area.
WCVAP 1.3 Encourage property owners within this policy area to develop their properties under a single Specific Plan application covering the entire area.
WCVAP 1.4 Coordinate development strategies with the Thousand Palms Community Council and the Riverside County Economic Development Agency.
WCVAP 1.5 Coordinate development strategies with the cities of Palm Desert and Cathedral City to ensure that development within the Policy Area does not adversely impact these cities.
WCVAP 1.6 Require that development be sensitive to and retain the unique topographical features within and adjacent to the planning area.
WCVAP 1.7 Ensure a mix of land uses that creates a vital, economically and environmentally healthy area that is supportive of transit and other forms of alternative modes of transportation, promotes walkability and civic life, and provides a variety of housing, civic, employment, and open space opportunities throughout the planning area. General land uses may include a mix of:
• Regional and local-serving commercial uses;
• Tourist facilities;
• Residential densities from Medium to High Density Residential; • Active and passive open space areas;
• Mixed use;
• Cultural, educational, and civic uses;
• Transit facilities;
• Employment-intensive office and business park uses; and • Light Industrial uses north of Interstate 10
WCVAP 1.8 Incorporate open space and recreational amenities into the planning area in order to enhance recreational opportunities and community aesthetics. 12-592
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
WCVAP 1.9 Apply the City of Rancho Mirage’s adopted standards for median strips along specific roadways as those roadways extend into the City’s Sphere of Influence.
This Area Plan also designates the Project Site for residential and commercial uses. The Area Plan designates the 120 acres of the Project Site on Ramon Road as Commercial Retail and the lan d on Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive as Visitor Serving Commercial. These commercial designations allow development at a FAR of up to 0 .35. The Area Plan designates the central portion of the Project Site for Medium Density Residential uses, a designa tion that allows a density of 2 -5 dwelling units per acre.
Development of the Project Site consistent with these designations would include approximately 1,200 dwelling units and 5 million square feet of retail and visitor serving commercial development.
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
The Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) carries out legislative duties defined by State law through the consideration, approval or denial of boundary changes proposed by individuals or local agencies. The LAFCo Commission promotes the use of land resources while providing an orderly growth pattern for the existing and future needs of a community within Riverside County.
The broad mission of the LAFC o is to implement legislative direction and policies embodie d in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 in a manner most appropriate to provide orderly growth pattern s t hat reconcile the needs of Riverside County. It establishes the appropriate and logical municipal government structure for the distribution of efficient and appropriate public services. Among the goals for LAFC o is to maximize interagency communication and cooperation between governments. The following are goals set forth in the Riverside LAFC o Policies and Procedures document, drafted in 2004:
• The proposal must be consistent with State law, adopted spheres of influence, applicable general and specific plans, and LAFCo policies.
• Cities are expected to coordinate with adjoining jurisdictions in advance of submittal of any annexation application that includes existing or future regionally significant transportation facilities as identified in adopted regional transportation plans. The purpose of early communication and coordination is to maintain the integrity of the regional transportation system and continuance of any regional funding mechanisms.
• Cities must coordinate all sphere of influence and annexation proposals that include Indian Reservation Lands with the appropriate Tribal Government in advance of application submittal. • All applications for municipal sphere of influence amendments or annexations that include Indian Reservation Lands shall be referred to the appropriate Tribal Government for review and comment 12-593
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
prior to hearing by the Commission. The Commission shall consider the existence of a Tribal land use agreement with the subject city an important factor when reviewing such proposals. • The Commis sion shall not approve any municipal annexation of Indian Reservation Lands without the consent of the Tribal Council.
• The proposal would eliminate islands, corridors and other distortion of existing boundaries.
The SOI as approved by the Riverside County LAFCo defines the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local government agency. A SOI must be adopted before an annexation to the affected city or district can be considered. In 2000, LAFC o was charged with the responsibility to conduct municipal service reviews. A Municipal Service Review (MSR) is a study designed to determine the adequacy of governmental services being provided to the region or sub-region.
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of gov ernments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses over 3 8,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environment al documentation under federal and S tate law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the Southern Ca lifornia Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives.
SCAG is also responsible for the designated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including its Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) component pursuant to SB 375. The Sustainable Communities Strategy has been formulated to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 8 percent per capita by 2020 and by 13 percent per capita by 2035 compared to 2005 targets set by the California Air Resources Board.
The 2012 –2035 RTP/SCS links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhanci ng the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation - friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socioeconomic, geographic, and commercial limitations. The goals included in the 2012 RTP/SCS may be pertinent to the proposed P roject. These goals are meant to provide guidance for considering the Project within the context of regional goals and policies. 12-594
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
The Coachella Valley Association of Go vernments (CVAG) is a sub -regional organization within SCAG.
CVAG is made up of nine cities, Riverside County and three Native American Indian tribes, including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. CVAG represents member local governments and agencies throughout the Coachella Valley seeking cooperative sub -regional and regional planning, coordination and technical assistance on issues of mutual concern. CVAG is made up of several departments, including an Energy and Environmental Resources Department that monitors and implements both regional and local plans related to energy and air quality issues, waste management, water quality, habitat conservation planning and trails issues.
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
Two HCPs have been prepared in the Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) addresses approximately 1.2 million acres in the Coachella Valley and the surrounding mountains . Because approximately 69,000 acres of Indian r eservation lands are not included in the CVMSHCP area, the acreage covered by the plan is about 1 .1 million acres. The THCP addresses approximately 31,500 acres of land within the Reservation, as previously discussed.
The CVMSHCP, which became effective in October of 2008, is a regional conservation plan that identifies and coordinates the permanent protection of habitats, biological linkages and corridors, and ecological processes for the benefit of plants and wildlife. CVMSHCP participants include Riverside County, the cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage , as well as the Coachella Valley Water District and Imperial Irrigation District. The Coachella Valley Association of Gov ernments serves as the lead agency for plan review and consideration with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission overs eeing the plan implementation.
The plan enables the participating public agencies (“permittees”) to comply with both the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts and other regulations promulgated to protect listed plants and wildlife. 12-595
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe determines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact to land use and planning, if it would:
Threshold 5.9-1: Physically divide an established community Threshold 5.9-2: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect Threshold 5.9-3: Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
2. Methodology
The determination of the Project’s consistency with applicable land use plans and policies is based upon a review of the previously identified planning documents that regulate land use or guide land use decisions at and around Project Site . The Project is considered to be consistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it meets the general intent of the plans and would not preclude the attainment of the primary intent of the land use plan or policy.
3. Project Design Features
The Project consists of a specific plan for approximately 577 acres of the Reservation, located within the City’s SOI designated as Section 24, Township 4 South, Range 5 East of the San Bernardino Meridian. The Section 24 Specific Plan would be approved and adopted by the Tribal Council and serve as the zo ning for the Project Site. The City would subsequently adopt the Specific Plan and approve any request(s) for annexation into the City. The Specific Plan would establish the necessary plans, development standards, regulations, infrastructure requirements, design guidelines, and implementation programs on which subsequent project -related development activities would be founded. It is intended that local public works projects, design review plans, detailed site plans, grading and building permits, or any othe r action requiring ministerial or discretionary approval applicable to the Project Site would be consistent with the Specific Plan.
12-596
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The Project would provide a potential mix of up to 3,138,600 square feet of commercial, retail, office, restaurant, hotel an d entertainment uses, and up to 2,406 residential units. The Project is designed to accommodate these uses through the creation of seven land use categories and eight Planning Areas that cover approximately 529 acres, as shown in Figure 3.0-3, Conceptual Land Use Plan. These Planning Areas, in addition to approximately 48 acres for public street rights -of-way, would total approximately 577 acres for the Project Site. The land use categories and Planning Areas would allow for a greater variety and flexibility of land uses and development standards.
The Project Site’s edge condition incorporates additional landscape easements in addition to the Major Arterial right-of-way requirement, as shown in the street sections in Figures 9, 10 , and 11 in the Section 24 Specific Plan. The property owner will be responsible for maintaining this easement area as well as the parkway area within the public right-of-way. This buffer will allow adequate space for an 8-foot Class I bicycle path/ sidewalk to permit the shared use of golf carts in addition to pedestrians and cyclists. The golf cart path would connect into the existing golf cart circulation system, which provides Class I paths along the south side of Dinah Shore Drive west of Bob Hope Drive and along the west side of Los Alamos Road. A 5 foot wide on-street Class II bicycle lane will also be provided along Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road for the exclusive use of cyclists.
Within the Project Site, the half street right-of way for Bob Hope Drive is proposed at a consistent dimension of 65 feet; for Ramon Road this half street right-of way width is proposed at its current 67 feet.
The section along Dinah Shore Drive will include four travel lanes bisected by a 16 foot median. An allowance is included for the addition of a third west bound land as needed in the future in order to achieve Major Arterial status. The north side of Dinah Shore Drive incorporates an additional landscape easement. Along the north side of Dinah Shore Drive and each side of “A” street Boulev ard, a 5 foot wide on-street Class II bicycle lane will be provided for the exclusive use of cyclists.
The half street section along Los Alamos Road will be a Major Collector. This section will contain two 12- foot travel lan es, and a 6- foot on-street Class II bicycle lane bisected by a 1 6-foot raised median. The edge of Los Alamos along the Project Site incorporates a 12 -foot landscaped parkway with an 8 -foot meandering sidewalk and an additional landscaped building setback , in addition to the Major Collector right-of-way requirement. The property owner will be responsible for maintaining this setback area as well as the parkway area within the public right-of-way. 12-597
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-13 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Active Adult Community
The Active Adult Community P lanning Area would have a maximum o f 3.8 dwelling units per acre with lot coverage up to 35 percent. The minimum residential dwelling unit size would be 1,100 square feet.
The maximum building heights for residential units within this Planning Area would be 28 feet in height.
Height is determined from the average finish grade around the building to the highest top of parapet or fascia for flat roof buildings or to the highest ridgeline for sloped roof structures, excluding chimneys and similar architectural projections. The maximum height that would be allowed for the clubhouse and other non-residential structures within this Planning Area is 58 feet. The maximum height allowed for tower elements would be 72 feet.
Tribal Planning Areas
The Tribal Planning Areas would vary in maximum FAR and lot coverage. The maximum FAR for retail uses would be 0.35 with maximum lot coverage of 35 percent. The maximum FAR allowed for resort flex uses would be 0.40 with maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. The maximum FAR allowed for mixed use core uses would be 1.0, with maximum lot coverage of 50 percent, and minimum unit size of 600 square feet. The Planning Areas that would allow multi-family residential units would allow a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre, maximum lot coverage of 50 percent, and maximum unit size of 850 square feet.
4. Project Impacts
Physically Divide an Established Community
The Project Site consists of an unincorporated island of land surrounded by the City . The areas to the south and west of the Project Site are developed with the Mission Hills resort community. The 193 acres of undeveloped land located nort h of the Project Site and Ramon Road is designated for regional commercial uses in the City ’s General Plan. The Section 19 Specific Plan area, located to the east of the Project Site and Bob Hope Drive, designates the land along Bob Hope Drive for the reta il and resort commercial uses.
The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would allow development of a mix of residential and commercial uses that would be consistent in terms of intensity with the existing and planned surrounding land uses.
The Section 24 Specific Plan would establish 8 Planning Areas and 7 land use categories to regulate land uses and allow development of up to 3,138,600 square feet of commercial, retail, office, restaurant, hotel and entertainment uses, and up to 2,406 residential units.
The 8 Planning Areas the Specific Plan would create would include : Mixed-Use Core, Resort Flex, Retail, Multi-Family Residential, and Single Family Residential. 12-598
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-14 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Active Adult Community
The Active Adult Community would consist of up to 1,200 single family residential units in Planning Area 8 restricted to occupancy by adults aged 55 and above. This portion of the Project Site is currently zoned Specific Plan by the Tribe. As discussed above, the City and the Tribe entered into a land use contract in 1998 to specifically address the regulation of land uses for Allotted Trust lands This contract states that while the Tribe does not formally recognize the SOI, the Tribe will participate in joint planning efforts with the City to assure the coordinated development of Tribal land within the City’s SOI.
As planned, the gated Active Adult Community would consist of four neighborhoods accessed by a system of private streets and recreational open space amenities located in neighborhood parks and trail linkages. Resident amenities would include an integrated system of pedestrian, bicycle and golf cart trail linkages, neighborhood parks, water features, community club house/pool/spa, and complementary features. These neighborhoods would be located across Dinah Shore Drive and Los Alamos Road from existing visitor serving and residential resort uses in the Mission Hills Resort Community.
As previously indicated, the Active Adult Community would have a maximum of 3. 8 dwelling units per acre with lot coverage up to 35 percent. The minimum residential dwelling unit size would be 1,100 square feet. The maximum building heights for residential units would be 20 feet in height and 28 feet in height in the Single Family Attached Residential Overlay Area. Height is determined from the average finish grade around the building to the highest top of parapet or fascia for flat roof buildings or to the highest ridgeline for sloped roof structures, excluding chimneys and similar architectural projections.
The m aximum height allowed for the clubhouse and other non -residential structures within this Planning Area would be 58 feet. The maximum height allowed for tower elements would be 72 feet.
The proposed residential Active Adu lt Community would be consistent in use and character with the surrounding use and generally with the pattern of development the City and Riverside County General Plans identify for the Project Site. Development of the Active Adult Community in Planning Area 8 would not result in a conflict with, or divide, any established community. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Planning Areas
The Tribal Planning Areas are made up of 7 distinct Planning Areas that are subject to their own list of allowed uses and development standards. The Tribal Planning Areas would accommodate a mix of retail, entertainment, office, hotel and residential land uses. The Section 24 Specific Plan has been developed to be genera lly consistent with the adopted Rancho Mirage Section 19 Specific Plan in terms of land development criteria as well as planning, building architecture and landscape design quality. The 12-599
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-15 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
creation of a mixed -use community within Section 24 would allow residents to live within walking and non-motorized vehicle distance from stores, restaurants, recreational areas, and associated cultural/entertainment venues.
As previously discussed, t he Tribal Planning Areas would vary in maximum FAR and lot coverage. The maximum FAR for retail uses would be 0.35 with maximum lot coverage of 35 percent. The maximum FAR allowed for resort flex uses would be 0.40 with maximum lot coverage of 40 percent. The maximum FAR allowed for mixed use core uses would be 1.0, with maximum lot coverage of 50 percent, and minimum unit size of 600 square feet. The Planning Areas that would allow multi-family residential units would allow a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre, maximum lot coverage of 50 percent, and minimum unit size of 850 square feet.
The retail commercial uses in Planning Areas 3 and 7A and the resort commercial uses in Planning Areas 4 and 6A would be compatible in use and character with the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa and the retail and resort commercial development permitted by the Section 19 Specific Plan on Bob Hope Drive. The Mixed -Use core uses in Planning Area 2A, the resort commercial uses in Planning Area 1A, and the retail commercial uses in Planning Area 3 would also be consistent with the regional commercial uses the City General Plan allows in Section 13 to the north of the Project Site and Ramon Road. The multi-family residential development in Planning Areas 1B, 2B, 5, 6B and 7B would provide a transition in land uses between the higher intensity uses in the Planning Areas on Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road and the Active Adult Community in Planning Area 8. Development of the proposed commercial and multi-family residential uses in the Tribal Planning Areas would not result in a conflict with, or divide, any established community. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation The Project Site is currently under the sovereign authority of the Tribe. As established in the Tribal Land Use Ordinance, the land use designations of the P roject Site are comprised of Land Use Contract , Riverside County, Specific Plan, and Tribal Enterprise. For the purpose of providing a uniform basis for zoning, the uses allowed on land zoned Land Use Contract, Riverside County include the uses allowed by the County Zoning Code. Tribal Enterprise land is subject to Tribal Council determination as classified by the Tribe. Specific Plan allows for greater flexibility to focus regulations and standards on a specific geographic area.
The Section 24 Specific Plan would be approved and adopted by the Tribal Council as the zoning for the Project Site. The Tribal Land Use ordinance permits Specific Plan s to allow for greater flexibility and provide an opportunity to focus regulations and standards in a specific geographic area. Adoption of the 12-600
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-16 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Section 24 Specific Plan would be consistent with the stated intent and purpose of specific plans in the Tribal Land Use Ordinance.
Even though the Project Site is subject to Tribal land use regulations, the consistency of the Project with the City or Riverside County land use plans and policies applicable to the area is provided in Table 5.9-1 through Table 5.9-3. As the Project Site is located within the SOI for Ranc ho Mirage, the consistency of annexing the Project Site to the City with Riverside County LAFCo policies is also assessed. In addition, because the Tribe participates in regional planning efforts coordinated by CVAG and SCAG, consistency with regional planning policies is also assessed.
City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Analysis
The City employs a single -map system of land uses. This means that the City’s General Plan land use designations are the same as its zoning designations. Also, the density and intensity standards expressed in the General Plan are the same as those expressed in the Zoning Ordinance. As previously discussed, the majority of the 577 -acre Project Site is currently designated for Medium Density Residential (R -M) use in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan wit h portions of the northern boundary designated as High Density Residential (R-H) and Community Commercial (C-C) uses.
The City’s General Plan describes the Medium Density Residential land use as single -family and Planned Residential Developments (PRD). The intent of this designation is to encourage development of a wide variety of dwelling unit types in a planned environment. The High Density Residential designation allows for smaller single -family attached products and multi -family dwelling. This designation is most suitable for planned communities and affordable and senior housing where smaller units and higher densities may be appropriate.
The City’s General Plan describes the Community Commercial land use as regional or community -scale shopping centers and malls. The centers may be anchored by several department stores or other large- scale anchors as well as a variety of retail outlets, rest aurants and entertainment uses. It is intended to serve the entire community as well as the surrounding market area. The maximum FAR for Community Commercial areas is 0.35.
The Project Site is identified as an area within the City’s SOI targeted for regulation through a S pecific Plan. The City’s General Plan states that specific plans are intended for larger, more complex projects that integrate a variety of residential and non- residential land uses and that s pecific plans can also permit uses, development standards, and density/intensity levels beyond those allowed in the City’s Zoning Code. In re turn, specific plans should demonstrate exceptional design quality and amenities, as well as the phased cost effective extension of infrastructure. As proposed, the Section 24 Specific Plan is 12-601
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-17 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
consistent with the policies in the City’s General Plan related to the intent and use of specific plans. The Section 24 Specific Plan integrates a variety of residential and non -residential uses and includes infrastructure master plans to support the intensity of uses proposed and master -planned community design standards and features. The Tribe developed the Section 24 Specific Plan though cooperative planning consultation with the City. The Section 24 Specific Plan is consistent with the intent of the City’s General Plan for the planning of this portion of the City’s SOI.
As discussed in Section B.3, Project Design Features, the half -street roadways of the Major Arterial and Collector Roadways abutting the Project Site will be designed consistent with the General Plan designations for Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road.
Within the Project Site, the half street right-of way for Bob Hope Drive is proposed at a consistent dimension of 65 feet; for Ramon Road this half street right-of way width is proposed at its current 67 feet. The section along Dinah Shore Drive will include four travel lanes bisected by a 16 foot median. An allowance is included for the addition of a third west bound land as needed in the future in order to achieve Major Arterial status. The half street section along Los Alamos Road will be a Major Collector.
This section will contain two 12-foot travel lanes, and a 6-foot on-street Class II bicycle lane bisected by a 1 6-foot raised median. The edge of Los Alamos along the Project Site incorporates an additional landscaped parkway and building setback in addition to the Major Collector right-of-way requirement.
Therefore, the Project would result in consistent roadway widths and number of lanes as identified in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.
A detailed analysis of the proposed Project’s consistency with the policies of the various elements of the City’s General plan is provided in Table 5.9-1, City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Analysis. The analysis contained in Table 5.9-1 concludes that the Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts due to inconsistency with the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
SCAG RTP/SCS Analysis
As previously noted, the 2012 SCAG R TP/SCS is an advisory document to local agencies in the southern California region for their information and voluntary use while preparing local plans and handling local issues of regional significant. Table 5.9-2, SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS Analysis , provides an assessment of the Project’s relationship to advisory and voluntary policies contain ed in various chapters of the RTP/SCS.
The analysis contained in Table 5.9-2 concludes that the Project would be consistent with the advisory and voluntary RTP/SCS policies. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant land use impacts due to inconsistency with the advisory and voluntary RTP/SCS policies. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
12-602
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-18 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
LAFCo Analysis
Annexation of the Project Site to the City would be subject to LAFC o approval, which requires consistency with State law as well as relevant LAFC o policies and procedures. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with State law or LAFCo’s Annexation Policies and Procedures.
The Project Site is within the City’s LAFCo approved SOI and the Project would not exceed the anticipated growth withi n the SOI by the City. The Municipal Service Review Update completed by LAFCo that concludes that the City’s ability to serve the anticipated growth within the SOI would not have any adverse effects on the City, as there would be resources in place to effectively expand facilities and services required.
The Project Site is completely surrounded by the City on all four sides and any future annexation would eliminate an unincorporated island, which would be consistent with S tate law and LAFCo policies. Table
5.9-3, Riverside County LAFCo Analysis, provides an analysis of the relevant LAFCo policies.
Annexation of the Project Site would not have an adverse impact on other service recipients or agencies providing services to the area and accordingly, the Project is consistent with State law and LAFCo’s plans and policies. Impacts would be less than significant.
12-603
5.9 Land Use and Planning
Meridian Consultants 5.9-19 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.9-1
City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Analysis
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency Land Use Element
Policy 1 : Specific Plans shall be required to ensure new development achieves high quality building, design, and development standards and provides amenities above those expec ted in conventional development (p. 11-19).
Development of the Section 24 Specific Plan would create a high quality mixed-use development that would provide for commercial, office, entertainment, resort, residential, open space, and other support uses.
Sections 5, Development Regulations, an d 6, Design Guidelines, of the Specific Plan set forth the standards and guidelines for high quality site planning, architecture and design, landscaping, streetscape elements, signage, and lighting that would ensure the creation of a unique and special destination place for the City of Rancho Mirage. Additionally, the Specific Plan would also provide for a wide range of residential amenities, including an integrated system of pedestrian, bicycle and golf cart trail linkages, neighborhood parks, water featur es, community club house/pool/spa, and complementary features. Signage would be provided at the entrances to the Project Site to add to the character of the community and reinforce a sense of place including sculptural, water, or a landscape element.
Policy 2: Specific plans shall be utilized to assure the phased, logical and cost-effective extension of infrastructure and buildout of new development (p. 11-19).
The Section 24 Specific Plan includes the phasing and infrastructure plans necessary to provide for the cohesive and complementary mix of land uses structured around a comprehensive set of circulation and infrastructure system and sensitivity to environmental sustainability issues of the Proje ct Site. More specifically, Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan outlines the overall purpose of the Specific Plan . As stated in Section 4.2.2 in the Specific Plan; the Planning Area s have been defined to recognize the current ownership patterns and thus enabling the Project to be constructed in an incremental fashion while still achieving a unified development.
Policy 4: The City shall ensure adequate visibility and accessibility for commercial development while preserving the scenic views heds from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way (p. 11-19).
The proposed land use plan would allocate retail, commercial, and mix ed- use land use along Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road which provide adequate visibility and accessibility for these uses fronting the Project Site for maximum exposure. Views of the distant mountains would continue to be available to motorists along Dinah Shore Drive and Bob Hope Drive and to residents south of Dinah Shore Drive because of the building height standards and the difference in elevation between the southern portion of the Project Site along Dinah Shore Drive and northern portion of the Project 12-604
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-20 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency Site. Additionally, as outlined in Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan, buildings are generally permitted to increase in height as dev elopment proceeds into the lower elevations of the Project Site and into the mixe d-use core Planning Area, south of Ramon Road . Further, visual breaks would be provided along Dinah Shore Drive and Bob Hope Drive, via building separations and the major entry landscapes primary roadways within the Project Site.
Policy 5: The City shall ensure privacy and safety for residential neighborhoods by providing ade quate buffer ing and screening, particularly those adjoining or integrated with commercial developments (p. 11-19).
As noted in Chapter 6, Design Guidelines, of the Section 24 Specific Plan, privacy and safety for residents will be ensured by providing buffering and screening, especially in neighborhoods adjacent t o commercial developments. The Specific Plan states that residential and non- residential uses will not have common entrance hallways or common balconies. This would ensure the security of residents through the provision of separate and secure entrances and exits.
Policy 6: The Community Development and Economic Development Departments shall actively pursue opportunities to attract high quality retail commercial establishments and resort hotels in the City (p. 11-20).
The Section 24 Specific Plan would cre ate a unique, high- quality development tha t would provide for commercial, office, entertainment, resort, residential, open space, and other support uses in a master-planned project. High quality retail and resort hotels are permitted which would add to the concentration of these uses in the Reservation and the City of Rancho Mirage. Additionally, Sections 5, Development Regulations, and 6, Design Standards and Guidelines, of the Specific Plan would set forth the standards and guidelines that would ensure hi gh quality site planning, architecture and design, landscaping, streetscape elements, signage, and lighting, which in turn would ensure the creation of a unique destination.
Policy 7: The City shall maintain a cooperative planning process with appropriate jurisdictions, including the County of Riverside and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, assuring an effective advisory role regarding any and all development and land use planning issues proposed within or in close proximity to the City and its Sphere of Influence (p. 11-20).
The Section 24 Specific Plan was developed through cooperative planning efforts between the Tribe and the City of Rancho Mirage.
Affordable Housing
Policy 1: Specific Plans shall be required to ensure new development achieves high quality building, design, and development standards and provides amenities above those expected in conventional development (p. 11-21).
The Section 24 Specific Plan locates the Adult Active Community at the southwestern portion of Section 24. The remaining Planning Area s would border the residential community on the north and eastern edge of the Project Site to provide a consistent and compatible transition to surrounding land uses. The design standards and guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan would also ensure that high quality architecture and landscaping would be 12-605
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-21 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency provided along the Projects frontages in a manner that would preserve and enhance the character of the Project Site and surrounding land uses.
Policy 2: Density transfers (the transfer of allowable dwelling units from one area of land to another) may occur in planned residential developments in conjunction with the provision of common area amenities and open space.
Golf courses, greenbelts, pool areas and other op en space uses incorporated into these developments shall be designated as Open Space areas to ass ure their preservation as such (p. 11-21).
Although no density transfers are currently planned, such transfers would be consistent with the stated policy becau se the Project includes substantial open space and common area amenities. The Section 24 Specific Plan includes the provision of adding adequate common area amenities and open space to serve the needs of the residential uses. Open space and recreational am enities would include parks and private and public residential, resort, and commercial open and recreation spaces, which could include but not be limited to pools, clubhouses, plazas, and courtyards . In addition, open space standards and requirements outlined in the Specific Plan would provide for the necessary common -area amenities and open spaces needed for the Section 24 community.
Policy 3: The City shall consider the issues of slope disturbance, development area and lot coverage, view preservation, revegetation, compatibility, public safety, and access when assessing potential residential developments (p. 11-21).
The Section 24 Specific Plan includes a master grading plan, design; development and landscape standards that will control development area and lot coverage, and would also ensure land use compatibility and preserve existing views. Additionally, public safety and access are addressed in the design and layout of the motorized and non- motorized circulation plans included in the Specific Plan.
Commercial Land Uses
Policy 1: The City shall designate sufficient lands to provide revenue to the City and a full range of commercial services to the community and surrounding areas for present and future years (p. 11-23).
The Specific Plan would provide for the creation of up to approximately 3. 1 million square feet of h igh-quality resort, commercial, office, and entertainment uses that will expand the range of commercial services available to the community.
These land uses would be permitted in
variations within the Retail, Mixed -Use Core, and Resort Flex land use designations. The proposed land use plan allows commercial land uses along Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road.
Institutional Uses
Policy 1: Institutional uses and facilities shall be developed in a manner that assures adequate levels of service, while remaining compatible with existing and future land uses (p. 11-24).
The Specific Plan permits clubhouse facilities in the Active Adult Community, which would not only serve the residents living in the Specific Plan area , which would be compatible with existing uses to the west and south.
Open Space Uses
Policy 3: The City shall maintain a Development Code that encourages the provision and preservation of open space areas through flexible The open space standards in the Section 24 Specific Plan require specific provision for open space and common -area amenities for the different land 12-606
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-22 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency development standards (p. 11-23). uses of the Specific Plan. The open space standards a llow the different la nd uses to combine open space requirements to create larger and more functional open space areas. These standards require the open space necessary to provide for recreational and people -gathering areas within the Project Site. Open space and recreationa l amenities would include parks and private and public residential, resort, and commercial open and recreation spaces, which could include but not be limited to pools, clubhouses, plazas, courtyards, greenbelts, and jogging paths.
Circulation Element
Policy 1: The City’s street system shall be designed a nd constructed to maximize mobility, minimize congestion, and assure that all intersections and street segments shall operate at LOS “D” or better during the peak hours of traffic, as generated by the buildout of the Land Use Plan (p. III-19).
The Section 24 Specific Plan C irculation Plan would be consistent with the roadway standards outlined in the City’s General Plan. They would be designed to maximize t he regional and local vehicular circulation sy stem for the area. Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan defines the street dimensions and setback requirements that would create environments appropriate for residential, mixed -use, l ive/work, and commercial areas within the Project Site. Additionally, the design standards and guidelines outlin ed in the Specific Plan address streetscape elements that would enhance the character of each street. The traffic study included in as Appendix G to the Draft EIS determined that all intersections and street segments would operate at LOS D or better du ring the peak hours of traffic with the addition of traffic from the proposed Project.
Section 5.14, Traffic and Transportation, contains further information about Project’s traffic and circulation improvements.
Policy 2: A detailed traffic analysis shall be required for development proposals or other activities that might potentially require roadway improvements above and beyond those evaluated in the Circulation Element and General Plan EIR (p. III-20).
As noted above, a traffic study is included in as Appendix G to the Draft EIS.
The study found that the P roject’s traffic can be accommodated by the planned roadway system and that no new roadway improvements above and beyond those identified in the Circulation Element would be needed with development of the Project.
Section 5.14 contains further information about P roject’s traffic and circulation improvements.
Policy 4: The number of access points and intersections along arterials shall be limited in order to preserve mid block and intersection capacities and to The Section 24 Specific Plan C irculation Plan would streamli ne and coordinate access points entering the Project Site to maximize efficient circulation surrounding and withi n the Project Site, to maximize intersection 12-607
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-23 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency maintain public safety (p. 111-20).
Policy 9: Circulation and access for undeveloped parcels shall be coordin ated with surrounding properties (p.III-21).
capacities, and to maintain public safety. The Specific Plan also encour ages the use of traffic calming measures within the Project Site to ensure the safety of pedestrians, such as enhanced paving at intersections.
Section 5.14 contains further information about P roject’s traffic and circulation improvements.
Policy 5: Access points shall be coordinated between future development in Section 13 and any future development of the properties on the west side of Bob Hope Drive (p. III-20).
The Specific Plan defines fifteen access points, each of which will be attractively landscaped and signed for vehicles and pedestrians. Seven of the fifteen access points are signalized intersection s and all would be developed to coordinate with t he access points established in the Section 19 and Section 13 Specific Plans.
Policy 7: The City shall develop a system of continuous and conv enient bicycle routes and multi -use trails to places of employment, shopping centers, schools, an d other high act ivity areas; as well as a golf cart transportation program (p. III-20).
The Section 24 Specific Plan would create a mixed -use community that enables residents to live within walking and non- motorized vehicle distances from store, restaurants, recreational areas, and associated cultural/entertainment venues.
The Project would provide for a Class II bikeway which would be a striped, on-street lane (5 feet wide) for one- way bicycle travel on Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road, Dinah Shore Drive , Los Alamos Road as well as “A” Street Boulevard. The Class II facilities extend from the Class I pathways to provide dedicated access to the Project’s residential and mixed -use interior. The bike path would be shared with golf carts that would connect into the existing golf cart circulation system, which provides Class I paths along the south side of Dinah Shore Drive west of Bob Hope Drive along the west side of Los Alamos Road.
SunLine provides service to the Project Site along Dinah Shore via Route 32.
As development matures within the Project Site , sufficient demand may be generated to support additional bus lines or a change in existing routes to stop at two locations within the Mixed -Use Core Planning Area s. More specifically, as shown on Figure 3.0-9, Existing & Conceptual Public Transportation System, potential SunLine routes with conceptual stop locations could be provided along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive . With the current SunLine transit route and the potential future multimodal transit station within Section 13 adjacent to the UPRR, the Project Site could also 12-608
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-24 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency benefit from the ability to use mass transit. As sho wn on Figure 3.0 -8, Conceptual Pedestrian and Alternative Vehicle Circulation Plan , and Figure
3.0-9, access to the multimodal station would be prov ided through a variety of paths and trails. The Specific Plan would also create a concentration of residential and commercial uses adjacent to these transit lines to take advantage of this potential future transit service.
Section 5.14, Traffic and Transportation, contains further information about the alternative modes of transportation.
Policy 10: Streets within private planned residential areas shall be installed and maintained as private streets, and shall be developed in accordance with development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable standards and guidelines (p. III-21).
If roadways internal to the Project Site remain under private ownership, those roadways would be privately maintained by one or more of the owner associations. Prior to the approval of any new development within the Project Site , project applicants wou ld be required to provide a clear description of the role of the association in providing and maintaining private roadways, amenities, landscaping,
and other improvements.
Additionally, the roadways within the Section 24 Specific Plan Circulation Plan would be consistent with the roadway standards outlined in the City’s General Plan. Further, the Specific Plan outlines the design standards and guidelines (e.g., landscaping, dimensions, setbac ks, lighting) that would ensure that roadways would be designed to maximize e fficient circulation within the P roject Site to maximize intersecti on capacities, and to maintain public safety. The design standards and guidelines out lined in the Specific Plan also address streetscape elements that would enhance the character of each street.
Housing Element
Policy 1: The General Plan shall provide for a mixture of residential densities dispersed throughout the City (p. IV-4).
Policy 2: The City’s residential development standards shall allow for a diversity of housing types while adhering to the General Plan’s community design policies (p. IV-4).
The Project would provide a range or residential densities and unit types within the residential Planning Area s. A maximum of 2, 406 residential units are proposed, which would include multi -family and single family residences, including age restricted homes for active adults that would expand the range of residential densities available in the community.
The proposed housing types would accommodate a broad range of in come levels and lifestyles and respond to local and regi onal housing needs.
Additionally, the design standards outlined in the Section 24 Specific Plan (e.g., permitted residen tial uses, densities, setbacks, and building heights) 12-609
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-25 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency would ensure that a diversity of housing types be developed, consistent with the City’s visio n of creating an exemplary community environment for the Project Site.
Section 5.1 1, Population and Housing , con tains further information about Project’s population and housing needs and impacts.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Parks and Recreational Resources
Policy 2: To the extent feasible, the City shall provide at least 3 acres of local and community parkland per 1,000 in population, which include park facilities for all age segments of the population (p. V-15).
As outlined in the Section 24 Specifi c Plan, the parkland provisions would be met through a combination of lan d dedication, improvements, private recreation, and applicable in-lieu fees. Additionally, the design standards and guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan would provide the location and orientation guidelines necessary for the design of local parks within the Project Site.
Section 5.1 4, Recreation , contains further information about the P roject’s needs for parks and open space.
Policy 3: To the extent feasible, the design of City parks and trails shall accommodate the special needs of the disabled and senior population in Rancho Mirage (p. V-16).
Policy 4: The design of local parks shall consider neighborhood suggestions for facility needs (p. V-16).
The parks and open space design standards in the Section 24 Specific Plan outline the nece ssary provisions to provide for usable and accessible recreation areas . The proposed open space requirements and streetscape design elements would create a pedestrian -friendly environment for residents and visitors. Additionally, the Specific Plan would emphasize function and use by requiring a minimum level surface dimension of 20 feet in any direction required for usable common open space. As outlined in the Specific Plan, recreational amenities would include parks and private and public residential, resort, and commercial open and recreation spaces, which could include but not be limited to pools, clubhouses, plazas, courtyards, greenbelts, and jogging paths.
Policy 5: Class III bikeways shall only be permitted in the City where Class I or II bikeways are not feasible and where an essential regional bicycle route connection is missing (p. V-16).
Alternative modes of transportation systems, which include pedestrian, bicycle, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and golf cart rout es, would provide alternative travel modes that would accommodate different population segments of the Section 24 community and the City of Rancho Mirage. For example, various bikeway classifications (Class I, II and III) would be developed in order to link development within the Project Site to the 12-610
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-26 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency potential future multi-modal transit stations.
Biological Resources
Policy 1: The City shall support and participate in local and regional efforts to evaluate and protect natural habitats, including suitable habitats for rare and endangered species occurring in the City and the vicinity (p. V-28).
The Tribe has recognized the importance of protecting the Coachella Valley’s natural resources; consequently, the THCP was adopted by the Tribe to provide strategies for managing these natural resources while also supporting the goals established by the USFWS to protect sensitive species and habitat.
Based on the conservation program defined in the THCP, the Tribe is seeking to enter an Implementing Agreement with, and obtain a Section 10(a) Permit from USFWS to authorize the incidental take of covered species of wildlife in connection with certain activities undertaken by the Tribe, Tribal members, and in some cases, third parties. The THCP has not yet been approved by the USFWS and a Section 10(a) Permit has not been issued. Until take authority is granted to the Tribe through the issuance of a 10(a) Permit, incidental take permits would continue to be obtained directly from the USFWS as allowed by the FESA. The Tribe has independent authority to enforce its obligations under the THCP and the Tribe is implementing the plan to mitigate impacts to sensitive resources on Tribal lands.
The THCP is intended to support the issuance of an incidental take permit to the Tribe from USFWS un der Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) for 24 covered species, including 21 sensitive wildlife and 3 sensitive plant species. Several of these species are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Listed covered species include, but are not limited to , the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizar d, Coachella Valley milk vetch, peninsular bighorn sheep, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, California red -legged frog, and mountain yellow -legged frog.
Protection for covered species and the habitats that support them would be afforded through the Tribe’s conservation program.
Policy 3: The City shall encourage the use of naturally occurring desert plant materials and discourage the use of non -native plant materials that are harmful to native plant and animal species in landscaping for development projects to the greatest extent possible (p. V-28).
As outlined in the plant palette of the Section 24 Specific Plan, the landscape plan utilizes native plant ma terials in order to encourage the use of these desert-friendly plants.
12-611
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-27 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency Energy and Mineral Resources
Policy 1: The City shall promote energy efficiency and conservation in all areas of community development, including transportation, development planning, and public and private sector construction and operation, as well as in the full range of residential and non-residential projects (p. V-32).
The environmental design guidelines outlined in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan include provisions for energy efficiency and conservation through site design, building design, and landscaping measures. As outlined in the Section 24 Specific Plan, shading dev ises and techniques (e.g., roof overhangs, arcades, trees) are required for all buildings and outdoor spaces to minimize unnecessary solar -heat gain. Other measures include the use of recycled - content aggregate; the use of swales with native or drought tolerant grasses to collect and filter water runoff; the use of stormwater retention in surface or subsurface storage areas; and the development of recycling programs for residential and commercial uses. Measures fo r building design and materials are also included in the Specific Plan. For example, developers are highly encouraged to pursue already established best management practices, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, ComfortWise, and EnergyStar Homes. Other provisio ns include the accommodation of photovoltaic cells for solar power; the inclusion of architectural features that increase daylighting into interior spaces; the use of light -colored roofing materials; and the use of EnergyStar® appliances and products with low - emitting volatile organic compounds. As outlined in the Specific Plan, landscaping measures include the use of plant materials and species that area native, drought tolerant and/or have low water demand; high-efficiency irrigation systems; and grey water and/or collected rainwater for irrigation.
Policy 2: The General Plan and other community plans shall assure an efficient circulation system and land use pattern in the City (p. V-32).
Policy 3: Major developments that provide significant employment centers shall be required to provide convenient and safe access to the public transit system (p. V-32).
The land use and circulation plans in the Section 24 Specific Plan focus on transportation and development planning to encourage alternative modes of transportation and promote efficient
circulation and land use systems in
connection with energy conservation. For example, the proposed circulation plan would streamline and coordinate access points entering the Project Site to maximize efficient circulation surrounding and within the Project Site, to maximize intersection capacities, and to maintain public safety. Additional ly, in the proposed non -motorized and alternative circulation p lan for the Project, alternative modes of transportation systems are incorporated including pedestrian, bicycle, NEV, and golf cart paths. These systems would connect internally and to the surr ounding routes to provide an alternative mode of transportation for residents and visito rs, and they would also provide convenient and safe access to the existing SunLine bus route along Dinah Shore Drive and Ramon Road , and to the potential future multimodal 12-612
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-28 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency transit station that may be developed in the Section 13 planning area immediately north of the Project Site. If de veloped, the multimodal transit station would allow residents and employees to commute to and from the Project Site without significant reliance on vehicular transportation. Access to the multimodal station thr ough a variety of non -vehicular paths and trails would encourage convenient and safe access to the public transit system.
Water Quality and Resources
Policy 1: To the greatest exte nt practical, the City shall encourage the use of drought tolerant landscaping as a means of reducing water demand (p. V - 37).
As outlined in the Section 24 Specific Plan, required l andscaping measures include the use of plant materials and s pecies that ar ea native, drought tolerant and/or have low water demand; high- efficiency irr igation systems; and grey water and/or collected rainwater for landscaping and irrigation.
Policy 4: The City shall require the use of alternative water supplies, such as recycled or canal water, for urban irrigation, where available (p. V-38).
Policy 5: New developments shall establish and confirm the ability to meet current and future water resource demands (p. V-38).
The Section 24 Specific Plan will model design features that are both responsive to water conservation and stormwater management best practices that are sensitive to the desert environment sustainability needs of the Coachella Valley. One of the examples of water conservation is to encourage the future use of “grey water ,” recycled water infrastructure, and collected rainwater in exterior landscape irrigation systems.
A Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) for the Project was prepared and submitted to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval (see Appendix H). The WSA/WSV concluded that there is substantial evidence to support a determination that there will be sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project.
A detailed analysis of the P roject’s water supply and needs is provided in Section 5.15, Utilities and Service Systems.
Archaeological and Historic Resources
Policy 2: Development or land use proposals that have the potential to disturb or destroy sensitive cultural resources shall be evaluated by a qualified professional and appropriate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into project approvals, if necessary (p. V-42).
Section 5.4, Cultural Resources , evaluated the potential for impacts on cultural resou rces as a result of the P roject development and it was concluded that the Project would not significantly impact any cultural resources. Adequate Mitigation Measures for the protection of cultural resources a re outlined in Section 5.4 . Mitigation Measure s MM 5.4-1 through MM 5.4-4 require the retention of a qualified archaeolo gist to work with the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, to monitor all grading and 12-613
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-29 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency ground-altering activities within the Project Site, to adequatel y catalog unknown resources, and to coordinate treatment and final disposition of any human remains.
Refer to Section 5.4 for more information about cultural resources.
Air Quality Element
Policy 2: The City shall promote the development of pedestrian -oriented retail centers, as well as community wide multi use trails and bike paths, dedicated bike lanes, and other desirable alternatives to motor vehicle traffic (p. VI-4).
Policy 3: The City shall promote the appropriate and cost effective development and coordination of mass transit/shuttle service linking residential, shopping, resort, and commercial centers of the City, and participate with CVAG, the Southern California Association of Governments, and public and private service providers to improve and optimize regional transportation services (p. VI-4).
See response to Policy 7 in the City’s Circulation Element with regards to alternative means of travel. See also response to Policy 1 under the Energy and Mineral Resources discussion of the Conservation and Open Space Element with regards to site, building, and landscaping alte rnative energy design measures.
In addition to the pedestrian, bicycle, and golf cart paths proposed throughout the P roject Site, future residents may purchase NEVs to make short trips to run errands, visit recreation facilities , or meet with friends.
NEVs are public street -approved vehicles that have no emissions, and c an travel at a maximum speed of 25 mph. In contrast with golf carts, NEVs are able to travel on city streets with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less, and can cross intersections of roadways with higher posted speed limits (per California Vehicle Code Section 385.5).
Policy 4: The City shall encourage the use of clean alternative energy sources for transportation heating, and cooling whenever practical (p. VI-4).
The Section 24 Specific Plan requires that certain measures be taken to protect the long -term success of the Project Site, in particular the use of design features to help reduce energy use to cool buildings. There will be the encouragement of already established sustainable best management practices, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. Among other requirements, the use of light -colored roofing materials t o reflect heat and reduce cooling requirements of buildings is strongly encouraged.
Noise Element
Policy 1: The potential of land use patterns, associated traffic and its distribution, and individual development shall be assessed for their potential to generate adverse and incompatible noise impacts. Significant impacts identified shall be appropriately mitigated (p. VII- 9).
The Specific Plan includes development standards that would ensure compatibility between land uses and addre ss potentially significant impacts regarding noise. For example, the Speci fic Plan outlines measures that prohibit uses, activities, or processes that would produce continual vibrations or noxious odors that are perceptible by the average person 12-614
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-30 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency Policy 2: Noise sensitive land uses, including residences, resorts, community open space, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and convalescent homes shall be protected from high noise levels emitted by both existing and future noise sources (p. VII- 9).
Policy 4: Land uses that are compatible with higher noise levels shall be encouraged to locate adjacent to the City ’s major arterial roads and highways or the Southern Pacific Railroad/I -10 corridor to maximize noise - related land use compatibility (p. VII-10).
without in struments along property lines within the Project Site or within the interior area of residential units.
The proposed land use plan would ensure that compatible land uses would be
located adjacent to one another and that noise sensitive land uses such as residential would be protected from noise impacts by locating them away from high noise sources such as the I -10/UPRR corridor and traffic along the adjacent major arterials (Dinah Shore Drive and Bob Hope Drive). For example, retail and resort land uses h ave been located along Dinah Shore Drive, Ramon Road, and Bob Hope Drive for maximum exposure, but also because these uses would be more compatible with the vehicular noise levels along these roadways. Placing the retail and resort land uses along the major roadway frontages would also provide a n oise buffer for the residential uses that would be developed in the Mixed Use Core and Residential Planning Areas.
Refer to Section 5. 10, Noise, for a detailed noise analysis and the P roject’s Design Features/Elements and Mitigation Measures that would ensure minimal noise impacts.
Policy 3: Project designs shall be required to include measures that assure that interior noise levels for residential development do not exceed 45 dBA (p. VII-10).
Refer to Section 5.10, for the detailed analysis and conclusion s of the noise analysis and the P roject’s Design Features/Elements and Mitigation Measures that would e nsure minimal noise impacts. As outlined in Section
5.10, Project implementation would ensure that all applicable exterior and interior noise standards would be adhered to during the construction and operation phases of the Project.
Safety Element
Geotechnical Hazards—Wind Erosion and Wind-Blown Sand
Policy 10: The City shall encourage the incorporation of wind barriers, architectural design or features, and drought resistant ground coverage in new development site designs to mitigate the impacts from erosion and wind-blown sand (p. VIII-22).
The environmental design guidelines outlined in Chapter 6 of the Section 24 Specific Plan conta in provisions for wind barriers and wind- blown sand to protect development features of the P roject a nd to reduce hazards associated with wind and wind- blown sand. Additionally, as outlined in the Specific Plan, the landscape design guidelines require the use of drought resistant ground coverage.
12-615
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-31 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency Flooding and Hydrology Hazards
Policy 2: The City shall p rovide drainage controls and improvements that enhance local conditions and are consistent with and complement the Master Drainage Plans (p. VIII-29).
Policy 5: Design major drainage facilities, including debris basins and flood control washes and channe ls, to balance their enhancement as wildlife habitat and community open space amenities with the functional requirements of these facilities (p. VIII-29).
The proposed drainage plan incorporate s the hydrologic systems necessary to contain and percolate d rainage on site . T he Section 24 Specific Plan contains landscape treatment guidelines for the retention basins and well sites proposed within the Project Site , giv ing these drainage features the appearance of landscaped open space areas. As also outlined i n the Specific Plan, the dual use of parkland for both open spaces and retention basins is highly encouraged to maximize developable land and satisfy on -site retention requirements. Furthermore, Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan contains environmental design guidelines relate d to the provision of efficient drainage. Some of the measures outlined in Chapter 6 include the use of swales with native or drought -tolerant grasses to collect and filter water runoff; the use of stormwater retention in surface or subsurface storage areas for non-potable water uses; and the use of plant materials and species that area native, drought tolerant and/or have low water demand.
Public Services and Facilities Element
Water, Sewer, and Utilities
Policy 4: All subdivisions shall be connected to sewer lines (p. IX-14). The proposed Project sewer lines would connect to existing sewer lines with sufficient capacity to serve the land uses allowed by the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan and would be designed and constructed in a ccordance with Coachella Valley Water District standards.
Policy 9: Utility lines on major streets shall have primary consideration for under-grounding (p. IX-15).
Policy 10: Major utility facilities shall be sited to assure minimal impacts to the environment and the community, and minimize potential environmental hazards (p. IX-15).
The design standards and guidelines outlined in the Section 24 Specific Plan require exterior o n-site facilities, including sewer,
gas, water, electric,
telephone, and communications equipment be installed underground where feasible. Transformers and other utility equipment that are required to be located above ground would be required to be screened and incorporated into landscaped areas wherever possible.
Fire and Police Protection
Policy 1: All new and improved developments shall be reviewed for their impact on safety and the provision of police and fire protection services (p.
IX-20).
Policy 2 : Enforce fire standards and regulations in the course of reviewing Adequate police and fire services would be provided to the Project Site .
Additionally, during the building permitting process , the Riversi de County Fire and Sheriff’s Departments would review development plans to ensu re that adequate facilities and infrastructure are provided to serve t he needs of the fire and police departments.
12-616
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-32 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency building plans and conducting building inspections (p. IX-20).
Refer to Section 5.12, Public Services, for more information about police and fire protection and emergency services.
Policy 5: Emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access shall be provided with all new development to the satisfaction of the City (p. IX -20).
The Project would provide adequate and convenient emergency- services access throughout the various areas of the Project Site , including the residential neighborhoods, open space areas, and commercial, o ffice, and entertainment uses. All access ways a nd drives would be designed and constructed in accordance with City and Riverside County Fire and Sheriff’s Department standards.
Schools and Libraries
Policy 2: The City shall cooperate in the process to secure school impact fees from developers in accordance with state law, and strive to reduce overcrowding and improve the educational quality of the City’s public school system (p. IX-23).
Policy 3 : The City shall ensure that adequate library services, space and volumes are available to satisfy the literary and educational needs of i ts residents (p. IX-23).
To address the increase in student enrollment as a result of the project development, individual project applicants would be required to pay applicable, or a similar contribution to, school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system. These fees will be collected by school districts at the time of i ssuance of building permits for commerci al, industrial, and residential projects. The library system of Rancho Mirage indicated that
there would be adequate services for residents of the Section 24 community.
Refer to Section 5.1 2, Public Services , for more information about schools and library services.
Public Buildings and Facilities
Policy 3: The siting of equipment storage and maintenance yards and facilities will be conducted in a manner which is sensitive to and has a minimum impact on surrounding existing and future land uses (p. IX-36).
As outlined in the design standards of the Section 24 Specific Plan, service areas, utility areas, and trash enclosures are encouraged to be incorporated within the adjacent building envelope. If this is i nfeasible, these areas would be required to be oriented away from public view, within design enclosures that provide ornamental screening and landscaping.
Community Design Element
Community Identity
Policy 1: The City’s symbolic identity shall be enhanced through distinct signage, gateways, architecture, and landscaping (p. X-4).
Policy 2: Unique views of mountains and other natural open spaces from the The Section 24 land use plan would allocate high -quality, visually distinctive commercial and resort land uses along Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road fronting the Project Site for maximum exposure. Planning Area 3, which would serve as the major entry point into the Project Site , could feature a 12-617
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-33 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency City’s streets shall be preserved and enhanced (p. X-4).
Policy 3: The City shall ensure the development of high quality, visually distinctive commercial uses (p. X-4).
Policy 4: The planning and design of residential neighborhoods shall provide distinctive and characteristi c design elements along public rights -of-way and within the project, creating a recognizable sense of place (p. X-4). mix of u ses including community retail, restaurants, professional office, and live/work. The Specific Plan outlines design standards and guidelines for streetscape elements such as signage, lighting, street furnishings, walls, fences, gates, paving materials, water features, and public art. The standards involve a high level of planning and design for the P roject, and require that the design elements be consistent and complementary throughout the Project Site . Additionally, the landscape standards of the Specific Plan establish landscape treatments in addition to the streetscape elements to provide unique design elements for public rights of way and open spaces.
Sufficient recreational and public gathering spaces are required, as outlined in the open space standards of the Specific Plan. Amenities would inclu de parks and private and public residenti al, resort, and commercial open and recreation spaces, which could include but not be limited to pools, clubhouses, plazas, courtyards, greenbelts, and jogging paths.
Sections 5, Development Regulations, and 6, Design Standards and Guidelines, of the Section 24 Specific Plan would set forth the standards and guidelines for high quality site planning, architecture and design, landscaping, streetscape elements, signage, and lighting that would ensure the creation of a unique and special mixed-use community. The mix of land uses provided under the Specific Plan, in conjunction with the open space requirements, would provide for the development of a h igh quality, pedestrian friendly community. Additionally, the development standards outlined in the Spec ific Plan contain the necessary requirements for building intensity, setbacks, and height needed for the development of high -quality commercial and multifamily residential uses. Views would also be preserved through the building setback and height standards.
Policy 5: Multi -family residential projects s hall provide well -designed and neighborhood enhancing living space, usable and safe private and common open space areas, adequate parking and appropriate automobile storage, screened trash enclosures, a comprehensiv e landscape program, and perimeter walls and fencing. (p. X-4)
Sections 5, Development Regulations, and 6, Design Standards and Guidelines, of the Section 24 Specific Plan would set forth the standards and guidelines for high quality site planning, architecture and design, landscaping, streetscape elements, signage, and lighting that would ensure the creation of a unique and special mixed-use community. The mix of land uses provided under the Specific Plan, in
conjunction with the open space
requirements, would provide for the development of a h igh quality, pedestrian friendly community. Additionally, the development standards outlined in the Spec ific Plan contain the necessary requirements for building 12-618
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-34 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency intensity, setbacks, and height needed for the d evelopment of high -quality commercial and multifamily residential uses. Views would also be preserved through the building setback and height standards.
Scenic Roadways
Policy 1: The City shall develop and maintain high-quality roadways that frame views, buffer surrounding residential development, and enhance commercial uses (p. X-8)
Policy 2: The City shall ensure the development of well-designed, richly landscaped intersections that are attractive to drivers and pedestrians alike (p. X-9).
Policy 3 : View corridors shall b e preserved through streetscape improvements and specialized design standards (p. X-9).
Landscape treatments for the different roadways within the Section 24 Specific Plan contain provisions for framing views and allowing e xposure to adjacent commercial uses. The Specific Plan also designates important intersections with special landscape treatments that are consistent with the City’s General Plan “oasis” concept. Additionally, the streetscape components addressed in the design standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan set forth requirements for signage, lighting, special paving, walls and fences, and street furnishings within public rights of way. The treatment and use of these elements also emphasize special intersectio ns within the community. Views would also be preserved through the building setback and height standards outlined in the Specific Plan.
Perimeter Walls/Fencing
Policy 1: Walls and fence designs shall be considered important components of the design review process and overall streetscape improvement plans (p.
X-11).
Wall and fence design standards are included in the Specific Plan. These elements are required to be consistent in quality and design with the existing walls in the surrounding area.
Signage and Lighting
Policy 1: The City shall encourage high -quality, low -scale signage that effectively communicates in an attractive manner (p. X-12).
Policy 2: Lighting features that preserve the beauty of the desert night while still performing directional, safety, and informational function s shall be designed and incorporated into development projects (p. X-14).
The design standards and guidelines outlined in the Section 24 Specific Plan set forth general requirements for signage and lighting in the P roject Site. As outlined in the Specific Plan, in addition to the signage standards and guidelines, a sign program is required on a project -by-project basis, which identifies a hierarch y of signs with a common theme, as well as the signage location and st yle. The sign programs are required to be consistent and complementary within the Project Site . The lighting design through the Project Site would be designed to highlight design and landscaping features, reinforce the community theme, and help ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety. As outlined in the Specific Plan, lighting is required to b e designed to preserve the beauty of the desert night. The Specific Plan also outlines prohibitions on lighting types, such as blinking, flashing, and oscillating light s. 12-619
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-35 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency Architecture
Policy 1: The City shall encourage cohesive yet flexible architectural design to all structures within the City (p. X-14).
As outlined in the Section 24 Specific Plan, architectural styles selected for the Project are required to be compa tible with the surrounding architecture of the existing community. Visual diversity would be promoted through the use of different architectural styles within the Project Site , but these styles are required to be complementary wi thin the Project Site and w ith the existing architectural styles. The Specific Plan design guidelines for building mass, scale, and form encourage the modulation and articulation of building form to avoid repetitive or blank elevations. Additionally, the architectural guidelines of the Specific Plan focus on design details, shadow elem ents, rooflines variations, and
accent features such as towers to ensure
architectural interest.
Policy 2: The City shall encourage new development to incorporate “green building” practices to maximize resource conservation and be compatible with the surrounding desert environment (p. X-15).
See response to Policy 1 under the Energ y and Mineral Resources section of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
Commercial Development
Policy 1: Projects shal l incorporate architectu ral interest and variety within the context of a unified setting, in cluding commonalities of color, landscaping, signage and lighting. Strong architectural detailing including façade articulation and varied building materials, color s, and massing shall be encouraged (p. X-16).
Policy 2: Projects shall provide comfortab le, attractive, and distinctive pedestrian amenities including sitting area s, shade structures, fountains, and arcades (p. X-16).
Policy 3: The City shall encourage t he incorporation of arcades and covered paseos in the design of retail commercial structures (p. X-16).
Policy 4: Projects shall incorporate a sense of playfulness into the design of public places with novelty fountains and public art (p. X -17).
Policy 5: Projects shall design highly visible entrances throu gh accent landscaping, monument signs, back lighting, specialized paving, and other design amenities (p. X-17).
Sections 5, Development Regulations, and 6, Design Standards and Guidelines, of the Specific Plan define standards and guidelines for high quality site planning, architecture and design, landscaping, stree tscape elements, signage, and lighting that would ensure the creation of a unique and special destination place for the City of Rancho Mirage. The design standards and guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan contain provisions for building
orientation and massing, architectural styles and building design, pedestrian spaces, parking and service areas, and streetscape elements. The architectural guidelines encourage the use o f arcades and covered paseos to incorporate shade elements within the façade of the building. The hardscape guidelines direct the use of seating areas, shade features, special paving, and other streetscape features important to shaping the character of plazas and public spaces within the P roject Site. The Specific Plan also provides for the design of major intersections and entries to create a sense of entrance and arrival through the use of landscape design, themed signage, lighting, and enhanced hardscape elements.
12-620
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-36 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency
Policy 6: Projects shall incorporate rich and varied paving materials on entry driveways, pedestrian connections from parking areas, pedestrian paths along storefronts, and within plazas and courtyards (p. X-17) Policy 7: Monument, retail and directional signs shall use accent lighting (p. X-17).
Policy 8: Projects shall incorporate monument signs near corners or entrances to retail centers (p. X-17).
The design standards and guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan set forth general requirements for signage in the Project Site . As outlined in the Specific Plan, in addition to the signage standards and guidelines, a sign program is required on a project -by-project basis, which identifies a hierarchy of signs with a common theme, as well as the signage location and style. The sign programs are required to be consistent and c omplementary within the Project Site.
Policy 10: Service bay doors, necessary for tire stores, service stations, lube shops, and car washes shou ld be oriented away from public streets and screened from neighboring properties (p. X-17).
As outlined in the design standards and guidelines of the Section 24 Specific Plan, service and utility areas are e ncouraged to
be incorporated in the
adjacent building envelope. If this is infeasible, these areas a re required to be oriented away from public view, within design enclosures th at provide ornamental screening and landscaping.
Parking Design
Policy 1: Parking shall be screened from roadways by encouraging landscaped medians, berms, trellises, grade changes, or placement behind buildings (p. X-18).
Policy 2: The City shall encourage layered landscaping with overstory canopy trees for shade and understory shrubs and groundcover in parking areas.
Policy 3: Projects shall configure parking areas to allow for the free flow of vehicular traffic and convenient vehicular access to customers (p. X -18).
Policy 4: The City shall encourage the landscaping of parking areas to reduce the deflection of heat into nearby buildings and to reduce the paved surface area. Shade trees are especially encouraged (p. X-19).
As outlined in the design standards and guidelines of the Specific Plan, parking areas would be required to be clustered where feasible, to avoid large, expansive parking lots and maximize securi ty, surveillance, and efficient access for pedestrians and vehicles. Parking areas are encouraged to locate behind buildings so that the building façade can face directly onto the street, creating a more enga ging pedestrian cor ridor. The design standards and guidelines also encourage the use of landscaping and trellises to screen parking areas. A dditionally, landscape standards of the Specific Plan outlines landscape treatment specific to parking a reas, which incorporates canopy trees for shade in addition to shrubs and groundcover.
Further, as outlined in the environmental design guidelines of the Specific Plan, drought -tolerant or native canopy or deciduous trees will b e located around paved areas to reduce solar heat absorption by the paving.
Policy 5: Lighting shall be directed downward to protect from nighttime glare and illuminate pedestrian pathways with bollard lighting (p. X -19).
The Specific Plan identifies streetscape elements such as lighting and signage, which would work in conju nction with the landscape themes to emphasize access and safety. The lighting standards outlined in the Specific 12-621
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-37 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relevant General Plan Policies Specific Plan Consistency Policy 6: Projects shall provide directional and identification signs in contiguous parking areas one acre or greater in size to facilitate pedestrian movement to and from parked vehicles (p. X-19).
Plan contain provisions for pedestrian -scale lighting to promote safety and also require t he installation of full cut -off luminaries in parking areas.
Additionally, as outlined in the Section 24 Specific Plan, entry and e xit points are encouraged to be well marked with streetscape and landscape features in order to provide efficient access.
People-Gathering Places
Policy 1: Commercial developments shall be designed to incorporate attractive, people-friendly spaces (p. X-20).
The open space standards and the applicable design guidelines and standards outlined in the Specific Plan establish standards for the development of functional gathering spaces within th e commercial areas of the Project. The design and layout of the comme rcial buildings would encourage safe and convenient pedestria n activity through the creation of plazas, corridors, courtyards, outdoor eating ar eas, and urban open spaces.
The building orientation and siting guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan also encourage public spaces and retail uses along major internal roadways , which would foster pedestrian activity along a well-designed circulation plan.
Additionally, the hardscape guidelines outlined in the Specific Plan include provisions for the design and location of seating areas, shade structures, and other elements of the streetscape for public spaces.
Economic and Fiscal Element
Policy 1: The City’s land use designations shall provide opportunities for a broad range of residential, commercial, office, institutional, and light industrial development in appropriate locations (p. XI-6).
The Section 24 land use plan provides for a mix of land uses including commercial, office, institutiona l, entertainment, resort, and residential uses planned to be consistent and compatible with existing and planned uses on surrounding land. These commercial uses will line Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road and residential uses are buffered by mixed -use designations and adjacent to other residential uses.
12-622
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-38 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.9-2
SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS Analysis
Goal Analysis
RTP/SCS G1: Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness.
Consistent: The Project will create a vibrant, mixed-use regional destination development that stimulates economic
development opportunities for the Tribe and the greater community.
RTP/SCS G2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region.
Consistent: Development of the Project would ensure that mobility and accessibility for people and goods would be maximized. Emphasis is placed on “Complete Streets”
transportation planning approach for public streets which will encourage a balanced and safe mix of vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, golf cart, NEV, local “circulator” transit and regional bus transit throughout the Project Site.
The traffic study included in as Appendix G to the D raft EIS determined that all intersections and street segments would operate at LOS D or better du ring the peak hours of traffic with the addition of traffic from the proposed Project.
Refer to
Section 5.14, which addresses local and regional transportation, traffic, circulation, and mobility in more detail.
RTP/SCS G3: E nsure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
Consistent: All modes of transit would be required to follow safety standards set by corresponding regulatory documents.
Streets, p edestrian walkways and bicycle routes will foll ow safety precautions and standards established by local and regional agencies.
RTP/SCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system.
Consistent: The traffic study included in Appendix G for the Draft EIS determined that all intersections and street segments would operate at LOS D or better du ring the peak hours of traffic with the addition of traffic from the Project. Individual project d evelopments within the Project Site will pay the fair share contribution of the TUMF fee, or an applicable in -lieu fee amount contributing to development of planned regional
transportation system.
12-623
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-39 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Goal Analysis
Refer to Section 5.1 4, which addresses local and regional transportation, traffic, circulation, and mobility in more detail.
RTP/SCS G5: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system. Consistent: The local and regional transportation system would be improved and maintained to encourage efficiency and
productivity. The Project strives to maximize productivity of the region’s public transpor tation for residents, visitors, and workers coming into the Project Site.
RTP/SCS G6: Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active
transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as
bicycling and walking).
Consistent: The reduction of energy use, improvements in air quality, and promotion of more environmentally sustainable development would be encouraged by planning for the use of alternative transportation modes , green design techniques f or buildings, and other energy- reducing techniques. For example, the Projects would be encouraged to comply with the
provisions of the Voluntary Green Building Project and other best management practices to reduce energy demands.
As proposed, the Section 24 Specific Plan allows a mixture of residential, commercial, office, industrial, entertainment, educational, recreational uses, and/or other uses that allow residents to help reduce vehicle trips , thereby reducing air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic impacts.
RTP/SCS G7: Actively encourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible.
Consistent: The Project would allow for the circulation of automobiles and service vehicles in a safe and efficient manner.
The s treet pattern is organized to provide efficient circulation and access to each of the Planning Area
s included in the
system. Innovation in desert -sensitive architectural design will be used including energy -efficient Energy Star certified ligh ting fixtures and equipment.
Project designs would increase the structures energy efficiency, water efficiency, and overall sustainability. The Project is also located in an urban area that would reduce vehicle trips and vehicles miles traveled due to the urban infill characteristics 12-624
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-40 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Goal Analysis
and proximity to public transit stops. These measures and features are consistent with existing recommendations to reduce GHG emissions.
RTP/SCS G8: Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation.
Consistent: The Specific Plan as proposed require s a “Complete Streets” approach in the planning and design of a Vehicular Circulation Plan for the streets. The SunLine Transit Authority is the provider of public transit service wit
hin the Coachella
Valley. As development matures within the Project Site, sufficient demand may be generated to support additional bus lines or a change in routes to stop at two or three additional locations within the Mixed -Use Core or other Planning Area s along Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road.
RTP/SCS G9: Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery
planning, and coordination with other security agencies.
Consistent: The Project would not result in significant impacts to the regional transportation system.
12-625
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-41 S ection 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.9-3
Riverside County LAFCo Analysis
Relevant LAFCo Policies Specific Plan Consistency
Goal No. 3: Maximize Interagency and Public Communications Objective No. 1: Increase communication between local agencies and citizens.
3.1.5 Cities must coordinate all sphere of influence and annexation proposals that include Indian Reservation Lands with the appropriate Tribal Government in advance of application submittal.
The Tribe and the City of Rancho Mirage are cooperating on the planning for this Specific Plan area.
3.1.6 All applications for municipal sphere of influence amendments or annexations that include Indian Reservation Lands shall be referred to the appropriate Tribal Government for review and comment prior to hearing by the Commission. The Commission shall consider the existence of a Tribal land use agreement with the subject city an important factor when reviewing such proposals.
The potential for future annexation of the Project Site to the City of Rancho Mirage is being considered by the Tribal Council as part of the review of this proposed Project.
3.1.7 The Commission shall not approve any municipal annexation of Indian Reservation Lands without the consent of the Tribal Council.
Any future application for annexation of the Project Site to the City will be reviewed by the Tribal Council.
12-626
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-42 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Conflict with Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan
Active Adult Community
The Tribe’s purpose in adopting the THCP is to continue to protect natural resources in and around the Reservation by assuming the role of primary manager of such resources and land uses that impact them.
Also, the Tribe wishes to achieve this by establishing consistency and streamline permitting requirements with respect to protected species. Development of the Project Site would be subject to the THCP, which is intended to address development and other activities taking place within the Tribe’s jurisdictions and provide the means to protect and conserve federally listed species and others deemed by the Tribe and USFWS to be sensitive and potentially in need of listing in the future.
The Project Site is not located within the Ta rget Acquisition Areas identified in the THCP and with payment of the conservation fee, development would be consistent with the THCP. The Tribe will use mitigation fees collected to acquire conservation lands to implement the THCP. While the USFWS has not yet approved the THCP or issued a 10(a) Permit, the Tribe has independent authority to implement the THCP to mitigate impacts to sensitive resources on Reservation lands. The impacts of the Project will be mitigated to a less than significant level through payment of the THCP conservation fee as the THCP covers the sensitive species the Project would impact.
Tribal Planning Areas
As discussed above, the Project Site, inclusive of the Tribal Planning Areas, is located within the THCP area and developmen t would not conflict with this habitat conservation plan as the Project Site is not located within the Target Acquisition Areas identified in the plan. Moreover, the applicable THCP conservation fee will be paid by future projects in the Tribal Planning Ar eas. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Development of the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan project, in conjunction with other cumulative development in the area permitted by the City and Riverside County General Plans could result in citywide and regional land use and planning impacts. However, upon adoption of the Section 24 Specific Plan, the P roject would be consistent with land uses plans relevant to the area, including the Rancho Mirage General Plan and Municipal Code, SCAG RTP/SCS, and the THCP.
The planned uses within the Project Site will be consistent and compatible with existing and surrounding land uses including the Mission Hills community to the south and west, the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa to the northeast , and the Commercial Center to the southeast. To the east of the Project Site is Section 19, an approved Specific Plan which will develop retail and resort uses along Bob Hope Drive, 12-627
5.9 Land Use
Meridian Consultants 5.9-43 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
similar to that of the p roposed Project. Section 13 is north of the Project Site and will be designated as Regional Commercial by the City , which is consistent with the north portion of the Project Site.
Therefore, development of the P roject would create a cohesive community of residential and other support uses, thereby contributing to the development of a sustainable urban neighborhood. The Specific Plan’s Planning Areas have also been develop ed to enable the Project to be constructed incrementally while still achieving a unified, comprehensive development plan. Additionally, each Planning Area would be subject to a distinct list of permitted uses and design and development standards.
As with the P roject, related projects and other future growth would be subject to compliance with the local and regional plans reviewed in this Section . Therefore, implementation of related projects in accordance with plans would not combine with the Section 24 Specific Plan to result in potentially significant cumulative land use impacts. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are necessary.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF MITIGATION
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts relating to land use and planning would result on a project - specific or cumulative basis.
12-628
Meridian Consultants 5.10-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.10 NOISE
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to result in noise impacts within the Project Site and surrounding communities. This evaluation uses procedures and methodologies as specified by the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Noise monitoring and roadway noise modeling datasheets are included in Appendix F.
Please see Section 9.0 for a glossary of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium, such as air. Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pre ssure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Because sound pressure can vary enormously within the range of h uman hearing, a logarithmic loudness scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the entire spectrum, so noise measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive in a process called A-weighting, written dB(A). The A -weighted sound level is measured on a logarithmic scale such that a doubling of sound energy results in a 3.0 dB(A) increase in noise level. In general, changes in a noise level less than 3.0 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear. 1 Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A)
may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. An increase greater than 5 dB(A) is readily noticeable, while t he human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound volume. Common noise levels associated with certain activities are shown on Figure 5.10-1, Common Noise Levels.
2. Noise Terminology
Different types of scales are used to characterize the time- varying nature of sound. Applicable scales include the m aximum noise level (Lmax), equivalent noise level (Leq), and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Lmax is the maximum noise level measured during a specified period. Leq is the
1 U S Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise (Springfield, VA: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 81. 12-629
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
average A -weighted sound level measured over a given time interval. Leq can be measured over any period, but is typically measured for 1 -minute, 15 -minute, 1 -hour, or 24 -hour periods. CNEL is an average A-weighted sound level measured over a 24 -hour period. However, this noise scale is adjusted to account for some individuals’ increased sensitivity to noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours. A CNEL noise measurement is obtained by adding 5 dB(A) to sound levels occurring during the evening, from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and 10 dB(A) to sound levels occurring during the nighttime, from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The 5 dB(A) and 10 dB(A) “penalties” are applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. Day -night average level (Ldn) is the A -weighted equivalent sound level for a 24 -hour period with an additional 10 dB imposed on the equivalent sound levels for nighttime hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Table 5.10- 1, Noise Descriptors, identifies various noise descriptors developed to measure sound levels over different periods of time.
3. Noise Barrier Attenuation
The introduction of a barrier between a noise source and a sensitive receptor redistributes the sound energy into several paths, including a diffracted path over the top of the barrier, a transmitted path through the barrier, and a reflected path directed away from the sensitive receptor. Diffraction is the bending of sound waves over the top of a barrier. The area behind the barrier in which diffraction occurs is known as a “shadow zone,” and sensitive receptors located in this area will experience some sound attenuation. The amount of attenuation is related to the magnitude of the diffraction angle. The diffraction angle will increase if the barrier height increases or if the distance from sensitive receptors is decreased to the barrier. In addition to diffraction with the use of barriers, sound can travel through the barrier itself. The level of sound transmission through the barrier depends on factors relating to the composition of the barrier (such as its weight and stiffness), the angle of incidence of the sound, and the frequency spectrum of the sound. The rating of a material’s ability to transmit noise is called transmission loss. Transmission loss is related to the ratio of the incident noise energy to the transmitted noise energy, and it is normally expressed in decibels, which represents the amount noise levels will be reduced when the sound waves pass through the material of the barrier.
12-630
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
EXAMPLES DECIBELS (dB)
‡ SUBJECTIVE
EVALUATIONS
DEAFENING
VERY LOUD
LOUD
Range of Speech
continuous exposure above
here is likely to degrade the
hearing of most people
MODERATE
FAINT
VERY FAINT
NEAR JET ENGINE
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
THRESHOLD OF FEELING–
HARD ROCK BAND
ACCELERATING MOTORCYCLE AT
A FEW FEET AWAY*
LOUD AUTO HORN AT 10' AWAY
NOISY URBAN STREET
NOISY FACTORY
SCHOOL CAFETERIA WITH
UNTREATED SURFACES
NEAR FREEWAY AUTO TRAFFIC
AVERAGE OFFICE
SOFT RADIO MUSIC IN APARTMENT
AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUT
STEREO PLAYING
AVERAGE WHISPER
RUSTLE OF LEAVES IN WIND
HUMAN BREATHING
THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY
‡
NOTE: dB are “average” values as measured on the A–scale of a sound–level meter. * NOTE: 50' from motorcycle equals noise at about 2000' from a four-engine jet aircraft.
Common Noise Levels
FIGURE 5.10-1
044-001-13
12-631
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-4 S ection 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.10-1
Noise Descriptors
Term Definition
Sound A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as
air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
Noise Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
Decibel (dB) The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10 times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the pressure of a measure sound to a reference pressure.
A-Weighted Decibel (dB[A]) A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of individual frequencies according to human sensitivities. The scale accounts for the fact that the region of highest
sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000 and 4,000 cycles per second (hertz).
Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq)
The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period. The L eq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a
fluctuating sound level. L eq can be measured over any time period, but is typically measured for 1 -minute, 15-minute, 1- hour, or 24-hour periods.
Day-Night Level (Ldn) The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period with 10 dB(A) added sound levels occurring from 10 PM to 7 AM.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) A rating of community noise exposure to all sources of sound that differentiates between daytime, evening, and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments add 5 dB (A) for the evening, 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and add 10 dB (A) for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The 5 and 10 decibel
penalties are applied to account for increased noise
sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. The logarithmic effect of adding these penalties to the 1 -hour L eq
measurements typically results in a CNEL measurement that is within approximately 3 dB(A) of the peak-hour Leq.1
sound pressure level The sound pressure is the force of sound on a surface area perpendicular to the direction of the sound. The sound
pressure level is expressed in dB.
Ambient Noise The level of noise that is all encompassing within a given environment, being usually a composite of sounds from
many and varied sources near to and far from the observer.
No specific source is identified in the ambient environment.
Note :California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement; A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, (Sacramento, CA: November 2009), N51-N54.
12-632
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Noise energy can also be reflected by a barrier wall. The reflected sound energy thus would not affect the sensitive receptor but may affect sensitive receptors to the left and right of the developed barrier. 2 Man-made or natural barriers can also attenuate sound levels, as illustrated in Figure 5.10-2, Noise Barrier Diffraction. A solid wall or berm may reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dB(A).3 Contemporary wood frame construction techniques in California typically provide about 25 dB(A) reduction in exterior to interior noise levels. This is due to structural means used to comply with California regulations, such as the Title 24 energy conservation standards. The minimum attenuation of exterior to interior noise provided by typical structures in California is provided in Table 5.10-2, Noise Attenuation of Typical Structures.
Table 5.10-2
Noise Attenuation of Typical Structures
Building Type
Open Windows
(dB[A])
Closed Windows
(dB[A])a
Residences 17.0 25.0
Churches 20.0 30.0
Hospitals/convalescent homes 17.0 25.0
Offices 17.0 25.0
Theaters 20.0 30.0
Hotels/motels 17.0 25.0
Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, NCHRP Report No. 117, (1971). Prepared for Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. a As shown, structures with closed windows can attenuate exterior noise by a minimum of 25.0 to 30.0 dB(A).
4. Vibration
Vibration consists of waves transmitted through a solid medium. Groundborne vibration propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves. A vibration may be a single pulse, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it is oscillating, measured in hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a composite, or “spectrum,” of many frequencies, and are generally classified as broadband or random vibrations. Figure 5.10-3, Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration, identifi es typical groundborne vibration levels.
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, The Noise Guidebook (n.d.), 21–23.
3 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals (1980), 18. 12-633
Noise Barrier Diffraction
FIGURE 5.10-2
044-001-13
SOURCE: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, (October 1998), Figure N2144.1 12-634
HUMAN/STRUCTURAL
RESPONSE
VELOCITY
LEVEL IN
VdB
TYPICAL SOURCES
50 FEET FROM SOURCE
BUS OR TRUCK, TYPICAL
TYPICAL GROUND VIBRATION
THRESHOLD, MINOR COSMETIC
DAMAGE TO FRAGILE BUILDINGS
DIFFICULTY WITH TASKS SUCH AS
READING A VDT SCREEN
RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE,
INFREQUENT EVENTS
(E.G., COMMUTER RAIL)
RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE,
FREQUENT EVENTS
(E.G., RAPID TRANSIT)
LIMIT FOR VIBRATION-SENSITIVE
EQUIPMENT APPROXIMATE
THRESHOLD FOR HUMAN
PERCEPTION OF VIBRATION
AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUT
STEREO PLAYING
AVERAGE WHISPER
1 PPV is typically a factor 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity. A factor of 4 was used to calculate noise levels.
PPV AMPLITUDE
IN INCHES
PER SECOND
1 RMS VELOCITY
AMPLITUDE IN
INCHES/SECOND
2 .4
.04
.1264
.01264
.004
0 .1
.0316
100
90 .0180
70 .00316
.00160
.00126 50 .000316
RAPID TRANSIT, TYPICAL
BUS OR TRUCK OVER BUMP
COMMUTER RAIL, TYPICAL
RAPID TRANSIT,
UPPER RANGE
COMMUTER RAIL,
UPPER RANGE
BULLDOZER AND OTHER
HEAVY-TRACKED
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
BLASTING FROM
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
2 Vibration levels in terms of velocity levels are defined as: V=20 x log 10 (a/r)
V=velocity levels in decibels
a=RMS velocity amplitude
r=reference amplitude (accepted reference quantities for vibration velocity are 1 x 10 -6 inches/second in the United States)
Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration
FIGURE 5.10-3
044-001-13
12-635
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz to a high of about 200 Hz. Vibration is often measured in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec), because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings. Vibration is also measured in vibration decibe ls (VdB). The human threshold of perception is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Vibration levels are acceptable at approximately 85 VdB if there are an infrequent number of events per day. 4 Vibration energy attenuates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source.
5 High frequency vibrations reduce much more rapidly
than low frequencies, so that in the far- field from a source, the low frequencies tend to dominate. Soil properties also affect the propagation of vibration. When groundborne vibration interacts with a building, there is usually a ground-to-foundation coupling loss, but the vibration can also be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. 6 Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows or of items on shelves, or the motion of building surfaces.
Groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain types of construction activities, especially pile driving. Road vehicles rarely create enough groundborne vibration to be perceptible t o humans unless the road surface is poorly maintained and there are potholes or bumps.
7 If traffic, typically heavy trucks, induces perceptible vibration in buildings, such as window rattling or shaking of small loose items, then it is most likely an effect of low-frequency airborne noise or ground characteristics. Human annoyance by vibration is related to the vibration energy and the number and duration of events, as well as the se tting in which the person experiences the vibration. As discussed previously, vibration can be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors of buildings. The more the events or the greater the duration, the more annoying it will be to humans.
5. Existing Conditions
The approximately 577-acre Project Site is surrounded by the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) to the west, south, and east . The City of Rancho Mirage is considered to be in the heart of the Coachella Valley in Riverside County, nestled at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains and conveniently located to utilize the southern California freeway system via Interstate 10 (I-10). The majority of future development in this area of the Coachella Valley is expected to occur near the I-10 corridor.
4 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006), 7-8. 5 California Department of Transportation, Earthborne Vibrations (1990), VII-27. 6 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006), 7-1, 7-2. 7 Federal Transit Administration (2006), 7-9.
12-636
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Project Area Noise Levels
The Project Site is currently vacant . While there are no existing stationary - or mobile-sources of noise within the Project Site, the site is surrounded by transportation and stationary sources of noise that contribute to the existing ambient noise environment. The Project Site is bound by Ramon Road on the north; Bob Hope Drive on the east; Dinah Shore Drive on the south; and Los Alamos Road on the west.
Stationary noise sources that contribute to the ambient noise environment include the Agua Caliente Casino/Resort/Spa located directly east of the northern portion of the Project Site. In addition to mobile and stationary sources of noise, the Coachella Valley also experiences high wind gusts that can significantly elevate the ambient noise environment on windy days.
The existing ambient noise environment in the Project Site was determined by conducting noise measurements. Noise monitoring was conducted over 15-minute intervals with a Larson Davis 831 Sound Level Meter. The ambient noise environment results are provided in Table 5.10-3, Noise Measurements in Project Vicinity . As shown, average ambient noise levels ranged from 65.8 dB(A) along Los Alamos Road to 76.1 dB(A) at the corner of Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive. Refer to Figure 4.0- 7, Noise Monitoring Locations, of this Draft EIS for the location each monitoring site.
Table 5.10-3
Noise Measurements in Project Vicinity
Location Lmin Lmax Leq
Monitoring Site No. 1 61.4 83.5 73.9
Monitoring Site No. 2 62.7 89.7 73.6
Monitoring Site No. 3 44.8 84.3 73.3
Monitoring Site No. 4 47.0 88.4 76.1
Monitoring Site No. 5 39.4 82.3 65.8
Monitoring Site No. 6 42.1 83.5 71.1
Monitoring Site No. 7 56.0 83.1 71.1
Monitoring Site No. 8 56.9 85.6 72.7
Monitoring Site No. 9 55.6 85.7 73.6
Source: Refer to Appendix F for monitoring data sheets.
Note: Noise measurements were conducted between 8:15 AM to 12:00 PM on March 19, 2014.
Existing Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels
In order to characterize the ambient roadway noise environment in the vicinity of the Project Site, noise prediction modeling was conducted based on vehicular traffic volumes along nearby roadway segments.
Existing roadway noise levels were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Prediction Noise Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). This model calculates the average noise level in dB(A) CNEL 12-637
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
at a given roadway segment based on traffic volumes, vehicle mix, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site conditions. The noise models assumes a “soft” site condition (i.e., providing for the minimum amount of sound attenuation allowed by the traffic noise model, a 7.5 dB(A) noise reduction per doubling of distance) and assumes no barriers between the roadway and receivers. Traffic noise levels were calculated for sensitive receptors at distances of 75 feet from the nearest edge of the roa d. The noise prediction model used daily traffic volumes to determine average daily trips (ADTs) along the analyzed roadway segments. The estimated existing roadway noise levels are provided in Table 5.10 -4, Modeled Existing Roadway Noise Levels . As indicated in Table 5.10 -4, the existing vehicle- generated noise levels along roadway segments near the Project Site range from 58.8 dB(A) CNEL to a high of 80.3 dB(A) CNEL at a distance of 75 feet from each roadway’s centerline.
Table 5.10-4
Modeled Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Roadway Segment Roadway Noise Level at 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL) Da Vall Drive
North of Ramon Road 70.4
South of Ramon Road 70.6
North of Dinah Shore Drive 70.8
South of Dinah Shore Drive 70.9
Rattler Road
North of Ramon Road 64.5
Los Alamos Road
South of Ramon Road 62.8
North of Dinah Shore Drive 63.2
Bob Hope Drive
North of I-10 WB Ramps 71.2
North of I-10 EB Ramps 72.6
North of Ramon Road 72.9
South of Ramon Road 73.0
North of Dinah Shore Drive 72.7
South of Dinah Shore Drive 73.3
North of Gerald Ford Drive 73.0
South of Gerald Ford Drive 73.2
Key Largo
North of Dinah Shore Drive N/A
South of Dinah Shore Drive 61.5
Monterey Avenue
North of Dinah Shore Drive 76.8
12-638
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment Roadway Noise Level at 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL) South of Dinah Shore Drive 75.2
Ramon Road
West of Da Vall Drive 73.3
East of Da Vall Drive 73.9
West of Los Alamos Road 74.0
East of Los Alamos Road 74.1
East of Bob Hope Drive 72.5
East of EB I-10 Ramp 70.7
Dinah Shore Drive
West of Da Vall Drive 73.7
East of Da Vall Drive 72.7
West of Los Alamos Road 72.8
East of Los Alamos Road 72.8
East of Westin Mission Hills 72.9
West of Bob Hope Drive 72.9
East of Bob Hope Drive 72.9
East of Key Largo 73.0
West of Monterey Avenue 74.4
East of Monterey Avenue 72.4
Gerald Ford Drive
West of Bob Hope Drive 72.5
East of Bob Hope Drive 71.9
Interstate 10
West of Bob Hope Drive 80.2
East of Ramon Road 80.3
Bob Hope Dr. I-10 Ramps
Westbound On-Ramp 68.0
Westbound Off-Ramp 69.5
Eastbound On-Ramp 63.3
Eastbound Off-Ramp 69.0
Ramon Road I-10 Ramps
Eastbound On-Ramp 69.2
Via Bella
West of Los Alamos Road 58.8
East of Los Alamos Road N/A
Casino
West of Bob Hope Drive N/A
East of Bob Hope Drive 62.2
12-639
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment Roadway Noise Level at 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL) Westin Mission Hills
North of Dinah Shore Drive N/A
South of Dinah Shore Drive 59.2
Westin Resort and Villas
North of Dinah Shore Drive N/A
South of Dinah Shore Drive 59.2
Street A
East of Los Alamos Road N/A
Street B
East of Los Alamos Road N/A
Street C
South of Ramon Road N/A
Street D
South of Ramon Road N/A
West of Bob Hope Drive N/A
Street E
West of Bob Hope Drive N/A
Noise model results are provided in Appendix F.
Note: Roadway noise levels are modeled 75 feet from the center of the roadway.
N/A = Not available; roadway does not exist, therefore, traffic volumes are not generated on this link.
Existing Vibration Conditions
The primary source of existing groundborne vibration in the vicinity of the Project Site is vehicle traffic on Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, Los Alamos Road, and the I -10 Freeway. According to the FTA,8 typical road traffic-induced vibration levels are unlikely to be perceptible by people. In part, FTA indicates that “it is unusual for vibration from traffic including buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in a location close to major roadways.” Therefore, based on FTA published vibration data, the existing ground vibration environment in the Project vicinity would be below the perceptible levels.
Trucks and buses typically generate vi bration velocity levels of approximately 63 VdB (at 50 feet distance), and these levels could reach 72 VdB when trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road.
Location of Sensitive Noise Receptors
Noise- and vibration-sensitive uses include residences, schools, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Noise -sensitive land uses surrounding the Project S ite include single -family residential uses approximately 150 feet south of the
8 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2004). 12-640
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-13 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Project S ite, single-family residences approximately 125 feet west of the site, and hotel rooms at the Agua Caliente Casino/Resort/Spa approximately 250 feet east of the northern portion of the site. The single family residences are surrounded by a n approximately 5 foot high barrier wall. This solid barrier wall may reduce noise level by 5 dB(A), thus further reducing any potential groundbourne vibration or noise levels.
6. Regulatory Setting
Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set a goal of 65 dB(A) CNEL as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential uses developed under HUD funding. While HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residen tial uses constructed under Title 24 standards typically provides in excess of 20 dB(A) of attenuation with the windows closed.
Based on this premise, the interior CNEL should not exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL. 9 Federal Transit Administration
The FTA has published guidelines for assessing the impacts of ground borne vibration associated with construction activities, which have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of projects. The FTA’s measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional se nsitive stru ctures (e.g., residential units) is 0.2 inch per second PPV. 10 The vibration threshold of perception is 0.01 inch per second PPV. With respect to human annoyance, the FTA provides criteria for various land use categories and based on the frequen cy of vibration events. According to the FTA, a vibration criterion of 72 VdB should be used for residential land uses. With respect to potential building damage (primarily from construction activities), the FTA provides guidelines for the evaluation of po tential ground borne vibration damage applicable to various building categories. According to FTA guidelines, a vibration criterion of 0.20 inches per second, or 106 VdB, should be considered as the significant impact level for non-engineered timber and mas onry buildings. Structures engineered with concrete and masonry (no plaster) have vibration damage criteria of 0.3 inches per second, or 110 VdB. All structures or buildings constructed of reinforced -concrete, steel, or timber, have vibration damage criteria of 0.50 inches per second, or 114 VdB.
9 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, sec. 51, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Criteria and Standards (revised April 1, 2004).
10 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, Transit and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06 (May 2006). 12-641
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-14 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
State
State of California Building Code
California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code . These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of interior noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise -sensitive structures, such as res idential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are located near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dB(A) CNEL or higher.
Acoustical studies that accompany building plans must demonstrate that t he structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dB(A) CNEL.
California Noise Insulation Standards
The California Noise Insulation Standards11 require that interior noise levels from exterior sources be 45 dB(A) or less in any habitable room of a multi- residential use facility (e.g., hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, and apartment houses, except detached single-family dwellings) with doors and windows closed. Measurements are based on CNEL or Ldn (the day –night average), whichever is consistent with the noise element of the local general plan. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dB(A) CNEL, an acoustical analysis for new development may be required to show that the proposed construction will reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB(A) CNEL. If the interior 45 dB(A) CNEL limit can be achieved only with the windows c losed, the residence must include mechanical ventilation that meets applicable Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements.
California Department of Health Services
The State of California Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division, has published recommended guidelines for noise and land use compatibility, referred to as the State Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Noise (“State Noise Guidelines ”). The State Noise Guidelines , illustrated in Figure 5.10-4, State Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Noise, indicate that residential land uses and other noise-sensitive receptors generally should locate in areas where outdoor ambient noise levels do not exceed 65 to 70 dB(A) CNEL. According to the State Noise Guidelines , an exterior noise level of 60 dB(A) CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for single -family, duplex, and mobile homes involving normal, conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Exterior
11 California Code of Regulation, Title 24, sec. 3501 et seq. 12-642
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-15 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
noise levels up to 65 dB(A) CNEL are typically considered “normally acceptable” for multi- family units and transient lodging without any special noise insulation requirements. Between these values and 70 dB(A) CNEL, exterior noise levels are typically considered “conditionally acceptable,” and residential construction should only occur after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise attenuation features have been included in the Project design. Exterior noise attenuation features include, but are n ot limited to, setbacks to place structures outside the conditionally acceptable noise contour, orienting structures so no windows open to the noise source, and/or installing noise barriers such as berms and/or solid walls.
Regional and Local
Agua Caliente Land Use Ordinance
The purpose of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Land Use Ordinance (“Tribal Land Use Ordinance”) is to provide standards and regulations to control land uses on Indian Reservation Lands, maintain and protect the Reservation’s unique natural and cultural resources, and to preserve the natural environment.
Agua Caliente Tribal Building Code
As adopted from the 2013 California Building Code including the California Noise Insulation Standards, the purpose of the Tribal Building and Safety Code is to provide standards and regulations to control minimum building safety and insulation standards of all buildings and structures on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation"). These standards are intended to protect the health, s afety, and welfare of the general public related to any potential building hazards and excessive noise. All building permit approvals from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) are based upon this Code.
Riverside County
The County of Riversi de has adopted a Noise Ordinance (Ordinance No. 847) that establishes Countywide standards (in unincorporated communities) to regulate noise. The sound level standards for Specific Plan Residential state that operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading or demolition work shall be performed between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on the weekdays, 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Also, no person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed a maximum sound level of 55 dB between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM and not exceed a maximum sound level of 45 dB between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
The analysis shall determine the level of noise impacts based on the maximum acceptable interior and exterior noise standards for residential dwellings adopted in the Noise Element of the Riverside County 12-643
NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise reduction features included in the design.
CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE
Ldn or CNEL, dB
55 60 65 70 75 80
LAND USE CATEGORY
Residential - Low Density Single
Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential - Multi Family
Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheatres
Sports Arena, Outdoor
Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities,
Agriculture
State Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Noise
FIGURE 5.10-4
044-001-13
SOURCE: California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, Appendix C:
Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, October 2003. 12-644
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-17 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
General Plan, which are 45 and 65 dB( A) CNEL, respectively. Sound barriers are only required by the Riverside County General Plan such that there exists at least 600 square feet (sq. ft.) area of exterior spaces that is exposed to noise levels of 65 dB(A) CNEL or less when new development is proposed on residential parcels of 1 acre or greater.
Noise level increases are also addressed in the Noise Element of Riverside County. According to the Noise Element and the Riverside County General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), if the future noise levels from an action result in an increase of 5 dB(A) CNEL or greater, the action would have a potential noise impact, and mitigation measures must be considered.
City of Rancho Mirage Noise Ordinance
The City’s Municipal Health and Safety Code set f orth standards, guidelines, and procedures concerning the regulation of noise in Rancho Mirage. Section 8.45 of the Municipal Code cites the value and importance given by residents, visitors, and business to the exceptional quality of life and peace and quiet of the community. Pursuant to the City Noise Ordinance, the City restricts noise generated at a property from exceeding certain noise levels for extending periods of time to protect people from objectionable non-transportation noise sources.
According to Section 8.45.050, Special Provisions and Exceptions, of the City’s Municipal Code, construction, alternation, repair, grading or improvement of any building, structure, road, or improvement to real property for which a permit has been issued is exempt from the City’s noise ordinance so long as construction activities occur within normal business hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, except on Sundays).
The Rancho Mirage Noise Ordinance provides definition of key terms and defines exterior noise level standards on a time -of-day basis along with adjustments for intensity and duration. The appropriate exterior noise standards are identified in Table 5.10-5, City of Rancho Mirage Exterior Noise Limits. 12 12 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Chapter 7 (2006). 12-645
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-18 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.10-5
City of Rancho Mirage Exterior Noise Limits
Time of Day Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (dB[A])
L50 L25 L16 L8 L2 LMAX
Residential – Low Density
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 55 58 60 65 70 75
6:00 PM to 10:00 PM 50 53 55 60 65 70
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 45 48 50 55 60 65
Residential – Medium and High Density, Hospital, Open Space 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 60 63 65 70 75 80
6:00 PM to 10:00 PM 55 58 60 65 70 75
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 50 53 55 60 65 70
Commercial Office, Resort Commercial, Mixed Use, Institutional 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 65 68 70 75 80 85
6:00 PM to 10:00 PM 60 63 65 70 75 80
10:00 PM to 7:00 AM 55 58 60 65 70 75
Commercial Neighborhood, General Commercial, Commercial Recreation, Light Industrial 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 70 73 75 80 85 90
6:00 PM to 10:00 PM 65 68 70 75 80 85
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM 60 63 65 70 75 80
Source: City of Rancho Mirage, Municipal Code, Chapter 8.45, Noise, Section 8.45.030. Exterior Noise Level Limits.
Note: If the measured ambient noise levels exceed the dB(A) L50 limits, the L50, L25, L16, and the L8 shall be increased by five dB(A) increments as needed to encompass or reflect the existing ambient noise level while the maximum noise level under the L2 and the Lmax shall be increased, if necessary, only to equal the ambient noise level.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Threshold of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have a significant noise impact, if it would:
Threshold 5.10-1: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Based on State and local noise criteria, the following would be considered significant:
12-646
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-19 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• Noise generated by buildout of Section 24 Specific Plan would result in stationary equipment (non- transportation) noise that result s in a nuisance at noise sensitive receptors based on stationary noise limits of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.
• New noise sensitive uses would be located in a noise environment that exceeds the State’s noise compatibility guidelines. Similar to State guidelines, it is the policy of the County of Riverside and the City of Rancho Mirage to require new residential development to achieve an interior noise environment of 45 dB(A) CNEL or exterior noise levels at single family residential noise sensitive areas to 65 dB(A) CNEL.
Threshold 5.10-2: Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Based on vibration criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration, the following would be considered significant:
• Construction equipment would produce perceptible levels of vibration (78 VdB) during the daytime at off-site vibration sensitive structures.
Threshold 5.10-3: A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Based on local noise criteria established in the County of Riverside General Plan and the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, the following would be considered significant:
• An increase of three dB(A) or greater in traffic noise levels that occur from project-related activities would be significant if the resulting noise levels exceeded the Noise Compatibility Matrix for “acceptable” exterior noise levels.
• An increase of five dB(A) or less in traffic noise levels that occur from project-related activities would not be considered significant if the resulting noise levels remain b elow the “acceptable” thresholds established by the State, County, and City. Increases in traffic noise greater than 5 dB(A) would be considered to be significant. 12-647
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-20 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Threshold 5.10-4: A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Based on local noise criteria established by the County of Riverside and the City of Rancho Mirage, the following would be considered significant:
• Construction activities occurring outside the normal business hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, except Sundays and holidays.
Threshold 5.10-5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Threshold 5.10-6: For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels?
2. Methodology
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would require site clearing, grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and building finishing activities. These activities typically involve the use of heavy equipment, such as tractors, dozers, and cranes. While construction would be temporary, the use of these types of equipment would generate both steady state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Project Site.
Construction Noise
The construction noise model is based on information obtained from the FTA Roadway Noise Construction Model (RNCM). The FHWA has compiled data on noise -generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment.
13 The dominant source of noise from most construction equipment is engine sound, often without sufficient muffling. Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in one location for one or more days at a time, with either a fixed power operation (e.g., pumps, generators, compressors) or a variable power operation (e.g., pile drivers, pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around the construction site (e.g., bulldozers,
13 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Noise Construction Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1 (December 8, 2008). 12-648
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-21 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
loaders) or to and from the Project Site (e.g., trucks). Figure 5.10-5, Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment, shows the typical noise levels in dB(A) of different types of const ruction equipment at a distance of 50 feet from the source.
Noise levels generated by heavy equipment can range from approximately 70 dB(A) to noise levels in excess of 100 dB(A) when measured at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The noise level s diminish with distance at a rate of approximately 6.0 to 7.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance for acoustically hard and soft sites, respectively. An example of an acoustically hard site would be a parking lot, while an acoustically soft site would be a park. Assuming an acoustically hard site, a noise level of 75 dB(A) measured at 50 feet from the noise source would be reduced to 69 dB(A) at 100 feet and to 63 dB(A) at 200 feet.
Construction noise levels at sensitive receptors would vary based on the location of construction activity and the number of equipment in operation. The Project would be constructed in phases with various types of equipment used at any given time. These activities typically involve the use of heavy equipment such as graders, do zers, backhoes, water trucks, excavators, cement and mortar mixes, rollers, pavers and paving equipment, forklifts, generators, and welders. The equipment would generate both steady state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Project S ite. The usage factor is the percentage of time that particular equipment is anticipated to be in full power operation during a typical construction hour during the day.
In order to identify the maximum construction noise impacts, under a reasonable worst-case scenario, it is assumed that many pieces of heavy -duty equipment would operate simultaneously in close proximity to noise sensitive receptors. In a realistic scenario, all construction equipment would not operate at the same time nor would their proximity be close to each other.
Construction Vibration
Construction-related groundborne vibration impacts were evaluated using the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance document .14 The p otential vibration source in the Project Site includes construction equipment in operation during Project construction. Groundborne vibration impacts were evaluated by identifying potential vibration sources and estimating the vibration levels at the affected receptor . Vibration impacts were evaluated with respect to the established significance thresholds discussed later in this section
14 Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). 12-649
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-22 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Operation
Roadway Noise
Traffic noise levels were modeled using the FHWA Noise Prediction Model (FHWA -RD-77-108). This model calculates the average noise level in dB(A) CNEL along a given roadway segment based on traffic volumes, vehicle mix, posted speed limits, roadway geometry, and site conditions. The model calculates noise associated with a specific line source and the results characterize noise generated by motor vehicle traffic along the specific roadway segment. The model incorporates an alpha factor that characterizes the surface conditions of the area. An acoustically hard site uses an alpha factor of zero, while an acoustically soft site uses an alpha factor of 0.5. The greater the alpha factor, the greater the noise attenuates with increasing distance. Average vehicle noise rates utilized in the FHWA model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. According to data collected by Caltrans, California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dB(A) louder than national levels, while medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dB(A) quieter than national levels . 15 Roadway traffic
data was obtained from the traffic impact study for the P roject (see Appendix G). Noise levels were evaluated with respect to the following modeled traffic scenarios:
Analysis Years and Scenarios
Development of the Active Adult Community will occur first with development projected to be completed by the year 2022. While no specific timeframes have been identified for development of the Tribal Planning Areas, development by the year 2035 is anticipated. To assess the potential project and cumulative impacts with the development of the Active Adult Comm unity by 2022, and development of the Tribal Planning Areas by 2035, the following scenarios were studied:
• Existing Conditions Plus Active Adult Community
• Existing Conditions Plus Specific Plan Buildout
• Future (Year 2022) Plus Active Adult Community
• Future Conditions (Year 2035) Plus Specific Plan Buildout Stationary Noise
Stationary point -source noise impacts were evaluated by identifying the noise levels generated by outdoor stationary noise sources such as rooftop mechanical equipment, outdoor recreational areas,
15 Rudolf W. Hendriks, California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, NTIS, FHWA/CA/TL-87/03 (1987). 12-650
Note: Based on limited available data samples.
EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
EARTH MOVINGMATERIALS HANDLINGSTATIONARY
IMPACT
EQUIPMENTOTHER
Compacters (Rollers)
Front Loaders
Backhoes
Tractors
Scrapers, Graders
Pavers
Trucks
Concrete Mixers
Concrete Pumps
Cranes (Movable)
Cranes (Derrick)
Pumps
Generators
Compressors
Pneumatic Wrenches
Jack Hammers, Rock Drills
Pile Drivers (Peaks)
Vibrators
Saws
60 70 80 90 100 110
NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET
Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment
FIGURE 5.10-5
044-001-13
SOURCE: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," NTID 300-1. 12-651
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-24 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
parking areas, etc.; estimating the noise level from each noise source at surrounding residential property locations; and comparing such noise levels to ambient noise levels to determine significance.
Operational noise levels were calculated for the hourly Leq from each noise source to surrounding sensitive receptors based on past field monitoring of similar uses conducted by Meridian Consultants or published noise references. Noise levels were then compared against the applicable exterior noise threshold.
Operation Vibration
The majority of the Project’s operational -related vibration sources, such as mechanical and electrical equipment, would incorporate vibration attenuation mounts, as required by the particular equipment specifications. Therefore, operation of the Project would not increase the existing vibration levels in the immediate vicinity of the Project and, as such, vibration impacts associated with the Project would be minimal. Therefore, the ground borne vibration analysis is limited to Project-related construction activities.
3. Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features (PDF) are incorporated into the proposed Project and would reduce the potential noise impacts of the Project. These features were taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts.
PDF 5.10-1 Construction activities shall occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on any day except for Sundays and State and federal holidays.
PDF 5.10-2 Use of neck -down, bulb-outs (which can also act as planters), and other traffic calming measures shall be used on local street s to ensure traffic and vibration levels are minimized.
PDF 5.10-3 Project circulation design shall discourage cut-through vehicular movement to ensure that traffic noise and vibration levels are minimized throughout residential areas.
PDF 5.10-4 All exterior mechanical equipment , except solar collector panels, whether on roof, side of a structure , or on the ground, shall be appropri ately screen ed from public view.
Equipment requiring screening include s, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. 12-652
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-25 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
4. Project Impacts
Exposure of persons to or generation of no ise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity levels above existing without the project Active Adult Community & Tribal Planning Areas
Construction
Noise impacts would be a function of noise generated by construction equipment, the equipment location, and their relative distance to noise sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. To reiterate, Leq is the average A-weighted sound (i.e., adjusted to sensitivity range of a typical human ear) level measured over a given time interval. Leq can be measured over any time period, but is typically measured for 1-minute or 1-hour periods.
Construction activities would occur within close proximity to sensitive receptors. The nearest s ensitive receptors subject to elevated construction noise levels are located approximately 150 feet to the south and 125 feet to the west of the P roject Site. The hotel rooms at the Agua Caliente Casino/Resort/Spa located approximately 250 feet ea st of the northern portion of the site are also considered a sensitive use for this analysis.
Noise levels generated during each of the Project phases are presented in Table 5.10 -6, Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Phases. Equipment estimates used for the analysis include site preparation, building construction, and asphalt paving noise levels representative of worst -case conditions since they assume several pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.
12-653
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-26 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.10-6
Typical Maximum Noise Levels for Construction Phases
Construction Phase
Approximate Leq dB(A) without Noise Attenuation
25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet 200 Feet
Site Preparation 94 88 82 78
Building Construction 94 88 82 78
Asphalt Paving 85 79 73 67
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Construction Noise Handbook, Chapter 9.0, August 2006.
Noise-sensitive receptors would be exposed to elevated construction noise levels when construction activities occur in proximity to these receptors. Constru ction activities would generate noise levels ranging from 72 to 81 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 125 feet, ranging from 71 to 80 dB(A) Leq at 150 feet, and ranging from 66 to 77 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 250 feet. P roject-related construction activities would occur within the least noise -sensitive portion of the day between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM as indicated in PDF 5.10 -1. The construction hours are consistent with the County of Riverside Noise Ordinance and the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.
Construction-related activities would occur over a period of up to six years for the Active Adult Community. As previously stated, the construction activities would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, except on Sundays for the Active Adult Community. However, no construction timeline has been proposed for the Tribal Planning Areas, and as such, construction activities could occur up to 20 years near the sensitive uses to the west and south of the Project Site. Due to the length of construction activities over an approximate 20 year period, with elevated noise levels from construction activities, Project-related construction noise at the nearby noise- sensitive receivers would constitute a potentially significant temporary noise impact.
Operation
Roadway Noise
Roadway noise levels were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-88-108) to determine if operation of the Project would increase levels greater than 3 dB(A) along local roadways. This model considers roadway noise levels from local street segments that would have an increase or decrease in vehicle traffic as a result of the Project. The average daily trips (ADTs) for these local roadway segments were obtained from the traffic impact analysis for the Project prepared by Endo Engineering (see Appendix G). The roadway modeling re sults are included in Appendix F of this Draft EIS.
12-654
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-27 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
As previously discussed in subsection B.2. Methodology , the roadway noise analysis included four separate scenarios. Table 5.10-7, Existing plus Active Adult Community, illustrates the change in CNEL from existing traffic volumes and from traffic generated volumes by the Active Adult Community . The difference in traffic noise bet ween Existing Conditions and E xisting plus Active Adult Communit y conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to Project-related traffic. As shown in Table
5.10-7, Project-related traffic would not cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more than 3.0 dB(A). The maximum noise level increase along existing roadways would be 3.0 dB(A) on Los Alamos Road, south of Ramon Road. Consequently, noise impacts under the Existing plus Active Adult Community scenario would be less than significant.
Table 5.10-7
Existing plus Active Adult Community
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing Existing plus ACC Noise Level Increase Da Vall Drive
North of Ramon Road 70.4 70.4 0.0 No
South of Ramon Road 70.6 70.6 0.0 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
70.8 70.8 0.0 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
70.9 71.0 0.1 No
Rattler Road
North of Ramon Road 64.5 64.5 0.0 No
Los Alamos Road
South of Ramon Road 62.8 65.8 3.0 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
63.2 63.9 0.7 No
Bob Hope Drive
North of I-10 WB
Ramps
71.2 71.2 0.0 No
North of I-10 EB Ramps 72.6 72.7 0.1 No
North of Ramon Road 72.9 73.1 0.2 No
South of Ramon Road 73.0 73.1 0.1 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
72.7 72.8 0.1 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
73.3 73.4 0.1 No
North of Gerald Ford
Drive
73.0 73.2 0.2 No
12-655
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-28 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing Existing plus ACC Noise Level Increase South of Gerald Ford
Drive
73.2 73.4 0.2 No
Key Largo
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A N/A N/A N/A
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
61.5 61.5 0.0 No
Monterey Avenue
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
76.8 76.9 0.1 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
75.2 75.2 0.0 No
Ramon Road
West of Da Vall Drive 73.3 73.5 0.2 No
East of Da Vall Drive 73.9 74.1 0.2 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
74.0 74.2 0.2 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
74.1 74.3 0.2 No
East of Bob Hope Drive 72.5 72.6 0.1 No
East of EB I-10 Ramps 70.7 70.7 0.0 No
Dinah Shore Drive
West of Da Vall Drive 73.7 73.8 0.1 No
East of Da Vall Drive 72.7 72.9 0.2 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 73.0 0.2 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 72.9 0.1 No
East of Westin Mission
Hills
72.9 73.3 0.4 No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.9 73.3 0.4 No
East of Bob Hope Drive 72.9 73.1 0.2 No
East of Key Largo 73.0 73.2 0.2 No
West of Monterey
Avenue
74.4 74.6 0.2 No
East of Monterey
Avenue
72.4 72.4 0.0 No
Gerald Ford Drive
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.5 72.5 0.0 No
12-656
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-29 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing Existing plus ACC Noise Level Increase East of Bob Hope Drive 71.9 71.9 0.0 No
Interstate 10
West of Bob Hope
Drive
80.2 80.2 0.0 No
East of Ramon Road 80.3 80.3 0.0 No
Bob Hope Dr. I-10
Ramps
Westbound On-Ramp 68.0 68.1 0.1 No
Westbound Off-Ramp 69.5 69.7 0.2 No
Eastbound On-Ramp 63.3 63.4 0.1 No
Westbound Off-Ramp 69.0 69.1 0.1 No
Ramon Road I-10
Ramps
Eastbound On-Ramp 69.2 69.3 0.1 No
Via Bella
West of Los Alamos
Road
58.8 58.8 0.0 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A 63.0 N/A No
Casino
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A N/A No
East of Bob Hope Drive 63.3 63.3 0.0 No
Westin Mission Hills
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A 64.3 N/A No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
62.2 62.2 0.0 No
Westin Resort and
Villas
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A N/A N/A No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
59.2 59.2 0.0 No
Street A
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A N/A No
Street B
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A N/A No
12-657
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-30 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing Existing plus ACC Noise Level Increase Street C
South of Ramon Road N/A N/A N/A No
Street D
South of Ramon Road N/A N/A N/A No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A N/A No
Street E
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A N/A No
Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. See Appendix F for noise modeling data sheets.
Based on traffic volumes and obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Endo Engineering, 2009 and speed limits for roadway segments found in the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 10.60, Speed Regulation.
N/A = Not available; roadway does not exist, therefore, traffic volumes are not generated on this link.
Table 5.10-8, Existing plus Specific Plan Buildout, illustrates the change in CNEL from Existing Conditions and from Specific Plan Buildout. As shown in Table 5.10 -8, the maximum noise level increase attributed to Specific Plan Buildout (which includes the Active Adult Community and the Tribal Planning Areas) along existing roadways would be up to 6.0 dB(A) on Los Alamos Road, south of Ramon Road and north of Dinah Shore Drive. Project-related traffic under Specific Plan Buildout would cause noise levels along the roadways to increase by more than 5.0 dB(A). This increase would constitute a potentially significant impact based on the identified threshold of increases in traffic noise greater than 5 dB(A).
On-Site Sensitive Receptors
Future on-site residential uses would be located along the roadway segments of Los Alamos Road and Dinah Shore Drive. Noise levels under the Specific Plan Buildout scenario along Los Alam os Road could be up to 68.8 dB(A) at 75 feet from the roadway centerline and along Dinah Shore up to 73.7 dB(A) at 75 feet from the roadway centerline. Assuming the use of no setback and noise attenuation features such as a noise wall, these residential use s could experience exterior noise levels above the State and local exterior noise compatibility guidelines of 65 dB(A) CNEL, resulting in potentially significant impacts.
All proposed on -site residences would be considered soft surfaces , vegetated area s such as a park or open space . Assuming that residences within the site would be located a similar distance from the centerline of Los Alamos to the east, roadway noise levels would attenuate 1.8 dB(A) over the additional 30 feet, which would result in 67 .0 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the east. The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A) , thus reducing the Project -related traffic volumes to
62.0 dB(A) to the east. Consequently, while the increase is considered significant, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the exterior State and local threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Project Site. 12-658
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-31 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would attenuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels along Los Alamos Road would be 42.0 dB(A) , below the 45 dB(A) interior threshold. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the east.
Assuming that residences within the Project Site would be located 150 feet from the centerline of Dinah Shore Drive to the north, roadway noise levels would attenuate 4.5 dB(A) over the additional 75 feet, which would result in 69.2 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the north. The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A) , thus reducing the Project -related traffic volumes to 64.2 dB(A) to the north. Consequently, while the increase could be considered significant, absent noise attenuation measures, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the S tate and local threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Project Site. Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would attenuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels alo ng Dinah Shore Drive with windows closed would be 44.2 dB(A), below the 45 dB(A) interior threshold. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the north.
Table 5.10-8
Existing plus Specific Plan Buildout
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing
Existing plus Full
Project Development Noise Level Increase
Da Vall Drive
North of Ramon Road 70.4 71.2 0.8 No
South of Ramon Road 70.6 71.4 0.8 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
70.8 71.6 0.8 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
70.9 72.0 1.1 No
Rattler Road
North of Ramon Road 64.5 64.7 0.2 No
Los Alamos Road
South of Ramon Road 62.8 68.8 6.0 Yes
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
63.2 67.3 4.1 Yes
Bob Hope Drive
North of I-10 WB
Ramps
71.2 71.6 0.4 No
North of I-10 EB Ramps 72.6 74.7 2.1 No
North of Ramon Road 72.9 75.6 2.7 No
12-659
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-32 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing
Existing plus Full
Project Development Noise Level Increase
South of Ramon Road 73.0 75.7 2.7 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
72.7 75.3 2.6 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
73.3 74.8 1.5 No
North of Gerald Ford
Drive
73.0 74.6 1.6 No
South of Gerald Ford
Drive
73.2 74.3 1.1 No
Key Largo
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A N/A N/A N/A
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
61.5 61.5 0.0 No
Monterey Avenue
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
76.8 77.0 0.2 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
75.2 75.7 0.5 No
Ramon Road
West of Da Vall Drive 73.3 74.8 1.5 No
East of Da Vall Drive 73.9 75.8 1.9 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
74.0 75.9 1.9 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
74.1 75.9 1.8 No
East of Bob Hope Drive 72.5 74.0 1.5 No
East of EB I-10 Ramps 70.7 71.3 0.6 No
Dinah Shore Drive
West of Da Vall Drive 73.7 74.5 0.8 No
East of Da Vall Drive 72.7 74.0 1.3 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 74.1 1.3 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 73.7 0.9 No
East of Westin Mission
Hills
72.9 73.9 1.0 No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.9 73.7 0.8 No
East of Bob Hope Drive 72.9 74.6 1.7 No
East of Key Largo 73.0 74.6 1.6 No
12-660
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-33 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing
Existing plus Full
Project Development Noise Level Increase
West of Monterey
Avenue
74.4 75.6 1.2 No
East of Monterey
Avenue
72.4 73.0 0.6 No
Gerald Ford Drive
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.5 72.7 0.2 No
East of Bob Hope Drive 71.9 72.4 0.5 No
Interstate 10
West of Bob Hope
Drive
80.2 80.6 0.4 No
East of Ramon Road 80.3 80.7 0.4 No
Bob Hope Dr. I-10
Ramps
Westbound On-Ramp 68.0 70.3 2.3 No
Westbound Off-Ramp 69.5 71.7 2.2 No
Eastbound On-Ramp 63.3 64.4 1.1 No
Westbound Off-Ramp 69.0 71.0 2.0 No
Ramon Road I-10
Ramps
Eastbound On-Ramp 69.2 71.3 2.1 No
Via Bella
West of Los Alamos
Road
58.8 58.8 0.0 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A 59.4 N/A No
Casino
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A 71.5 N/A
East of Bob Hope Drive 63.3 64.3 1.0 No
Westin Mission Hills
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A 61.4 N/A No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
62.2 62.2 0.0 No
Westin Resort and
Villas
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A 66.0 N/A No
12-661
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-34 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant Impact? Existing
Existing plus Full
Project Development Noise Level Increase
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
59.2 59.2 0.0 No
Street A
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A 56.4 N/A No
Street B
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A 64.3 N/A No
Street C
South of Ramon Road N/A 67.9 N/A No
Street D
South of Ramon Road N/A 69.5 N/A No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A 68.6 N/A No
Street E
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A 66.3 N/A No
Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. See Appendix F for noise modeling data sheets.
Based on traffic volumes and obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Endo Engineering, 2009 and speed limits for roadway segments found in the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 10.60, Speed Regulation.
N/A = Not available; roadway does not exist, therefore, traffic volumes are not generated on this link.
Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
Noise levels would increase 6.0 dB(A) along Los Alamos Road segment up to 68.8 dB(A) 75 feet from the roadway centerline. It should be noted that the existing single family residential uses, in the Mission Hills area within the City of Rancho Mirage, west of the Project Site, are setback a minimum of approximately 105 feet from the centerline and include masonry block walls along this segment of roadway , which would further reduce roadway noise levels.
Line sources, which include vehicular traffic attenuate 3 dB(A) every doubling of distance over hard surfaces and 4.5 dB(A) over soft surfaces. The noise levels here would attenuate 1.2 dB(A) over the additional 30 feet, which would result in 67.6 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the west. The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A), thus reducing the Project -related traffic volumes to 62.6 dB(A) to the west. Consequently, while the increase is considered significant, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the City of Rancho Mirage threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Mission Hills area to the west of the Project Site. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the west.
12-662
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-35 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.10-9, Future (Year 2022) Plus Active Adult Community, illustrates the change in CNEL from Year 2022 ambient conditions without and with the Active Adult Community . The Year 2022 ambient conditions represent traffic growth or c umulative development within the Project area. Based on ambient growth , the greatest increase in noise would occur along Los Alamo s Road, south of Ramon Road and north of Dinah Shore Drive adjac ent to the Project Site. Roadway noise increases would be up to 4.6 dB(A) to 67.4 dB(A), which exceeds the exterior threshold of 65 dB(A) , resulting in potentially significant impacts.
On-Site Sensitive Receptors
Future on-site residential uses would be located along the roadway segments of Los Alamos Road and Dinah Shore Drive. Noise levels under the Year 2022 ambient Plus Active Adult Community scenario along Los Alamo s Road could be up to 67.4 dB(A) at 75 feet from the roadway centerline and along Dinah Shore up to 73.7 dB(A) at 75 feet from the roadway centerline. Assuming the use of no setback and noise attenuation features such as a noise wall, on -site and off-site residential use s could experience exterior noise levels above the State and local exterior noise compatibility guidelines of 65 dB(A) CNEL resulting in potentially significant impacts.
Table 5.10-9
Future (Year 2022) plus Active Adult Community
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Roadway Segment Existing
Year 2022
Ambient
Year 2022
with ACC
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
ACC
Significant
Impact
Da Vall Drive
North of Ramon
Road
70.4 71.6 71.6 1.2 0.0 No
South of Ramon
Road
70.6 71.4 71.4 0.8 0.0 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
70.8 71.1 71.2 0.4 0.1 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
70.9 71.7 71.8 0.9 0.1 No
Rattler Road
North of Ramon
Road
64.5 68.9 68.9 4.4 0.0 No
Los Alamos Road
South of Ramon
Road
62.8 65.5 67.4 4.6 1.9 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
63.2 65.5 65.9 2.7 0.4 No
12-663
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-36 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Roadway Segment Existing
Year 2022
Ambient
Year 2022
with ACC
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
ACC
Significant
Impact
Bob Hope Drive
North of I-10 WB
Ramps
71.2 72.6 72.6 1.4 0.0 No
North of I-10 EB
Ramps
72.6 74.1 74.2 1.6 0.1 No
North of Ramon
Road
72.9 74.3 74.4 1.5 0.1 No
South of Ramon
Road
73.0 73.8 73.8 0.8 0.0 No
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
72.7 74.1 74.2 1.4 0.1 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
73.3 74.0 74.1 0.8 0.1 No
North of Gerald Ford
Drive
73.0 73.6 73.8 0.8 0.2 No
South of Gerald Ford
Drive
73.2 73.6 73.8 0.6 0.2 No
Key Largo
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
61.5 61.6 61.6 0.1 0.0 No
Monterey Avenue
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
76.8 77.0 77.0 0.2 0.0 No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
75.2 75.5 75.5 0.3 0.0 No
Ramon Road
West of Da Vall Drive 73.3 74.5 74.7 1.4 0.2 No
East of Da Vall Drive 73.9 75.5 75.6 1.7 0.1 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
74.0 75.5 75.7 1.7 0.2 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
74.1 75.5 75.6 1.5 0.1 No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
72.5 73.4 73.5 0.9 0.1 No
East of EB I-10
Ramps
70.7 71.3 71.3 0.6 0.0 No
Dinah Shore Drive
West of Da Vall Drive 73.7 73.9 73.9 0.2 0.0 No
12-664
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-37 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Roadway Segment Existing
Year 2022
Ambient
Year 2022
with ACC
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
ACC
Significant
Impact
East of Da Vall Drive 72.7 73.3 73.4 0.7 0.1 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 73.5 73.7 0.9 0.2 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 73.4 73.6 0.8 0.2 No
East of Westin
Mission Hills
72.9 73.5 73.9 1.0 0.4 No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.9 73.1 73.5 0.6 0.4 No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
72.9 73.8 74.0 1.1 0.2 No
East of Key Largo 73.0 74.1 74.3 1.3 0.2 No
West of Monterey
Avenue
74.4 74.9 75.1 0.7 0.2 No
East of Monterey
Avenue
72.4 72.5 72.6 0.2 0.1 No
Gerald Ford Drive
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.5 73.4 73.4 0.9 0.0 No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
71.9 73.0 73.0 1.1 0.0 No
Interstate 10
West of Bob Hope
Drive
80.2 81.5 81.6 1.4 0.1 No
East of Ramon Road 80.3 81.7 81.7 1.4 0.0 No
Bob Hope Dr. I-10
Ramps
Westbound On-
Ramp
68.0 68.9 69.0 1.0 0.1 No
Westbound Off-
Ramp
69.5 70.7 70.8 1.3 0.1 No
Eastbound On-Ramp 63.3 64.2 64.2 1.9 0.0 No
Westbound Off-
Ramp
69.0 69.6 69.7 0.7 0.1 No
Ramon Road I-10
Ramps
Eastbound On-Ramp 69.2 70.0 70.2 1.0 0.2 No
Via Bella
West of Los Alamos
Road
58.8 59.0 59.0 0.2 0.0 No
12-665
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-38 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Roadway Segment Existing
Year 2022
Ambient
Year 2022
with ACC
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
ACC
Significant
Impact
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A 63.0 N/A N/A No
Casino
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
63.3 63.5 63.5 0.2 0.0 No
Westin Mission Hills
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A N/A 64.3 N/A N/A No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
62.2 62.3 62.3 0.1 0.0 No
Westin Resort and
Villas
North of Dinah Shore
Drive
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
South of Dinah Shore
Drive
59.2 59.4 59.4 0.2 0.0 No
Street A
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Street B
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Street C
South of Ramon
Road
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Street D
South of Ramon
Road
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Street E
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No
Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. See Appendix F for noise modeling data sheets.
Based on traffic volumes and obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Endo Engineering, 2009 and speed limits for roadway segments found in the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 10.60, Speed Regulation.
N/A = Not available; roadway does not exist, therefore, traffic volume is 0.
12-666
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-39 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
All proposed on -site residences would be considered soft surfaces , vegetated areas such as a park or open space . Assuming that residences within the site would be located a similar distance from the centerline of Los Alamos to the east, roadway noise levels would attenuate 1.8 dB(A) over the additional 30 feet, which would result in 65.6 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the east. The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A) , thus reducing the Project-related traffic volumes to
60.6 dB(A) to the east. Consequently, while the increase is considered potentially significant (greater than 3 dB(A) above acceptable exterior noise levels) , the exterior noise levels would not exceed the exterior State and local threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Project Site , due to noise attenuation measures included in the Project’s design . Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would attenuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels along Los Alamos Road would be 40.6 dB(A), below the 45 dB(A) interior threshold. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the east.
Assuming that residences within the site would be located 150 feet from the centerline of Dinah Shore Drive to the north, roadway noise levels would attenuate 4.5 dB(A) over the additional 75 feet, which would result in 69.2 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the north. The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A), thus reducing the Project -related traffic volumes to 64.2 dB(A) to the north. Consequently, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the State and local threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Project Site north of Dinah Shore Drive . Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would attenuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels along Dinah Shore Drive with windows closed would be 44.2 dB(A) , below the 4 5 dB(A) interior threshold.
Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the north.
Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
Noise levels would increase 4.6 dB(A) along Los Alamos Road segment up to 67.4 dB(A) 75 feet from the roadway centerline. As previously discussed, residential uses west of Los Alamos Road are setback 105 feet from the roadway centerline with a masonry wall along the west side of Los Alamos Road. The noise levels would attenuate 1.2 dB(A) , which would result in 66.2 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the west.
The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A) , thus reducing the Project - related traffic volumes to 61.2 dB(A) to the west. Consequently, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the City of Rancho Mirage threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Mission Hills area to the west of the Project Site. Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would atte nuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels along Los Alamos Road with windows closed would be 41.2 dB(A), below the 45 dB(A) interior threshold. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the west.
12-667
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-40 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.10-10, Future (Year 2035) Plus Specific Plan Buildout, illustrates the change in CNEL from Year 2035 ambient conditions and from Specific Plan Buildout . The Year 2035 ambient conditions represent traffic growth or cumulative development within the Project Site. Based on ambient growth the greatest increase in noise would occur along Los Alamo s Road, south of Ramon Road and north of Dinah Shore Drive. Ambient increases would be up to 7.1 dB(A) which would result in 69.9 dB(A) along Los Alamos Road. The Project-related traffic volumes would increase noise levels by 3.7 dB(A) and would exceed the exterior residential threshold of 65 dB(A) . This increase would be greater than the 3 dB(A) or greater increase, and is consequently a potentially significant impact.
On-Site Sensitive Receptors
Future on-site residential uses would be located along the roadway segments of Los Alamos Road and Dinah Shore Drive. Noise levels under the Year 2035 Specific Plan Buildout scenario along Los Alamos Road could be up to 69.9 dB(A) at 75 feet from the roadway centerline and along Dinah Shore up to 74.5 dB(A) at 75 feet from the roadway centerline. Assuming the use of no setback and noise attenuation features such as a noise wall, on -site and off-site residential uses could experience exterior noise levels above the State and local exterior noise compatibility guidelines of 65 dB(A) CNEL , resulting in potentially significant impacts.
All proposed on-site residences would be considered soft surfaces. Assuming that residences within the site would be located a similar distance from the centerline of Los Alamos to the east, roadway noise levels would attenuate 1.8 dB(A) over the additional 30 feet, which would result in 68.1 dB(A) at sensitive receptors t o the east. The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A), thus reducing the Project -related traffic volumes to 63.1 dB(A) to the east. Consequently, while the increase is considered potentially significant, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the exterior State and local threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Project Site, with noise attenuation measures included in the Project’s design.
Table 5.10-10
Future (Year 2035) plus Specific Plan Buildout
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant
Impact? Existing
Year 2035
Ambient
Existing Plus
Year 2035
with Project
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
Project
Da Vall Drive
North of Ramon
Road
70.4 72.8 73.3 2.9 0.5 No
South of Ramon
Road
70.6 71.8 72.4 1.8 0.6 No
12-668
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-41 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant
Impact? Existing
Year 2035
Ambient
Existing Plus
Year 2035
with Project
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
Project
North of Dinah
Shore Drive
70.8 71.2 71.9 1.1 0.7 No
South of Dinah
Shore Drive
70.9 71.9 72.8 1.9 0.9 No
Rattler Road
North of Ramon
Road
64.5 69.4 69.4 4.9 0.0 No
Los Alamos Road
South of Ramon
Road
62.8 66.2 69.9 7.1 3.7 Yes
North of Dinah
Shore Drive
63.2 66.5 68.9 5.7 2.4 No
Bob Hope Drive
North of I-10 WB
Ramps
71.2 74.4 74.6 3.4 0.2 No
North of I-10 EB
Ramps
72.6 74.8 76.2 3.6 1.4 No
North of Ramon
Road
72.9 74.1 76.3 3.4 2.2 No
South of Ramon
Road
73.0 73.4 75.9 2.9 2.5 No
North of Dinah
Shore Drive
72.7 74.1 76.1 3.4 2.0 No
South of Dinah
Shore Drive
73.3 73.7 75.1 1.8 1.4 No
North of Gerald
Ford Drive
73.0 73.4 74.9 1.9 1.5 No
South of Gerald
Ford Drive
73.2 73.6 74.6 1.4 1.0 No
Key Largo
North of Dinah
Shore Drive
N/A 67.2 67.2 N/A 0.0 No
South of Dinah
Shore Drive
61.5 61.9 61.9 0.4 0.0 No
Monterey Avenue
North of Dinah
Shore Drive
76.8 77.3 77.4 0.6 0.1 No
South of Dinah
Shore Drive
75.2 75.6 76.1 0.9 0.5 No
12-669
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-42 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant
Impact? Existing
Year 2035
Ambient
Existing Plus
Year 2035
with Project
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
Project
Ramon Road
West of Da Vall
Drive
73.3 75.1 76.1 2.8 1.0 No
East of Da Vall
Drive
73.9 76.4 77.6 3.7 1.2 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
74.0 76.4 77.6 3.6 1.2 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
74.1 75.9 77.2 3.1 1.3 No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
72.5 73.5 74.7 2.2 1.2 No
East of EB I-10
Ramps
70.7 71.6 72.1 1.4 0.5 No
Dinah Shore Drive
West of Da Vall
Drive
73.7 74.1 74.9 1.2 0.8 No
East of Da Vall
Drive
72.7 73.1 74.3 1.6 1.2 No
West of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 73.6 74.7 1.9 1.1 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
72.8 73.8 74.5 1.7 0.7 No
East of Westin
Mission Hills
72.9 73.7 74.5 1.6 0.8 No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.9 73.3 74.0 1.1 0.7 No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
72.9 73.9 75.2 2.3 1.3 No
East of Key Largo 73.0 74.6 75.7 2.7 1.1 No
West of Monterey
Avenue
74.4 74.8 76.0 1.6 1.2 No
East of Monterey
Avenue
72.4 72.8 73.3 0.9 0.5 No
Gerald Ford Drive
West of Bob Hope
Drive
72.5 74.5 74.7 2.2 0.2 No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
71.9 74.4 74.7 2.8 0.3 No
Interstate 10
West of Bob Hope
Drive
80.2 83.2 83.4 3.2 0.2 No
12-670
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-43 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant
Impact? Existing
Year 2035
Ambient
Existing Plus
Year 2035
with Project
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
Project
East of Ramon
Road
80.3 83.4 83.6 3.3 0.2 No
Bob Hope Dr. I-10
Ramps
Westbound On-
Ramp
68.0 68.4 70.6 2.6 2.2 No
Westbound Off-
Ramp
69.5 70.6 72.3 2.8 1.7 No
Eastbound On-
Ramp
63.3 64.5 65.3 2.0 1.8 No
Westbound Off-
Ramp
69.0 69.4 71.2 2.2 1.8 No
Ramon Road I-10
Ramps
Eastbound On-
Ramp
69.2 69.6 71.6 2.4 2.0 No
Via Bella
West of Los Alamos
Road
58.8 59.2 59.2 0.4 0.0 No
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A 59.4 N/A N/A No
Casino
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A 71.4 N/A N/A No
East of Bob Hope
Drive
63.3 63.7 64.6 1.3 0.9 No
Westin Mission
Hills
North of Dinah
Shore Drive
N/A N/A 61.4 N/A N/A No
South of Dinah
Shore Drive
62.2 62.6 62.6 0.4 0.0 No
Westin Resort and
Villas
North of Dinah
Shore Drive
N/A N/A 66.0 N/A N/A No
South of Dinah
Shore Drive
59.2 59.6 59.6 0.4 0.0 No
Street A
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A 56.4 N/A N/A No
12-671
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-44 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment
Roadway Noise Level, 75 feet from Center (dB[A] CNEL)
Significant
Impact? Existing
Year 2035
Ambient
Existing Plus
Year 2035
with Project
Increase in
CNEL from
Existing
Increase in
CNEL Due to
Project
Street B
East of Los Alamos
Road
N/A N/A 64.3 N/A N/A No
Street C
South of Ramon
Road
N/A N/A 67.9 N/A N/A No
Street D
South of Ramon
Road
N/A NA 69.5 N/A N/A No
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A 68.6 N/A N/A No
Street E
West of Bob Hope
Drive
N/A N/A 66.3 N/A N/A No
Source: FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. See Appendix F for noise modeling data sheets.
Based on traffic volumes and obtained from the Traffic Analysis prepared by Endo Engineering, 2009 and speed limits for roadway segments found in the City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 10.60, Speed Regulation.
N/A = Not available; roadway does not exist, therefore, traffic volume is 0.
Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would attenuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels along Los Alamos Road would be 43.1 dB(A) , below the 45 dB(A) interior threshold. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the east.
Assuming that residences within the site would be located 150 feet from the centerline of Dinah Shore Drive to the north, roadway noise levels would attenuate 4.5 dB(A) over the additional 75 feet, which would result in 70.0 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the north. The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A), thus reducing the Project -related traffic volumes to 65.0 dB(A) to the north. Consequently, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the State and local threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Project Site. Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would attenuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels along Dinah Shore Drive with windows closed would be 45.0 dB(A), at the 45 dB(A) interior threshold. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the north.
As indicated in Table 5.10 -10, the exterior noise levels along the Project’s internal roadways from vehicle traffic would exceed the exterior State and local threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Planning Areas proposed for residential uses. Consequently, impacts are considered to be potentially significant. 12-672
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-45 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
Noise levels would increase 7.1 dB(A) along Los Alamos Road segment up to 69.9 dB(A) 75 feet from the roadway centerline. As previously discussed, residential uses west of Los Alamos Road are setback 105 feet from the roadway centerline with a masonry wall along the west side of Los Alamos Road. The noise levels would attenuate 1.2 dB(A) , which would resul t in 68.7 dB(A) at sensitive receptors to the west.
The masonry wall would further attenuate roadway noise levels by 5 dB(A) , thus reducing the Project - related traffic volumes to 63.7 dB(A) to the west. Consequently, the exterior noise levels would not exceed the City of Rancho Mirage threshold of 65 dB(A) within the Mission Hills area to the west of the Project Site. Assuming standard construction practices, interior noise levels would attenuate 20 dB(A) with windows closed. Interior noise levels along Lo s Alamos Road with windows closed would be 43.7 dB(A), below the 45 dB(A) interior threshold. Accordingly, roadway noise impacts would be less than significant on sensitive uses to the west.
Stationary Noise
Parking Lots
Development of the Project would in troduce parking lots associated with retail- commercial, resort flex, mixed core uses on the Project Site. Generally, noise associated with parking lots is not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards based on the time -weighted CNEL scale. P arking lots can be a source of annoyance due to automobile engine start-ups and acceleration, and the activation of car alarms. Parking lots can generate L
eq noise levels of between 49 dB(A) L eq (tire squeals) to 74 dB(A) L eq (car alarms) at 50 feet. Existing off- site residential land uses along Los Alamos Road and Dinah Shore Drive (Mission Hills) and proposed on-site multi- family use s along internal roadways would be the closest sensitive receptors and would thus represent the worst- case impact associated with parking lot noise from the Project. Due to the existing level of traffic noise along area roadways , noise would not likely be audible due to the masking of noise by traffic. However, single noise events could be an annoyance to on -site and surroundi ng residents during certain time periods such as evening and morning hours and may exceed local standards at receptor locations. Consequently, impacts are considered to be potentially significant.
Loading Docks
External truck loading and unloading docks associated with the Project would introduce potential stationary noise sources. These sources would primarily be associated with the retail and commercial, resort flex, and mixed use core uses. The specific location of potential loading docks has not been determined. The operations at loading docks typically result in noise levels of 64 to 66 dB(A) at 75 feet. 12-673
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-46 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The noise from loading docks would not cause an increase in long- term average noise of more than 5 dB(A) on the time- weighted CNEL scale, and would no t be significant from that perspective. However, single noise events could be an annoyance during certain time periods such as evening and morning hours to existing on -site and off -site residential land uses along Los Alamos Road, Dinah Shore Drive , and internal roadways. Noise levels may exceed local standards. Consequently, impacts are considered to be potentially significant.
HVAC Systems
The Project would introduce various stationary noise sources, including HVAC systems, which would be located either on the roof, the side of a structure or on the ground. Off- site and on-site sensitive receptors could be potentially affected by the introductio n of such equipment. Typically, this type of equipment produces noise levels of approximately 56.0 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source. This equipment would be screened and integrated in architectural design of the building, and would further attenuate sound emanating from the HVAC systems. As the sound distance doubles to 100 feet from the equipment, sound levels would be 50 dB(A) , which would be below the local exterior noise limits (50 dB(A) between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM for the City of Rancho Mirage). The use of such equipment would not generate noise levels that would substantially elevate the ambient noise environment and would not generate substantial noise and impacts to nearby noise -sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant.
Human Activity Related Noise
Future residents located on the Project Site, as well as nearby sensitive receptors, may experience increases in noise due to an increase in human activity within the area either from people living on the premises, utilizing the on -site amenities including common areas , and the outdoor commercial and mixed u se areas. Potential residential an d commercial type s of noise include people talking, doors slamming, stereos, and other noise associated with human activity. These noise sources are n ot unique and generally contribute to ambient noise levels experiences in all land use areas. Maximum permissible noise levels for mixed use areas are typically 55 to 65 dB(A) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Overall, the noise generated by the Project’s land uses would be consistent with the ambient noise levels in the Project Site, which range from 66 to 76 dB(A). Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. 12-674
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-47 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels
Active Adult Community & Tribal Planning Areas
Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the construction procedures and the construction equipment used. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels.
The primary and most intensive vibration source associated with the development of the Project would be the use of earth -moving equipment during construction, as identified in Table 5.10-11 , Vibration Source Levels from Construction Equipment.
Table 5.10-11
Vibration Source Levels from Construction Equipment
Equipment VdB at 125 feet
Air Compressor 72.1
Backhoe 74.6
Generator 58.1
Excavator 65.1
Loaded trucks 76.6
Loader 76.1
Paver 75.1
Roller 65.1
Scraper 68.1
Source: Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06 (May 2006), 12-9.
As indicated in Table 5.10-11, backhoes are capable of producing 76.6 VdB at 125 feet , which is the approximate distance to the nearest sensitive receptors located to the west of the Project Site. As previously noted, a vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate threshold between barely perceptible and distinctly percep tible levels for many people. The residential neighborhoods nearest to the Project Site with regard to construction activities would not be affected as a result of the attenuation of groundborne vibration given their distance from the Project Site. Furthermore, the majority of construction activities would occur at farther distances . Construction activities would be restricted to daytime hours when people are the least sensitive to vibration intrusions, as identified in PDF 5.10-1 . Consequently, hea vy constructi on equipment would not generate substantial levels of 12-675
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-48 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
vibration that would cause annoyance at the off -site vibration -sensitive residences. Accordingly, vibration impacts to people would be less than significant.
A significant vibration impact from construction equipment to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings would be 78 VdB. Project construction activities would generate levels at the nearest structure would be 76.6 VdB, below the threshold criterion for non -engineered timber and mason ry buildings.
Therefore, the Project would result in less than significant vibration impacts on nearby structures.
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Active Adult Community & Tribal Planning Areas
The nearest airport to the Project Site is the Palm Springs Airport located approximately 8 miles to the northwest. The Project Site is not within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, the distance from the airport to the Project Site would not expose people resi ding or working on the Project Site to excessive noise levels. Thus, no significant impacts would occur.
For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels? Active Adult Community & Tribal Planning Areas
The Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest private airstrip is the Bermuda Dunes Airport, located approximately 8 miles to the southeast of the Project Site. Therefore, the P roject would not expose residents or employees to excessive noise levels within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, significant impacts would not occur.
5. Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of this analysis, development of the related projects will be considered to contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Noise by definition is a localized phenomenon, and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. As a result, only project and growth in the general area of the Project Site would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.
Construction
Noise impacts are localized in nature and decrease with distance. Cumulative construction noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within 12-676
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-49 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. Based on noise levels generated by construction activities associated with the Project Site, the duration of construct ion activities (approximately 20 years), and the proximity of the sensitive receptors, construction noise from the Project would contribute to the cumulative noise environment. It is expected that, as with the proposed Project, the related projects would i mplement Best Management Practices (BMPs), which would minimize any noise -related nuisances during construction. Related projects are not located close enough to the Project S ite (greater than 125 feet) to result in vibration impacts from concurrent construction. Therefore, the combined vibration impact of the related project s and the Project’s contribution would not cause a significant cumulative impact.
Operational
Cumulative development from related projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact in terms of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. A substantial permanent increase is most likely to originate from an increase in noise levels due to roadway traffic. For the purposes of this analysis, an increase of 5 dB(A) at any roadway location is considered a significant impact, and if the resulting noise level would exceed the land use compatibility criteria, then an increase of 3 dB(A) is considered significant.
Development details related to the two cumulative projects (Rancho Mirage Rehab Hospital and Pelagic Residential) were obtained from the City of Rancho Mirage “Development Activity Summary .” The two cumulative projects would generate a combined total of approximately 2,320 weekday trips when completed. The cumulative traffic was added to the year 2022 non -site traffic volumes developed from the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model ( RivTAM) to determine the year 2022 through year 2035 traffic volumes. As shown in Table 5.10 -10, ambient noise le vel increases greater than 3 dB(A) where the noise levels exceed the land use compatibility criteria occur along the following roadway segments:
• Ramon Road: east of Los Alamos, west of Los Alamos, and east of Dal Vall Drive • Los Alamos Road: south of Ramon Road and north of Dinah Shore Drive • Bob Hope Drive: north of Dinah Shore Drive, north of Ramon Road, and north of I-10 interchanges • Rattler Road: north of Ramon Road
Overall, the Project’s contribution to the noise level increases under Year 2035 conditions would be less than 3 dB(A), except for the segment south of Ramon Road along Los Alamos Road, and, therefore, not considered to be cumulatively considerable . As previously discussed in the Future (Year 2035) plus 12-677
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-50 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Specific Plan Buildout scenario, noise levels along Los Alamos would be greater than 3 dB(A), absent noise attenuation measures. Noise attenuating features including soft site conditions, distance, and the masonry wall along the site boundary would reduce exterior and interior noise leve ls below the State and local thresholds and, therefore, the Project’s contribution would not considered to be cumulatively considerable. Noise increases from the I-10 would attenuate from 83.4 dB(A) to 63.9 dB(A) 1,200 feet to the Project Site and would not exceed the exterior threshold of 65 dB(A) at sensitive receptors.
With regard to stationary sources, cumulatively significant noise impacts may result from cumulative development. Stationary sources of noise that could be introduced in the a rea by cumulative projects could include mechanical equipment, loading docks, and parking lots. Since these projects would be required to adhere to the County of Riverside and City of Rancho Mirage’s noise standards, all the stationary sources would be required to provide shielding or other noise abatement measures so as not to cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Moreover, due to distance, it is unlikely that noise from multiple cumulative projects would interact to create a significant combined noise impact. As such, it is not anticipated that a significant cumulative increase in permanent ambient noise levels would occur and, therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative noise impacts would not cause a cumulatively significant noise impact.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition to the Project Design Features (PDF) identified in Section B.3, the following M itigation Measures have been identified to mitigate noise impacts:
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
MM 5.10-1 The project applicant shall require that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels:
• Two weeks prior to construction activities, the applicant must notify all surrounding land uses within 200 feet of a project site , of the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that will be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period.
• Before any sit e activity, the contractor shall be required to submit a material haul route plan to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian s (“Tribe”) Traffic Engineer and to the City of Rancho Mirage for review and approval. The contractor must ensure that the approved haul routes are used for all materials hauling, to minimize exposure of sensitive receivers to potential adverse noise levels from hauling operations.
12-678
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-51 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and in good working condition.
• Place noise -generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible.
• Stationary construction equipment, such as pumps, generators, or compressors, must be placed as far from noise sensitive uses as feasible during all phases of project construction.
• Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources.
• Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible.
• Construction-related equipment, including heavy -duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, must be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes.
• Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent must be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the Tribe, the City, or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent must investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. Contract specifications must be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which must be reviewed by the Tribe prior to issuance of grading permits.
MM 5.10-2 Prior to implementing project approval for each implementing project, for on -site residential lots located within the 65 dB(A) CNEL or greater noise contour for internal roadways (including Street “C” between Planning Area 1 and 2, Street “D” between Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and Street “E” between Planning Areas 6 and 7) , an acoustic analysis shall be required to address requirements for determining and mitigating traffic noise impacts to residential structures. The acoustical analysis must be received, reviewed, and approved by the appropriate agency (such as the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians or City of Rancho Mirage ). Methods that may be implemented to meet the standards include, but are not limited to, providing noise walls of sufficient size to break the line of sight between roadways and residential areas, providing open - 12-679
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-52 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
space buffers, providing natural barriers such as hills, berms, boulders, and dense vegetation, or a combination of these methods.
Tribal Planning Areas
MM 5.10-3 Sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated into the design of individual projects to minimize noise from parking lots. These measures could include, but are not limited to, a noise barrier of sufficient size to break the line of sight, an open -space buffer, a setback, or a combination of methods shall be developed along locations between parking lot noise and exterior usable areas within on -site and adjacent residential uses where these uses interface. Acoustical analysis shall be performed to demonst rate that the parking lot does not result in noise levels on sensitive uses within the City of Rancho Mirage that exceed the City Municipal Code L50 standard of 60 dB(A) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, 55 dB(A) between 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM, and 50 dB(A) between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. These components shall be incorporated into the plans submitted by the applicant to the Tribe, prior to the issuance of building permits.
MM 5.10-4 Sound attenuation measures must be incorporated into the design of individual projects to minimize noise from loading docks. These measures may include, but are not limited to, designing loading docks to have either a depressed (i.e., below grade) loading area, an internal bay, or a wall to break the line of sight between on -site and adj acent residential land uses and loading operations. Acoustical analysis shall be performed to demonstrate that the loading dock does not result in noise levels on sensitive uses within the City that exceed the City’s L50 standard of 60 dB(A) between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, 55 dB(A) between 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM, and 50 dB(A) between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. These components must be incorporated into the plans submitted by the applicant to the Tribe for review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Project Design Feature PDF 5.10-1 and Mitigation Measure MM 5.10-1 would reduce noise generated by construction activities associated with the Project to the extent feasible. While Project- related construction activities would occur during the least noise -sensitive portion of the day and M itigation Measures would help to reduce noise generated by construction activities, construction -related noise may be substantial due to the length of construction activities (approximately 20 years) and the level of noise from the combination of construction activities that would be generated. The magnitude of impact would depend on the location of the proposed development and construction schedule. Co nsequently, construction impacts for Specific Plan Buildout would be significant and unavoidable. 12-680
5.10 Noise
Meridian Consultants 5.10-53 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Construction vibration impacts on nearby sensitive receptors and structures would be less than significant.
Project Design Features PDF 5.10 -2 and PDF 5.10- 3 would reduce o perational roadway noise , and impacts for all four scenarios would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM 5.10 -2 would reduce exterior and interior noise levels from vehicle traffic along internal roadways to a less than significant.
Project Design Feature PDF 5.10 -4 and Mitigation Measures MM 5.10-3 and MM 5.10-4 would reduce stationary noise sources from parking lots and loading docks to a less than significant level.
The Project’s contribution to increases in permanent roadway noise levels will not cause a significant impact.
12-681
5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
This Section of the Draft EIS addresses the potential for the proposed Project to induce substantial population or housing growth that would result in impacts to the environment or directly impact existing housing. To determine if the Project would result in substantial population or housing growth, the consistency of the proposed Project with current growth projections is assessed. The relationship of the Project to the regional planning policies of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and the current City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Housing Element are also discussed. Please see Section 9.0 for a glossary of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
Riverside County
Riverside County has experie nced a significant growth in population over the past few decades .
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Riverside County population grew from 1,543,387 in 2000 to 2,189,641 in 2010, an increase of approximately 42 percent. As of 2012, the number of housing units existing within the County was 799,360 units, of which approximately 84.6 percent, or 676,618 units, were occupied. The population employed within the County was 869,427 persons. As of 2010, t he median age in Riverside County was 33.7.
According to California Department of Finance (DOF) as of January 1, 2014 , the County population rose to approximately 2,279,967 residents. The number of housing units existing within the County is 817,008 units, of which approximately 85.7 percent, or 700,413 units, were occupied.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal enrollment is approximately 365 persons ,1 with approximately 21,358 residents 2 on the Reservation.
According to the SCAG forecasts, the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) had 13,868 households in 2010; it is projected to have 16,303 households by 2020 and 20,688 households by 2035.3 1 United States Census Bureau, 2000.
2 United States Census Bureau, 2000.
3 Southern California Association of Governments, RHNA Subcommittee, Table 5, May 2011.
Meridian Consultants 5.11-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-682
5.11 Population and Housing
City of Rancho Mirage
According to the U.S. Census, the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) had a population of 17,218 in 2010, accounting for approximately 4 percent of the Coachella Valley’s total population and less than 1 percent of the County of Riverside’s total population. As of 2012, the number of housing units existing within the City was 14,684 units, of which approxi mately 58.0 percent, or 8,524 units, were occupied.
The vacancy rate within the City was 6,160 units , or approximately 42.0 percent, which is a result of many of these units serving as second or vacation homes for part -time residents. I n 2010, the City of Rancho Mirage had a median age of 60.5 years compared with those of Riverside County (33.1), the State (35.2), and the nation (37.2). In addition, the proportion of seniors age 65 and older was higher in 2010 (44 percent) than in 2000 (43 percent).
According to the DOF, as of January 2014 the population of the City of Rancho Mirage is 17,745. The number of existing housing units within the City is 14,322 units, of which approximately 62.0 percent, or 8,878 units, are occupied.
2. Regulatory Setting
State
California Housing Element Law
California planning and zoning law requires each city and county to adopt a general plan for future growth.
4 This plan must include a housing element that identifies the housing need for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. At the State level, the Housing and Community Development Department estimates the r elative share of California’s projection population growth that would occur in each county within the S tate, based on DOF population projections and historical growth trends. Where there is a regional council of governments, the California Housing and Community Development Department provides the regional housing need to the council. The regional council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties. The process of assigning shares provides cities and counties the opp ortunity to comment on the proposed allocations. The Housing and Community Development Department oversees the process to ensure that the council of governments distributes its share of the S tate’s projected housing need.
4 California Government Code, sec. 65300.
Meridian Consultants 5.11-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-683
5.11 Population and Housing
Each city and county must update its general plan housing element on a regular basis (generally, every five years). Among other things, the housing element must incorporate policies and identify potential sites that would accommodate the city’s share of the regional housing need. Before adopting an update to its housing element, the city or county must submit the draft to the S tate Housing and Community Development Department for review. The department will advise the local jurisdiction whether its housing element complies with the provisions of California Housing Element Law.
The councils of governments are required to assign regional housing shares to the cities and counties within their region on a similar five -year schedule. At the beginning of each cycle, the Housing and Community Development Department provides population projections to the councils of governments, who then allocate shares to their cities and counties. The shares of regional need are allocated before the end of the cycle so that the cities and counties can amend their housing elements by the deadline.
Regional and Local
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a council of governments representing Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties. SCAG is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this region, which encompasses more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG is a regional planning agency and a forum for addressing regional issues concerning transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. SCAG is also the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and State law. In this role, SCAG reviews proposed development and infrastructure projects to analyze their impacts on regional planning programs. As the southern California region’s MPO, SCAG cooperates with the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and other agencies in preparing regional planning documents. SCAG has developed regional plans to achieve specific regional objectives.
SCAG is also responsible for the designated Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) component pursuant to SB 375. The Sustainable Communities Strategy has been formulated to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 8 percent per capita by 2020 and by 13 percent per capita by 2035 compared to 2005 targets set by the California Air Resources Board.
The SCAG population, households, and employment projects for Riverside County are shown in Table
5.11-1, SCAG Projections for Riverside County.
Meridian Consultants 5.11-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-684
5.11 Population and Housing
Table 5.11-1
SCAG Projections for Riverside County
2008 2020 2035
Population 2,128,000 2,592,000 3,324,000
Households 679,000 834,000 1,092,000
Employment 664,000 939,000 1,243,000
The 2012 –2035 RTP/SCS links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation - friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socioeconomic, geographic, and commercial limitations. The Project’s consistency with the applicable RTP/SCS policies is analyzed further in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning.
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) is a subregional organization within SCAG.
CVAG operates as the lead agency and as part of larger jurisdictional or regional teams within the Coachella Valley, made up of nine cities, Riverside County and three Native American Indian tribes , including the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”). CVAG represents member local governments and agencies throughout the Coachella Valley seeking cooperative subregional and regional planning, coordination, and technical assistance on issues of mutual concern. CVAG is made up of several departments, including an Energy and Environmental Resources Department that monitors and implements both regional and local plans related to energy and air quality, waste m anagement, water quality, habitat conservation planning , and trails issues. The SCAG population, households, and employment projections for the CVAG subregion are shown in Table 5.1 1-2, SCAG Projections for the CVAG Subregion.
Table 5.11-2
SCAG Projections for the CVAG Subregion
2008 2020 2035
Population 443,000 604,000 884,000
Households 160,000 213,000 304,000
Employment 175,000 245,000 315,000
Meridian Consultants 5.11-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-685
5.11 Population and Housing
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have a significant population and housing impact if it would:
Threshold 5.11-1: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
Threshold 5.11-2: Displace substantial number of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Threshold 5.11-3: Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
2. Methodology
The analysis in this section is based on data provided by regional planning entities such as SCAG for planning horizons through 2035 and Project -specific data on household size and employment as presented in this Section. The most recent California Department of Finance population and housing estimates for the County were used in conjunction with the SCAG population projections to determine potential population and housing impacts.
The total population projected from buildout of the Project Site would be 4, 331 residents within 2,406 residential dwelling units. Using an average household size of 1. 8 persons, the Active Adult Community would add up to 2, 160 new residents to the City of Rancho Mirage who would be age restricted to 55 and above. The projected population added by the multifamily residential units proposed within the Tribal Planning Areas would be 2,171 residents.
SCAG projections reflect an aging population throughout Riverside County and the Coachella Valley with the number of persons per household decreasing in these areas from the year 2005 through the year 2030. The future population and housing projections in the SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast used in the development of Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM) represent approximately 96 percent Meridian Consultants 5.11-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-686
5.11 Population and Housing
of the 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan buildout projections for the area within the City limits. 5 The City General Plan assumed no change in the future population per household from the current value of
1.9 persons per household.6
If the City’s existing factor of 1.9 persons per household were applied to the SCAG future housing projection of 15,939, the future population within the City would be 31,081 (96 percent of the City’s population projection of 32,400). Therefore, it could be concluded that the R ivTAM population and housing projec tions are essentially consistent with the City’s G eneral Plan buildout condition. A four percent difference is negligible with respect to traffic projections for twenty years in the future. A fifteen percent difference is considered acceptable in the validation of subregional transportation models like RivTAM or the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan Model.
As shown in Table 5.1 1-3, Specific Plan Employment Opportunities, it is projected the commercial uses that would be permitted by the proposed Specific Plan would provide up to 6,822 employment opportunities.
Table 5.11-3
Specific Plan Employment Opportunities
Non-Residential Area
Building Square
Footage
Employees per
Square Foot1 Employment
Non-Mixed-Use Planning areas 2,048,600 500 per SF 4,097 Mixed-Use Planning Areas 1,090,000 400 per SF 2,725
Total 3,138,600 - 6,822
Notes:
1 2005 Rancho Mirage General Plan EIR
5 The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), completed in May 2009, was developed with the cooperative efforts of the Riverside County Transportation Department, Western Riverside Cou ncil of Governments, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, and California Department of Transportation. 6 The City uses 1.9 persons per household to determine the appropriate amount of required usable parkland. [ City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code 16.18.060(D)(1)]
Meridian Consultants 5.11-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-687
5.11 Population and Housing
3. Project Impacts
Induce Substantial Population Growth in the Project Area Active Adult Community
Population Growth
The City of Rancho Mirage 2014 population is 17,745 residents. The City’s projected population with full development of the uses allowed by the General Plan is approximately 32,400, with an additional 11,875 possible residents in the City’s sphere of influ ence, which includes the Project Site. The City’s General Plan designates the portion of the Project Site containing the Active Adult Community as Medium Density Residential. The City has a potential to generate a maximum of approximately 16,600 dwelling units within the current City boundaries. The City’s General Plan Housing Element indicates that the City’s Sphere of Influence south of Interstate 10 (I -10) has the potential to add an additional 3,900 homes and 11,800 future residents on 1,075 acres of residential land.
As previously discussed, the Active Adult Community would add up 1,200 single-family units with up to 2,160 new residents within the Project Site. The projected population increase that would be generated would represent approximately 18 percent of the population growth projected in the City’s Sphere of Influence. The population increase within the Active Adult Community would also account for approximately 7 percent of the City population increase between 2014 and 2030.
Public service providers have indicated that they can accommodate the projected growth from the Active Adult Community. Therefore, while development of the Active Adult Community would result in a population increase, this increase is consistent with projected growth in this portion of the City , and public service s and utilities and service systems can adequately accommodate this growth . Impacts would be less than significant for these reasons.
Housing
The number of housing units in the City of Rancho Mirage in 2014 is 14,322 units. The Active Adult Community would add up 1,200 single -family units within the Project Site. The projected housing increase that would be generated represents approximately 31 percent of the housing growth projected in the City’s Sphere of Influence. The housing increase within the Active Adult Community would account for approximately 19 percent of the City housing g rowth projected for the City between 2014 and 2030. Impacts would be less than significant because this growth in housing would be consistent with growth projections for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Meridian Consultants 5.11-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-688
5.11 Population and Housing
Tribal Planning Areas
Population
As previously discussed, the multifamily housing proposed within the Tribal Planning Areas would add up to 1,206 multifamily units with up to 2, 171 new residents within the Project Site. The projected population increase that would be generated represent s approximately 18 percent of the population growth projected in the City’s Sphere of I nfluence between 2014 and 2030. The population increase within the Tribal Planning Areas would account for approximately 7 percent of the City population increase between 2014 and 2030 as identified in the City’s 2005 General Plan . Impacts would be less than significant as this growth in population would be consistent with growth projections for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Housing
The number of housing units in City of Rancho Mirage in 2014 is 14,322 units. As previously discussed, the Project would add up 1,206 multifamily units within the Project Site. The projected housing increase that would result from the Project would represent approximately 31 percent of the housing growth projected in the City’s Sphere of Influence. The housing increase within the Tribal Planning Areas would account for approximately 19 percent of the City housing growth projected for the City between 2014 and 2030. Impac ts would be less than significant because this growth in housing would be consistent with growth projections for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Employment
The City’s Sphere of Influence located south ofI- 10, including the Project Site, is identified by the City’s General Plan as having the potential for up to 3,200 employees on 111 acres of land designated for Community Commercial and Resort Hotel uses.
The Eisenhower Medical Center, Westin Mission Hills Resort, Marriott’s Rancho Las Palmas, and the Ritz Carlton comprise the majority of employment in the City. Based on 2010 Census data, the number of jobs per Rancho Mirage household was 0.76, second lowest in the Coachella Valley. This low ratio is attributable to smaller household size and greater percentage of retirees.
The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would result in direct employment growth from the proposed mix of employment-generating land uses, which would include up to 3,138,600 square feet of commercial, retail, office, restaurant, and entertainment uses within 158 acres . As indicated in Table 5.1 1-3, these uses could generate an up to 6,822 employment opportunities . The existing City jobs/housing ratio is
0.9, with the projected jobs/housing ratio to be 1.51 by 2030. When 6,822 jobs are added to 12,742 existing jobs, the jobs/housing ratio in the City with the Project would be 1.2. The Project would Meridian Consultants 5.11-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-689
5.11 Population and Housing
contribute to the improvement of the existing jobs/housing ratio, when compared to the current 0.9 ratio that is identified in the City’s General Plan.
Combined
As previously discussed, the housing proposed within the Project Site would add up to 2,4 06 residential units with up to 4,331 new residents within the Project Site. The projected population increase that would be generated represents approximately 37 percent of the population growth projected in the City’s Sphere of Influence south of I -10 between 2014 and 2030. The population i ncrease within the Project Site would account for approximately 13 percent of the City population increase between 2014 and 2030 as identified in the City’s 2005 General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant as this growth in population would be consistent with growth projections for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence.
The number of housing units in City of Rancho Mirage in 2014 is 14,322 units. The Project would add up 2,406 residential units within the Project Site. The projected housing increase that would result from the Project would represent approximately 62 percent of the housing growth projected in the City’s Sphere of Influence south of I-10. The housing increase within the Project Site would account for approximately 14 percent of the City housing growth projected for the City between 2014 and 2030. Impacts would be less than significant because this growth in housing would be consistent with growth projections for this portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence.
Consistency with Regional and Local Policies and Forecasts
SCAG RTP/SCS
Growth projections contained in the RTP /SCS are based on a compilation of county and local projections. RTP forecasts are then used in the formulation of regional plans dealing with regional air quality, housing, transportation/circulation, and other infrastructure issues. SCAG does not provide a specific methodology for establishing the consistency of a proposed project with its regional growth forecasts. However, the RCP contains policies that support the use of these forecasts in the preparation and review of local and regional plans and projects.
The Project would account for approximately 1 percent of the anticipated increase in residents within the Coachella Valley between 2008 and 2035, which is consistent with the estimated growth projection Meridian Consultants 5.11-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-690
5.11 Population and Housing
for the CVAG subregion of SCAG. 7 Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial population growth in the area.
In 2008, CVAG reported 160,000 housing units within the CVAG subregion . According to SCAG projections, that number is forecast to increase to 304,000 housing units betw een 2008 and 2035, an increase of 144,000 housing units. The Project would account for approximately 2 percent of the anticipated 144,000 housing units within the CVAG subregion between 2008 and 2035. As previously stated, SCAG projections for Reservation lands indicate that housing would grow by 4,386 units between 2020 and 2035. The Project would account for approximately 55 percent of growth on Reservation lands. The residential component of the Project would not result in substantial or unplanned housin g growth.
In 2008, CVAG reported 175,000 employment opportunities within the CVAG subregion . According to SCAG projections, that number is forecast to increase to 315 ,000 employment opportunities between 2008 and 2035, an increase of 140,000 employment opp ortunities. The Project would account for approximately 5 percent of the anticipated 140 ,000 employment opportunities within the CVAG subregion between 2008 and 2035. The employment component of the Project would not result in substantial or unplanned employment growth.
Per State housing law, jurisdictions are required to accommodate for projected household growth through a sites and zoning analysis in their respective housing elements. Population and household growth on T ribal lands are included in SCAG’s regional growth forecasts, but local jurisdictions and the State do not have land use authority on T ribal lands; thus, SCAG proposed to exclude tribal population and household growth and associated housing needs from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. The fourth RHNA cycle regional allocation included growth on Indian Tribal lands. The fifth RHNA cycle (2011 through 2021) regional allocation excluded growth on Tribal lands, per determination by the California Housing and Community Development Department. 8 Therefore, the
Project would not be subject to RHNA process for replacement housing within the SCAG region. 7 884,000 (2035 projection) – 443,000 (2008 population) = 441,000 residents. 4368 Project residents / 441,000 = 0.01 or 1 percent.
8 SCAG, No. 2 Meeting of the Regional Housing Needs & Housing Element Reform Subcommittee, January 23, 2014.
Meridian Consultants 5.11-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-691
5.11 Population and Housing
Cause a Substantial Displacement of Existing Housing
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
Since the Project Site is currently vacant, the Project would not displace a substantial number of housing units on the site. Because the proposed Project would not displace any existing housing, impacts would be less than significant.
Cause a Substantial Displacement of People
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
As discussed previously, the Project Site does not contain any existing residential development and therefore does not have an existing residential population. Because the Proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, impacts would be less than significant.
4. Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Project, in combination with other development projects in the unincorporated County areas, adjacent jurisdictions, and the City of Rancho Mirage in accordance with the adopted General Plan, would contribute to future population, housing, and employment growth wit hin the area.
Though Project buildout would contribute to the growth of the County, the area, and within the City of Rancho Mirage, significant population, housing, and employment growth in the City is already anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Additionally, the Project’s cumulative housing and population impact provides benefits for the jobs/housing ratio, regional housing goals that promote housing production, and General Plan Housing Element goals regarding the mixture of residential densities. As a result, the Project would not cause a significant adverse impact with respect to cumulative population and housing growth.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF MITIGATION
No significant impacts have been identified and no Mitigation Measures are necessary.
Meridian Consultants 5.11-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-692
5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES
This Section addresses the potential impact s of the Project on fire protection, emergency medical services, police protection, schools, libraries , and public facility maintenance . The Project’s potential impacts related to available park resources will be discussed in Section 5.13, Recreation. The information provided in this S ection is based on correspondence and consultation with the County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department, County of Riverside Fire Department, Palm Springs Unified School District, and Rancho Mirage Public Library . The location of each respective public service is identified in Figure 5.12- 1, Public Services Within Proximity to Project Site . Each subsection includes an introduction, followed by discussions of existing conditions, regulatory framework, methodology, Project Design Features, environmental impacts, cumulative impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
Meridian Consultants 5.12-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-693
Public Services Within Proximity to Project Site
FIGURE 5.12-1
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2014
044-001-13
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
10.50 2
N
Legend:
Project Site
Sunny Sands
Elementary
School
Rancho Mirage
High School
Nellie N Coffman
Middle School
RCFD Station No. 35RCFD Station No. 35
RCFD Station No. 69RCFD Station No. 69
RCFD Station No. 71RCFD Station No. 71
RCFD Station No. 33RCFD Station No. 33
RCFD Station No. 50RCFD Station No. 50
Rancho Mirage Public LibraryRancho Mirage Public Library Palm Desert Sheriff’s Station
12-694
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.12.1 FIRE PROTECTION & EMERGENCY SERVICES
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the Project to impact fire protection and emergency servi ces provided by the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) . See Section 9.0 for definitions of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this EIS.
A. EN VIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
The Project Site is located within the boundaries of the RCFD, which provide fire protection and emergency services to the Coachella Valley. RCFD provides fire protection and emergency services under contract to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) ,1 and partners with several jurisdictions for its services, including the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”), City of Palm Desert, and Thousand Palms Community Services District. Additionally, RCFD participates in a Regional Integrated and Cooperative Fire Protection System with the City of Palm Springs and Cathedral City . The Regional Integrated and Cooperative Fire Protection System provides the Tribe and surrounding areas with additional regional resources to respond to fire service and emergency calls when required.
As shown in Figure 5.12.-1, Public Services Within Proximity to Project Site, there are currently five RCFD stations that are within proximity to the Project Site that are able to provide fire protection and emergency services. These stations are RCFD Stations No. 50 and No. 69 ( located in City of Rancho Mirage), No. 33 and No. 71 (located in City of Palm Desert) and No. 35 (located in Thousand Palms).
Table 5.12.1-1, Fire Stations Within Proximity to Project Site, identifies the location and the distance of these fire stations in relation to the Project Site. As shown on Table 5.12.1-1, two of these existing fire stations are located within 1 mile of the Project Site.
According to the Riverside County 2003 General Plan, and reiterated in the 2014 update, an acceptable response time is generally defined as within five minutes for urban areas, 10 minutes for suburban and rural community areas and 20 minutes for rural outlying areas.2 As indicated in the City’s General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element, a typical respons e time from RCFD to an incident will place eight personnel, including a battalion chief, to the scene within 5 minutes. In particular, RCFD Station No. 69 currently has three firefighters, who are all emergency
1 Riverside County Fire Department, (June 2014), http://www.rvcfire.org/. 2 Riverside County Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review Draft, Section 4.17: Public Facilities, March 2014. 12-695
5.12.1 Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
medical training (EMT) certified, with an ave rage response time under 5 minutes. This Station is equipped with one municipal paramedic fire engine.
Table 5.12.1-1
Fire Stations Within Proximity to Project Site
Station Location Distance from Project Site (approximately) Rancho Mirage
RCFD Station No. 69 71-751 Gerald Ford Drive 1.0 miles
RCFD Station No. 50 70-801 Highway 111 5.7 miles
Palm Desert
RCFD Station No. 33 44400 Town Center Way 5.6 miles
RCFD Station No. 71 73995 County Club Drive 5.0 miles
Thousand Palms
RCFD Station No. 35 31920 Robert Road 0.85 miles
Source: Riverside County Fire Department, 2014.
2. Regulatory Setting
State
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) includes relevant fire safety standards and the California Fire Code, which is from Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations. In compliance with the California Building Standards Commission based on the 201 2 International Fire Code, t he CBC sets building requirements that will ensure all structures are designed to ensure proper emergency access.
Additionally, it indicates other design features, such as fire sprinklers, fire flow standards, emergency access roads standards, and storage of flammable materials, which comply with fire department minimum requirements.
12-696
5.12.1 Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) applies to all occupancies throughout the State of California as annotated.
The CFC is the minimum State standard for fire code implementation in California, and is bas ed on the content of the Uniform Fire Code.3 The CFC establishes minimum fire-flow requirements.
Regional and Local
Riverside County Ordinance No. 659
Ordinance No. 659 identifies the requirement to implement the payment of development impact fees upon new construction within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. While the development impact fees do not necessarily mitigate impacts from all new development, these fees are used to effectively meet the public service needs demanded by new dev elopment and to minimize impacts to the County’s public facilities and resources.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Building and Safety Code As adopted from the CBC and the CFC, the purpose of the Tribal Building and Safety Code is to provide standards and regulations to control minimum building safety standards of all buildings and structures on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”). These standards are intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public fro m any potential building hazards. All building permit approvals from the Tribe are based on this Code.
Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Public Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies related to the fire protection and eme rgency services that are needed to support the City .4 It identifies the source of funding, the formulation of the City’s fire protection services, stations that currently service the City, and the plans to expand existing fire services based on the City’s continued growth and development.
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
Building and construction within t he City are subject to Title 1 5 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code , which governs grading, fill, and excavation activities. The City’s Building and Safety Division prescribes building codes pertaining to fire prevention hazards . The Rancho Mirage Fire Code (Title 15.12) is based on the 2013 California Building Code and sets minimum design and construction standards to enforce all
3 National Fire Protection Association, Uniform Fire Code, 2012. 4 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Public Services and Facilities Element,” 1997. 12-697
5.12.1 Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
ordinances and laws relating to the prevention or spread of fires, fire control, and fire hazards within the City.
At the local level, the City’s Municipal Code contains the Fire Code, which prescribes regulations to enforce all ordinances and laws relating to the prevention or spread of fires, fire control, and fire hazards within the City.
5 Lastly, Title 3, Chapter 28 and Chapter 29 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code sets forth the City’s policy for the requirement of payment of license tax and development impact fees upon new construction as a measure to fund local fire protection services. Specifically, Section 120 of Title 3, Chapter 28 identifies that development impact fees shall be paid to a separate fund to be used only for funding fire facilities and equipment within the City.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on public services, inc luding fire and emergency services, if it would:
Threshold 5.12.1-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services.
2. Methodology
Analysis of fire protection services is concerned with response time and water fire -flow service to the area that is in question. Response times to an area have large influences on the ability for a fire department to serve a development, county, city, or other populated area in a ti mely and efficient manner. The further a fire station is away from a populated area, it would be expected that response times would be longer and delayed.
5 City of Rancho Mirage, Municipal Code, Chapter 15.12, “Fire Code.” 12-698
5.12.1 Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
An analysis of response times for fire departments serving a development should be completed in orde r to determine if the fire department has sufficient resources to arrive to a fire or other medical emergency in a timely fashion. Additionally , the ability to provide adequate service to an area was determined by the ability to provide fire -flow service t o the area. Fire -flow is the amount of water required for firefighting purposes, usually delivered by a system of underground piping and fire hydrants.
3. Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the propo sed Project and would reduce the potential fire protection and emergency service impacts of the Project. These features were taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts.
PDF 5.12.1-1 Each individual project shall be required to provide approve d final fire-flow plans to the Tribe and/or the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), as appropriate, which include fire -flow requirements within commercial projects to be based on square footage and residential projects based on intensity of use. Additionally, the fire flow requirements factor the type of construction associated with development of the structures. These requirements shall also comply with the Tribal Building and Safety Code and/or City Fire Code (if the property is annexed to the City and becomes subject to the City’s land use jurisdiction), as applicable.
PDF 5.12.1-2 Prior to final building inspection for each individual project, applicants shall provide final fire-flow plans to the RCFD ensuring that all water mains and fire hydrants providing required fire-flows would be constructed in accordance with the appropriate development schedule sections of the Tribal Building and Safety Code and/or City Fire Code, as appl icable. Each fire -flow plan that is submitted would be reviewed and approved by the Tribe, the City (if the property is annexed to the City and becomes subject to the City’s land use jurisdiction), and/or RCFD prior to final building inspection.
4. Project Impacts
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts that would affect acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives Active Adult Community
The Active Adult Community is expected to increase the number of responses needed fo r the area, such as calls for structure fires, car fires, electrical fires, as well as various emergency service calls. This increase would result in the increased demand for additional apparatus, equipment, and personnel to 12-699
5.12.1 Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
service the Active Adult Commun ity. Additionally, the development of the Active Adult Community would increase demand on the RCFD’s costs to maintain adequate service levels and response times.
The two closest stations to the Project Site that would provide primary response are RCFD Stations No. 35 and No. 69. Station No.35 is located approximately 0.8 5 miles to the northeast and Station No. 69 is approximately 1.0 miles to the southwest of the Project Site. Station No. 35 would be the primary station to serve the Active Adult Community as it is the closest and would provide the quickest response times. In the event that Station No. 35 is responding to a fire and/or emergency call, Fire station No. 69 would respond to calls from the Project Site. Thus, both fire stations would be well within the Category 1 response-time objective of 10 minutes for the Project.
The RCFD has indicated that the City’s existing infrastructure, including access, traffic circulation, water, and hydrant systems are adequate for current RCFD needs as well as th e needs of the Project. 6 However, as the area grows and continues to develop, there will be an increase in demand for services provided by the RCFD. All development projects within the County and the City are required to comply with the most current adopted fire, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards. The Active Adult Community would be required to comply with the Tribal Building and Safety Code, or the City Fire Code if annexed into the City , both of which include the 201 3 CBC and the California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code of Regulations).
RCFD has indicated that a large section of non -property-taxed area within the response areas for these two stations negatively impacts the ability to pay for necessary services in the future. Therefore, in order to ensure that the Active Adult Community would not degrade existing facilities and response times provided by the RCFD to serve the needs of the Project, applicable fees would be required as identified in Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.1-1.
As discussed in Section 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials , the Project Site is located within an area with minimal fire hazard risk according to Cal Fire. Thus, the need for wild fire protection services to the Project Site is not likely required from RCFD.
Project Design Feature 5.12.1 -1 and 5.12.1-2 require that the Active Ad ult Community provide for the design, number, and the installation of fire hydrants, as well as the provision of adequate fire flow, in compliance w ith the Tribal Building and Safety Code or the City Fire Code if annexed into the City .
6 Ron Arbo, Battalion Chief, Riverside County Fire Department, phone correspondence, May 21, 2014. 12-700
5.12.1 Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Therefore, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a significant impact on fire protection and emergency medical services. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Planning Areas
As previously discussed, the Station No. 35 in Thousand Palms would be the primary serving station since it is the closest station approximately 0.85 miles from the Project Site. The next station that would serve the Tribal Planning Areas is Fire Station No. 69. RCFD has indicated that the City’s existing infrastructure, including access, traffic circulation, water, and hydrant systems are adequate for current RCFD needs as well as the needs of the Project.
7 However, as the area grows and continues to develop, there will be an increase in demand for services provided by the RCFD. All development projects within the County and the City are required to comply with the most current adopted fi re, building codes, and nationally recognized fire and life safety standards. The Tribal Planning Areas would be required to comply with the Tribal Building and Safety Code, and the City Fire Code for property annexed into the City that becomes subject to the City’s land use jurisdiction, which includes the 2013 CBC and the California Fire Code.
RCFD has indicated that a large section of non -property-taxed area within the response areas for these two stations negatively impacts the ability to pay for necessary services in the future. Therefore, in order to ensure that the Tribal Planning Areas would not degrade existing facilities and response times provided by RCFD to serve the needs of the Project, payment of an amount equal to the applicable development impact fees would be required as identified in Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.1 -1. If the Project Site is annexed into the City, then an applicable development impact fee will be paid to the City.
If the Project Site is not annexed into the City, then an applicable development impact fee will be paid to the County of Riverside.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Section 24 Specific Plan permits the development of fire stations within Planning Areas 1 to 7 for the Tribal Areas under permitted uses in t he mixed -use and multi-family residential land uses , and under a conditional use permit within the resort flex and retail land uses. Project Design Feature 5.12.1 -1 and 5.12.1-2 require that the Tribal Planning Areas provide for the design, number, and the installation of fire hydrants, as well as the provision of adequate fire flow, in compliance with the Tribal Building and Safety Code, and with the City Fire Code for property annexed into the City that becomes subject to the City’s land use jurisdiction . Therefore, Project
7 Ron Arbo, Battalion Chief, Riverside County Fire Department, phone correspondence, May 21, 2014. 12-701
5.12.1 Fire Protection & Emergency Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.1-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
implementation is not anticipated to have a significant impact on fire protection and emergency medical services. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Related projects within the Reservation, the City’s Sphere of Influence , or within unincorporated Riverside County could contribute to a potentially significant adverse cumulative impact on RCFD’s fire protection and emergency services and their ability to provide acceptable response times. These impacts would include increased numbers of emergency and public service calls due to the increased presence of structures, traffic volume, and people within the area. Development projects within the City would be reviewed by the City and RCFD , and payment of development impact fees and the license tax would be required in accordance with Title 3, Chapter 28 and Chapter 29 of the City’s Municipal Code to minimize impacts to local fire services . Development within unincorporated Riverside County would be required to pay development impact fees as required by Riverside County Ordinance No. 659 to effectively meet the public service needs demanded by new development. Development within the Tribal Planning Areas will be subject to an equivalent fee, or alternative funding, that would be paid to the City or County to mitigate potential cumulative impacts on fire protection and emergency services.
Therefore, implementation related projects would not adversely impact future demand on fire protection and emergency services provided by RCFD . Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition to the Project Design Features identified in Section B.3 , t he following Mitigation Measure would reduce impacts on fire protection and emergency services:
MM 5.12.1-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, individual project pro ponents shall pay development impact fees for fire protection facilities, or their equivalent, to the City if annexed into City jurisdiction, or County as applicable.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Project Design Features PDF 5.12.1 -1 and PDF 5.12.1-2 , Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.1 -1, and compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with fire protection and emergency services to be less than significant. Cumulative impacts would also result in less than significant impacts on fire protection and emergency services. 12-702
Meridian Consultants 5.12.2-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.12.2 LAW ENFORCEMENT
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the Project to impact law enforcement services provided by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department ( Sheriff’s Department) . See Section 9 .0 for definitions of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. EN VIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
The Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services to the City of Rancho Mirage ( “City”) and surrounding areas. The Project Site is located within the service boundaries of the Sheriff’s Department .
The Sheriff’s Department provides emergency and non- emergency police response, routine police patrols, investigative services, traffic enforcement, and traffic investigation .1 The station that serves as the headquarters for responding law enforcement officers to the City and surrounding jurisdictions is the Palm Desert Station, located at 73705 Gerald Ford Drive in Palm Desert, as shown in Figure 5.12- 1, Public Services Within Proximity to Project Site. The Palm Desert Station is approximately 3.75 miles to the southeast. This Station serves an area of approximately 26 square miles in the cities of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage and receives over 47,600 calls for service each year.2 The Sheriff’s Department ranks calls for services with a four- level priority system based upon the urgency and need for prompt emergency service.
The Sheriff’s Department divides the City into three beats: 20 Beat, 22 Beat, and 24 Beat . These beats are then further divided into different reporting districts.3 As it is surrounded by the City on all sides, the Project Site is located within 24 Beat, with adjacent property to the Project Site designated as reporting district 24C7.4
As shown in Table 5.12.2-1, Average Response Times for Reporting District 24C7, the average response times for Priority 1 through Priority 4 emergencies between the months of December 2013 through May 2014 range from 2 minutes and 90 seconds to 28 minutes and 10 seconds. The response to calls is generally dependent upon various factors such as call type and the availability and location of the nearest patrol unit.
1 Lt. John Shields, Riverside County Sheriff, Rancho Mirage Police, letter correspondence, June 26, 2014. 2 Palm Desert Police, “Police Organization,” http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/. 3 Lt. John Shields, Riverside County Sheriff, Rancho Mirage Police, letter correspondence, June 26, 2014. 4 Lt. John Shields, Riverside County Sheriff, Rancho Mirage Police, letter correspondence, June 26, 2014. 12-703
5.12.2 Law Enforcement
Meridian Consultants 5.12.2-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.12.2-1
Average Response Times for Reporting District 24C7
Priority Total Calls Delay Time Response Time Total Response Time 1 2 0:30 2:27 2:54
2 88 3:22 7:34 10:55
3 65 12:13 13:52 26:04
4 34 15:04 13:02 28:06
Source: Lt. John Shields, Riverside County Sheriff, Rancho Mirage Police, letter correspondence, June 26, 2014.
The City contracts for 1 sworn sergeant, 16 sworn patrol officers, 2 sworn traffic officers, 3 sworn special enforcement officers, and 3 non -sworn community services officers. 5 As discussed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, the City has a population of 17,745 as of January 2014; therefore, based on the total number of sworn officers, the City currently has a ratio of 1.41 officers per 1,000 people.
2. Regulatory Setting
Local
Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Public Services and Facilities Ele ment of the City’s General Plan includes policies related to the police protection services that are needed to support the City. 6 It identifies the formulation of the City’s police protection services, the station that services the City, general statistics of the police force, programs that are currently in place and the plans to expand existing police services based on the City’s continued growth and development. This Element also expands on factors that affect the effectiveness of police protection in the City. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan indicates that the commonly accepted police officer to resident ratio is 1 officer to 1,000 people.7 Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
New construction within the City of Rancho Mirage is subject to Title 3 , Chapter 28 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, which sets policy for the requirement of an imposed tax on new construction to support the increased demand for public services and infrastructure improvements, such as police
5 Lt. John Shields, Riverside County Sheriff, Rancho Mirage Police, letter correspondence, June 26, 2014. 6 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Public Services and Facilities Element,” 1997. 7 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Public Services and Facilities Element,” 1997. 12-704
5.12.2 Law Enforcement
Meridian Consultants 5.12.2-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
protection services.8 Title 3, Chapter 29 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code establishes development impact fees that are to be paid upon new construction.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effe ct on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have significant impact s on public services, including law enforcement services, if it would:
Threshold 5.12.2-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered law enforcement facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times , or other performance objectives for law enforcement services.
2. Methodology
Analysis of law enforcement services incorporates a review of response times and officer- to-population service ratios. Response times to an area influence the ability for law enforcement to serve a population, city, or other populated area in a timely and efficient manner. Law enforcement officers are typically mobile, which allows them to respond more quickly than if they were stationed at one particular place.
Law enforcement agencies also use standardized officer-to -population ratios to determine if they are capable of providing adequate service to an area. If a new development is built and the population in the area is increased, the local law enforcement agency’s ability to properly provide service to the area may be affected.
8 The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, Title 3 (Revenue and Finance), Chapter 28 (License tax on New Construction). 12-705
5.12.2 Law Enforcement
Meridian Consultants 5.12.2-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
3. Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features (PDFs) features are incorporated into the proposed Project and would reduce impacts on the Sheriff Department’s response times and performance standards. These features were taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts.
PDF 5.12.2-1 The Active Adult Community (Planning Area 8) shall be a gated community that would only be accessible to residents and their guests; thus, increasing community security and minimizing potential crimes.
PDF 5.12-2-2 Parking areas within the Tribal Planning Areas (Planning Areas 1 to 7) shall be designed to greatest extent poss ible to avoid expansive parking lots and to incorporate more clustered parking lot designs to maximize security and efficient access.
PDF 5.12.2-3 The Project shall incorporate various lighting features that would enhance security within public spaces and maximize visibility.
4. Project Impacts
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts that would affect acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives Active Adult Community
Development of the Active Adult Community is expected to increase demand for law enforcement services and facilities provided by the Sheriff’s Department. As a result, additional law enforcement equipment, facilities, and personnel would potentially be required to accommodate the demands of the Active Adult Community.
PDF 5.12.2-1 and PDF 5.12.2- 3 ensure that the Active Adult Community would be a gated community and contain security features that would help minimize the need for services from the Sheriff’s Department. Response times are not anticipated to be significantly impacted since the Project would be located within a Beat currently serviced by the Sheriff’s Department.
If the Active Adult Community is annexed into the City, then up to 2, 160 residents9 would be added to the City’s current population for a total City population of 19 ,905 residents. The resulting officer- to- resident ratio would be 1.26 officers per 1,000 people which would exceed the 1 officer per 1,000
9 Average active adult residential dwelling unit is 1. 8 persons. 1,200 active adult dwelling units * 1. 8 persons per dwelling unit = 2,160 residents.
12-706
5.12.2 Law Enforcement
Meridian Consultants 5.12.2-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
resident ratio identified for the City, but would be lower than the existing 1.41 officers per 1,000 people.
Although this ratio would meet the commonly accepted officer -to-population ratio used by other jurisdictions, t he Sheriff’s Department has indicated that in order to accommodate the increased requests for law enforcement services associated with the Project, 24 Beat would require the addition of 3 patrol deputies to service the Active Adult Community.10 Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.2-1 will require payment of the City’s development impact fee for law enforcement services, or its equivalent, in order to maintain acceptable levels of law enforcement services in the area. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Tribal Planning Areas
Development within the Tribal Planning Areas is projected to include 1,206 multi -family attached residential units and approximately 3. 1 million square feet of commercial uses across an area. PDF
5.12.2-2 and PDF 5.12.2- 3 would incorporate parkin g designs and safety lighting that provide for more efficient security and access that would help minimize services needs by the Sheriff’s Department.
Response times are not anticipated to be significantly impacted since the Project would be located within a Beat that is currently serviced by the Sheriff’s Department.
Along with the various employees and visitors to the Project Site, a total of up to 2,171 new residents11 would reside within the Tribal Planning Areas . When Tribal Planning Area residents are combined with the existing City population, a total of 19, 916 residents would reside in the area, which would result in an officer- to-resident ratio of 1. 26 officers to 1,000 people , which exceeds the City’s standard of 1.0 officer per 1,000 people but is lower than the existing 1. 41 officers per 1,000 people. Although this ratio would meet the commonly accepted officer-to population ratio as established in the City’s General Plan, the Sheriff’s Department has indicat ed that in order to accommodate the increased requests for law enforcement services that would be associated with the Project, 24 Beat would require an additional 7 patrol deputies.12 Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.2-1 will require payment of a fee e quivalent to the City’s development impact fee, or provide equivalent funding, to maintain acceptable levels of law enforcement services in the area. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
10 Lt. John Shields, Riverside County Sheriff, Rancho Mirage Police, letter correspondence, June 26, 2014. 11 Average multifamily dwelling unit is 1. 8 persons. 1,206 active adult dwelling units * 1. 8 persons per dwelling unit = 2, 171 residents.
12 Lt. John Shields, Riverside County Sheriff, Rancho Mirage Police, letter correspondence, June 26, 2014. 12-707
5.12.2 Law Enforcement
Meridian Consultants 5.12.2-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5. Cumulative Impacts
Related projects within the Reservation, the City’s Sphere of Influence , or within unincorporated Riverside County could contribute to a potentially significant adverse cumulative impact on the Sheriff’s Department emergency and non -emergency services and their ability to provide acceptable response times. These impacts would include increased numbers of requests for law enforcement services due to the increased presence of structures, traffic volume, and people within the area. Development projects within the City would be reviewed by the City and the Sheriff’s Department and payment of development impact fees in accordance with the Title 3, Chapter 28 and Chapter 29 of the City of Rancho Mirage’s Municipal Code to minimize impacts to local police services. Therefore, implementation of related projects would not adversely impact future demand on law enforcement services provided by the Sheriff’s Department. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition to the Project Design Features identified in Section B.3 above, the following Mitigation Measure would reduce impacts to police protection services:
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
MM 5.12.2-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits , individual P roject proponents shall pay applicable development impact fees, or provide equivalent funding, to offset the cost of additional law enforcement services for the Project.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE OF MITIGATION
Project Design Features PDF 5.12.2 -1 through PDF 5.12.2 -3, Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.2 -1, and compliance with existing regulations would result in less than significant impacts on law enforcement services. Cumulative impacts would also result in less than significant impacts on law enforcement services.
12-708
Meridian Consultants 5.12.3-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.12.3 SCHOOL SERVICES
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the Project to impact Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) school services and facilities. See Section 9.0 for definitions of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. EN VIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
The Project Site is located within the attendance boundaries of the PSUSD, which covers the communities of Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage (“City”), and Thousand Palms. The PSUSD facilities include 17 elementary schools with grades K–5; five (5) middle schools with grades 6 –8; four (4) high schools with grades 9 –12; and six ( 6) alternative schools, which include an adult school, a virtual school, a training school, and an alternative education center.1 PSUSD had a total enrollment of 23,360 students in the 2013–2014 school year.2 Of this total enrollment, approximately 47 percent of PSUSD students were enrolled in elementary schools (grades K–5), approximately 23 percent were enro lled in middle school (grades 6 –8), approximately 30 percent were enrolled in high school (grades 9 –12), and a negligible percent were enrolled in alternative schools.3
Specifically, the Project Site falls within the attendance boundaries of Sunny Sands Elementary, located at 69-310 McCallum Way (2.5 miles northwest of the Project Site); Nellie N. Coffman Middle, located at 34-603 Plumbley Road (2.0 miles southwest of the Project Site); and Rancho Mirage High , located at 31001 Rattler Road ( 0.5 miles northwest of the Project Site), as shown in Figure 5.12-1 , Public Services Within Proximity to Project Site.4
According to the most recent data obtained from PSUSD , the current capacit y for Sunny Sands Elementary is 1,235 students, Nellie N. Coffman Middle is 1,607 students, and Rancho Mirage High is 2,400 students.5
During the 2013 –2014 school year, Sunny Sands Elementary had an enrollment of 974 student s, Nellie N. Coffman Middle had an enrollment of 1,135 students, and Rancho Mirage High had an enrollment of
1 Palm Springs Unified School District, “Schools” (May 2014), http://www.psusd.us/. 2 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit, “DataQuest, Enrollment Report.” 3 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit, “DataQuest, Enrollment Report.” 4 Delia A. Diaz, Palm Springs Unified School District, letter correspondence, May 22, 2014. 5 Diaz, (May 22, 2014).
12-709
5.12.3 School Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.3-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
818 students. As shown in Table 5.1 2.3-1, PSUSD School Capacities and Current Enrollment, none of the schools that would serve the Project Site are currently operating over capacity when compared with current enrollment.
Table 5.12.3-1
PSUSD School Capacities and Current Enrollment
School Name Location Current Enrollment Current Capacity Elementary School
Sunny Sands Elementary 69-310 Mccallum Way 974 1,235
Middle School
Nellie N Coffman Middle 34603 Plumley Road 1,135 1,607
High School
Rancho Mirage High 31001 Rattler Road 818 2,400
Source: Delia A. Diaz, Palm Springs Unified School District, letter correspondence, May 22, 2014.
2. Regulatory Setting
State
California Department of Education
The California Department of Education (CDE) has traditionally been responsible for the funding of local public schools. To assist in providing facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the legislature passed California State Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986, which allowed districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. The California Education Code provides that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.
Senate Bill (SB) 50 was passed in California in 1998 . This legislation established that school districts are allowed to collect impa ct fees from developers of new construction as a source of funding to offset associated impacts to school services. These development fees are derived based upon square footage of different land uses and are determined based on three levels of funding.
This Project will comply with SB 50 in order to offset associated impacts to school services by development within the Project Site.
12-710
5.12.3 School Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.3-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Regional and Local
Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Public Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies related to school services and facilities .6 This Element identifies the basic need for the City to support and provide educational opportunities within the community. T hese services are to be access ible to any person of the public, regardless of age, in order to further their personal and professional horizons. The City’s ability to provide school services is based upon effective land use, circulation, and safety design.
Therefore, any additional development can affect the City’s capability to provide these services.
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
New construction within the City of Rancho Mirage is subject to Title 3 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, which sets policy for the requirement of development fees on new construction as a measure to fund local schools.7
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effe ct on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have significant impacts on public services, including schools, if it would:
Threshold 5.12.3-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provisions of new or physically altered school facilities, need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain performance objectives for school services.
2. Methodology
Future student populations were determined using standard generation rates provided by PSUSD. These generation rates allow forecasting of the number of students in elementary, middle, and high school that would be generated by a project.
6 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Public Services and Facilities Element,” 1997. 7 City of Rancho Mirage, “Municipal Code,” http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/. 12-711
5.12.3 School Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.3-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Due to the nature of the Active A dult Community being an age -restricted community (55 years of age and greater), those residents are not anticipated to produce any children. Therefore, for the purposes of this impact analysis, it will be assumed that the Active Adult Community would not generate any additional students within the PSUSD boundaries.
3. Project Design Features
The Project does not include any features specifically related to schools.
4. Project Impacts
Result in substantial adverse physical impac ts that would affect acceptable school enrollment capacities of the area
Active Adult Community
As discussed in Section B.2, Methodology, the Active Adult Community is not anticipated to generate any additional students within the PSUSD. Sunny Sands Elementary, Nellie N. Coffman Middle, and Rancho Mirage High would not be impacted as a result of development of the Active Adult Community.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Planning Areas
The Tribal Planning Areas would develop up to 1,206 multi- family attached residential dwelling units as well as commercial, office, mixed- retail, and resort uses. The multi-family residential units are anticipated to generate additional students that would utilize PSUSD facilities. As shown in Table 5.12.3- 2, Student Generation Table , the Tribal Planning Areas would generate approximately 98 students’ grades K–5, 42 students’ grades 6–8, and 49 students’ grades 9–12 for a total of 192 students.
The Tribal Planning Areas would add 99 students to Sunny Sands Elementary for a projected enrollment of 1,073 students which would be below the operating capacity of 1,235 students; would add 43 students to Nellie N Coffman Middle School for a projected enrollment of 1,178 students which would be below the operating capacity of 1,607 students; and would add 50 students to Rancho Mirage High School for a projected enrollment of 868 students which is below the operating capacity of 2,400 students. All three of these schools are currently operating below their capacities and would continue to operate below capacity with the addition of the students generated by the Tribal Planning Areas.
The development of additional facilities as a result of implementation of the Project would not be required. Potential school impacts would be considered to be less than significant.
12-712
5.12.3 School Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.3-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.12.3-2
Student Generation Table
Grade
Levels
PSUSD Generation Rates
(Multi-Family Attached Units)
Proposed Students
K-5 0.0816 99
6-8 0.0349 43
9-12 0.0410 50
Total Students 192
Source: Delia A. Diaz, Palm Springs Unified School District, letter correspondence, May 22, 2014.
Individual project proponents will be required to pay applicable development fees to PSUSD to ensure that school facilities are not adversely impacted, as identified in Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.3-1.
Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Related projects within the PSUSD , in accordance with build -out of local jurisdiction General Plan ’s, could contribute to a potentially significant adverse cumulative impact on school facilities and services.
Development projects within PSUSD are required to pay established school impact fees in accordance with SB 50 to minimize impacts to the school system. PSUSD considers payment of the school impact fees to be adequate mitigation to offset impacts to PSUSD’s facilities and services. In addition, the PSUSD schools in the Project vicinity are operating well below capacity. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following Mitigation Measure would reduce impacts on the PSUSD:
MM 5.12.3-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, individual project proponents shall pay applicable development fees to PSUSD.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.3-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with school facilities and services to be less than significant. Cumulative impacts would also result in less than significant impacts to school services. With regard to the Active Ad ult Community, the Project would be net beneficial in generating additional fees from a project that should not contribute any additional students. 12-713
Meridian Consultants 5.12.4-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.12.4 LIBRARY SERVICES
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the Project to impact library services and facilities within the City of Rancho Mirage (“ City”), specifically the Rancho Mirage Public Library (”Library”), and within the region. See Section 9.0 for terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. EN VIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
There are 32 library branches within the Riverside County Library System ( RCLS) and two bookmobiles that serve a population of over 2 million residents within the County of Riverside. 1 However, none of these branches is in the vicinity of the Project ; therefore, the Project is not anticipated to increase demand or otherwise impact the RCLS.
The nearest library to the Project Site is the Rancho Mirage Public Library , located at 71 -100 Highway 111, as shown on Figure 5.12 -1, Public Services Within Proximity to Project Site . The 45,000 -square- foot facility opened its doors to the public on January 8, 2006 , and is a private library that is not part of the RCLS . T he Library facilities and services are in high demand by the regional community and the Library still has plenty of room for growth.2
The Library currently has an inventory of approximately 100,000 items (e.g. books, magazines, CDs and DVDs, audiobooks, databases, and research materials) that are accessible to the public. 3 In addition, the library also hosts an array of events and programs for all age groups, ranging from children’s storytelling, family nights, film and music, to adult book discussions and lectures.
To date, the Library has had over 5.5 million books checked out of its facility since its opening, with an estimated 600,00 0 checkouts per year, 1,000 visitors per day, and an annual attendance of approximately 35,000 people at its hosted events and programs.4
1 Inland Library Network, “Library Info,” http://inland.librarycatalog.info/polaris/default.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.3 (May 2014). 2 David Bryant, Library Director, Rancho Mirage Public Library, telephone correspondence, May 27, 2014. 3 David Bryant, Library Director, Rancho Mirage Public Library, telephone correspondence, May 27, 2014. 4 David Bryant, Library Director, Rancho Mirage Public Library, telephone correspondence, May 27, 2014. 12-714
5.12.4 Library Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.4-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
2. Regulatory Setting
The City and County have adopted development impact fees to address impacts caused by new development on library facilities and services . T his Project will comply with these provisions , as applicable, to maintain library services within the area.
Regional and Local
County of Riverside Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fee Program) Ordinance 659 establishes the need for addressing impacts caused by new development of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Thus, the O rdinance establishes a development impact fee (DIF) program by which new development is charged fees to address the increased n eed for additional facilities, services and also open space. The DIF Ordinance does establish the following fees to be collected for “library books”: $341 per dwelling unit for single -family homes and $286 per dwelling unit for multifamily homes. The ordinance enforces the program by stating that “no building permit shall be issued for any development project except upon the condition that the developm ent impact fees required by this ordinance are paid.”
Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Public Services and Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies pertaining to library services that serve the City.5 It identifies the formulation of the City’s library system and its future plans to accommodate the City’s chang ing demographics, increasing population, and shift of land uses. The Element establishes the goal and policy of ensuring that the City maintains adequate services and convenient access for all members of the community.
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
New construction within the City of Rancho Mirage is subject to Title 3 , Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, Section 145 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code , which set policy for the requirement of an imposed tax on new construction to support the increased demand for public services and infrastructure improvements, such as library services.
6 5 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Public Services and Facilities Element,” 1997. 6 City of Rancho Mirage, Municipal Code, accessed at http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/. 12-715
5.12.4 Library Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.4-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have significant impact s on public services, including library services, if it would:
Threshold 5.12.4-1 Result in capacity or service level problems, or result in substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered library facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for library services.
2. Methodology
Typically, the need for library services depends on the number of people a library is serving and the number of volumes within the library. Information was gathered from personal communication with staff from the Library in order to provide level of service analysis.
3. Project Design Features
The Project does not include any features specifically related to libraries.
4. Project Impacts
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts that would result in a need for new or altered library facilities.
Active Adult Community
There are no specific requirements for quantifying the community’s needs for public library services. The Library’s services are assessed on an on -demand basis as a function of demographics measured against existing library resources. T he Active Adult Community would add up to 2, 160 new residents 7 who would have access to the Library . This increase in residents would result in an increased demand on the Library for services and facilities.
The Library has indicated that it is more than able to accommodate the population growth generated by the Project. 8 It anticipates transitioning its inventory to a more “E -Content” based system, meaning it
7 Average active adult residential dwelling unit is 1. 8 persons. 1,200 active adult dwelling units x 1.8 persons per dwelling unit = 2,160 residents.
8 David Bryant, Library Director, Rancho Mirage Public Library, telephone correspondence, May 27, 2014. 12-716
5.12.4 Library Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.4-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
will be able to open up more space for other uses, such as lo unging, computer rooms, and common areas for recreational activities, events, and lectures.
The Library relies on its budget from private fund sources and taxed -based revenue from the City (development impact fees). Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.4 -1 will require payment of applicable development impact fees for library services, or its equivalent, in order to maintain library services in the area. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Tribal Planning Areas
Implementation of the Tribal Planning Areas includes the development of 1,206 multifamily attached residential units and approximately 3.1 million square feet of commercial uses . It is anticipated that up to 2,171 new residents
9 would be generated from the Project, which would also result in an increased demand on the Library for services and facilities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.4 -1 will require payment of applicable development impact fees for library services, or its equivalent, in order to maintain library services in the area. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
As previously mentioned, the Library has plenty of room for growth and would be able to serve the additional residents generated within the Tribal Planning Areas. 10 Accordingly, impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Since the Tribe will be utilizing library services from the Library, due to its close proximity to the Project Site, implementation of the Project in combination with related projects within the City’s Sphere of Influence, in accordance with the build -out of the City’s General Plan, could contribute to potentially significant cumulative impacts on library facilities and services. Related projects developed within the City would be required to pay development impact fees as required by the City Municipal Cod e Section
3.29.145. Cumulative impacts to the library system would be mitigated through the l icense tax and development impact fees that are imposed upon new construction within the City. Therefore, to the extent that library facilities are expanded to serve cumulative development, no significant impacts to library services and facilities are anticipated to occur. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
9 A total of 4,331 residents are projected to reside within the Project Site. The Tribal Planning Areas would generate a total of 2,171 residents and the Active Adult Community would generate 2,160 residents. 10 David Bryant, Library Director, Rancho Mirage Public Library, telephone correspondence, May 27, 2014. 12-717
5.12.4 Library Services
Meridian Consultants 5.12.4-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following Mitigation Measure would reduce impacts to library services:
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
MM 5.12.4-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, individual project proponent s shall pay applicable development impact fees , or provide equivalent funding, to the City if annexed and under City jurisdiction or the County as applicable.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigation Measure MM 5.12.4 -1 and a long with the implementation of the existing regulations previously mentioned, potential impacts on library facilities and services would be less than significant.
Cumulative impacts would also result in less than significant impacts on library services. 12-718
5.13 RECREATION
This Section of the Draft EIS describes and evaluates the potential impacts to existing and future parks and recreation facilities that would be available to the Project Site. Since the Project Site falls within the boundaries of unincorporated Riverside County, as well as the City of Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence (SOI), t he potential for adverse impacts to recreational facilities was evaluated based on current facilities and existing usages of both the County of Riverside (“ County”) and City of Rancho Mirage (“City”).
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
Regional
The Riverside County Regional Park and Open- Space District (“Riverside County Parks”) operate county- wide programs that encourage and provide recreational opportunities, as well as to preserve and protect the region’s natural, cultural, and historical characteristics. Riverside County Parks is broken down into three bureaus : the Parks and Recreatio n Bureau, the Resources Bureau, and the Business Operations Bureau.
1 The Parks and Recreation Bureau is responsible for providing an array of recreational activities for the County’s residents, such as aquatic centers, parks and playgrounds, sport complexes, campgrounds, and special events. The Resources Bureau is dedicated to preserving the County’s natural resources, ensuring that these resources are taken into account during planning and construction activities, and to promoting community outreach and educational opportunities. The Business Operations Bureau oversees the operation, administrative, and financials aspects of Riverside County Parks.
Joshua Tree National Park and Mount San Jacinto State Park fall within the Riverside County boundaries.
These parks also provide a range of recreational opportunities for the region, such as hiking trails, campgrounds, and fishing. Joshua Tree National Park lies to the northeast of the City with the Little San Bernardino Mountains running through the southwestern portion of the park. Joshua Tree National Park is operated and maintained by the National Park Service, which has the mission to revitalize and conserve the Nation’s natural resources through securing properties. Mount San Jacint o State Park is 1 Riverside County Parks, “About Us,” (accessed June 2014), http://www.rivcoparks.org/about-us/about-us/.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-719
5.13 Recreation
located to the west of the City of Rancho Mirage and encompasses the San Jacinto Mountains – the second highest mountain range in southern California.2
Additionally, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) manages the Indian Canyons, which are located to the south of Palm Springs along the eastern side of the San Jacinto Mountains. The Andreas, Murray, and Palm Canyons make up this area and provide a variety of recreation opportunities for the public, such as hiking, horseback riding, camping, scenic drives, picnicking, and sightseeing. The Indian Canyons hold an important site of ancestral heritage to the Tribe.
The Riverside County Regional Park and Open -Space District operates high -quality recreational opportunities and the preservation of the County’s natural, cultural, and historical heritage. The County’s eight major parks are summarized in Table 5.13- 1, County of Riverside Parks and Recreation Facilities.
Table 5.13-1
County of Riverside Parks and Recreation Facilities
Facilities Location Acres Features
Lake Cahuilla Recreational
Area
14 miles southeast of
Project Site
1,888 Equestrian facilities/trails, fishing, hiking trails, overnight camping, and swimming facilities
Canal Regional Park 15 miles south by
southeast of Project Site
369 Picnic facilities, radio control plane field
Coral Mountain Regional
Park
10 miles southeast of
Project Site in La Quinta
600 Planned
Mecca Community Park &
Community Center
25 miles southeast of
Project Site
5 Community center, picnic facilities, swimming,
sports fields/facilities
Mecca Hills Mini Park 27 miles southeast of
Project Site
N/A Picnic facilities, playground/tot lot
Thousand Palms Park &
Community Center
0.75 miles northeast of
Project Site
9 Community center, picnic facilities,
playground/tot lot, sports fields/facilities
Desert Regional Park 5 miles south of Project
Site
280 Planned
Indio Hills Park 5 miles northeast of
Project Site
2,200 Picnic facilities, playground, sports fields, open space
Source: County of Riverside General Plan Draft EIR , Section 4.16 Parks and Recreation, Table 4 -16B: Existing and Proposed Parks and Recreation in Riverside County, February 2014.
Abbreviation: N/A = not available
2 California Department of Parks and Recreation, “Mount San Jacinto State Park,” http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=636.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-720
5.13 Recreation
The City provides a vast amount of recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors, including golf courses, tennis and basketball courts, playgrounds, hiking trails, and campgrounds and recreational vehicle (RV) parks. The City’s Park Master Plan was developed in order to assess the community’s local park needs. As summarized in Table 5.1 3-2, Park Classification and Service Area Standards, this Park Master Plan categorizes different parks and trails that are accessible to the local community , including mini-parks, local parks, community parks, and multi-city recreation facilities. The Park Master Plan also analyzes the cross -utilization of recreational facilities between the Cove Communities (Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Rancho Mirage). In 1990, these three cities created a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in regards to the use and funding of recreational facilities based upon a formula of population and assessed value.3 The City’s five major parks are summarized in Table 5.1 3-3, City of Rancho Mirage Park and Recreation Facilities.
Table 5.13-2
Park Classification and Service Area Standards
Component
Service
Area
Size
(acres)
Amount
per 1,000
population
(acres) Desirable Uses Site Characteristics
Mini-Park N/A Less
than 1
acre
N/A Playgrounds, city entry
features, special purpose
open space
Private open space or
high-density residential
areas
Local Park 1.5-mile
radius
5 to 10 0.2 Picnicking, play area,
athletic fields and courts
Suited for low residential
densities and gated
communities
Community
Park
5-mile
radius
20 to 40
acres
N/A Multipurpose building,
athletic field and courts,
picnicking, open space
areas
Suited for intense
development with safe
pedestrian access;
intended to be used
between multiple cities
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, 1996.
Abbreviation: N/A = not available
3 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Conservation and Open Space Element,” 1997.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-721
5.13 Recreation
Table 5.13-3
City of Rancho Mirage Parks and Recreation Facilities
Facilities Location Acres
Park
Category Features
Whitewater
Park
San Jacinto Drive along the
Whitewater River Channel
8.25 Local Park Athletic fields and courts, picnic facilities, playground, walking and fitness paths,
life-size fire engine
Michael S.
Wolfson Park
Da Vall and Frank Sinatra
Drive
1.0 Mini-Park
Victorian theme with a Braille -marked
trail and fragrance garden and a
“Welcome” greeting from Dinah Shore
and Frank Sinatra
Cancer
Survivors Park
Adjacent to City Hall along
Highway 111
N/A Mini-Park Pyramid kiosk, inspirational plaques,
sculptures, ponds, and a hillside waterfall;
designed to giver cancer survivors hope
Magnesia Falls
Park
North of Rancho Mirage
Elementary School
1.3 Local Park Playground equipment, picnic tables,
informal ball field, and shaded areas
Blixseth
Mountain Park
East of the Magnesia Storm
Channel and Rancho Mirage
Elementary School
7.0 Local Park
Native desert landscaping and walking
paths
Source: City of Rancho Mirage General Plan,” Conservation and Open Space Element,” 1997.
Abbreviation: N/A = not available
The State’s established Quimby Act authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt standards upon new development for payment of impact fees to fund the maintenance and operation of local parks. The County Ordinance No. 460 (Regulating the Division of Land) addresses park and recreation fees and dedications. The City Municipal Code Section 3.29.140 (Park Improvements Development Impact Fees) establishes park improvement development impact fees and Section 16.18.060 (Parks and Recreation Facilities) establishes parks and recreation fees and dedications. According to t he City’s 1997 Conservation and Open Space Element, t he City expects that a total of 97 acres will be need ed to accommodate its growing population needs . In regards to all of the City SOI lands, if those are entirel y annexed, the total amount of parklands would be 133 acres. The General Plan currently provides 48 acres of parkland with the capacity to expand up to 128 acres. 4 Bikeways and Trails
The City has numerous bikeways, trails, and golf cart travel access way s all throughout the City. These are implemented as a part of the goals within the Conservation and Open Space Element to meet the active and passive recreation needs of all residents and visitors of the City. 4 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Conservation and Open Space Element,” 1997.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-722
5.13 Recreation
Bicycle facilities are designed according to the Class I, II, and III categories in order to provide a diverse range of bicycle accessibility options for the community and to encourage other modes of transportation to that of the automobile. These paths are designed to maximize safety and ease of use by both bicyclists and pedestrians.
The hiking and equestrian trails are available as additional recreation opportunities for residents and visitors. Numerous unpaved trails, which follow various paths, dirt roads, or utility access routes within the foothills of Santa Rosa Mountains, are available to the public mainly within the Magnesia Falls area.
These main trails are named (1) the Butler -Abrams Trail, (2) the Clancy Lane Trail, and (3) the Bighorn Overlook Trail. Protection of the bighorn sheep is balanced with recreational uses of the area as recommended with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan . The City’s equestrian trails are planned in neighborhoods that allow the keeping of horses. These trails tend to serve as a connection of the equestrian areas with Whitewater Channel and other mountain trails.
Lastly, golf cart travel is a very prominent mode of transportation within the Coachella Valley region for residents to access different neighborhoods, golf courses, and commercial and office facilities. Similar to the City’s bike trails, golf cart facilities are categorized as I, II, or III. These paths can either be completely separated from the rest of automobile traffic (Class I) or be designated within automobile traffic under conditional street uses (Class III).
2. Regulatory Setting
State
Quimby Act
Government Code Section 66477, more commonly referred to as the Quimby Act, was enacted by the California legislature in 1965 to provide parks for the growing communities in California. The Quimby Act authorizes cities to adopt ordinances addressing parkland and/or fees for residential subdivisions for the purpose of providing and preserving open space and recreation al facilities and improvements. 5 The
Quimby Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds.
Regional and Local
The County and City have adopted Quimby Act standards for local parks and have established a ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 residents as a standard for how facilities funding is planned for and implemented. 6 5 California Government Code, Sections 66477.
6 The City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, Title 3, Chapter 29, sec.140.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-723
5.13 Recreation
This Project will comply with th ese requirements for the Tribal Planning Areas to maintain consistency for recreational needs and operations within the Project Site.
Riverside County General Plan
The County of Riverside General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element addresses the existing parks and recreational facilities that are provided throughout the County. Goals and policies are established in order to guide preservation and maintenance efforts of these valuable resources for the use of the community. Additionally, the General Plan identifies the importance of ensuring concurrency of recreational facilities in an area with new development projects.
Riverside County Ordinance 460 (Regulating the Division of Land) This ordinance establishes the key provisions addressing the division of land in Riverside County. Among other things, in Section 10.35, it specifies tha t: “Whenever land that is proposed to be divided for residential use lies within the boundaries of a public agency designated to receive dedications and fees pursuant to this section, a fee and/or the dedication of land shall be required as a condition of approval of the division of land.” It further specifies that dedication of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population, or payment of a fee in-lieu of such dedication, is necessary for the “public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety.” The fee and/or land dedications or improvements can only be used to provide neighborhood and community parks that would serve the proposed development.
Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan includes policies re lated to the parks and recreational services that are needed to support the City and its residents .7 It identifies and establishes open space and conservation goals and policies to preserve and promote recreational resources within the City . The element al so expands on biological, energy and mineral, water, and archaeological and historic resources which are also important to sustaining the viability of the region’s open space resources. In addition, the City of Rancho Mirage adopted a Parks Master Plan in 1989 to guide park development to accommodate the City’s growing population. It also expands on the inclusion of parks facilities in the cities of Palm Desert, Cathedral City, and Indian Wells to cross utilize park resources between cities to meet the demands of the Rancho Mirage population. 7 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Conservation and Open Space Element,” 1997.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-724
5.13 Recreation
Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
In relation to recreational and park resources, the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code states various provisions to ensure that these resources are provided in consistency with the Conserv ation and Open Space Element. Title 3, Chapters 28 and 29 and Title 16, Chapter 18, Section 60 identifies City measures that will provide funding for recreation and park facilities as a result of the increased demand on existing services. For instance, a L icense Tax is imposed on new construction to collect revenue towards the City’s General Fund. Development Impact Fees are used as a mitigation measure to collect additional funds from new development to finance parks and recreational facilities and improve ments. Lastly, individual project proponents are required to pay a recreation and park fee in-lieu as a condition of approval for a tentative map.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have significant impact s on park and recreational resources, if it would:
Threshold 5.13-1 Would the p roject increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Threshold 5.13-2 Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
2. Methodology
An assessment of the impact of the Project on park and recreation facilities in the City and the County is provided below. The Project’s assessment is based on County and City planning standards for park and recreation facilities and the increase in population that would result from the Project.
The potential for cumulative impacts associated with parks and recreation was assessed, based upon consideration of the Project and related projects in the City and its SOI . These related projects are identified in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-725
5.13 Recreation
3. Project Design Features
The following P roject Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the Project and would substantially reduce potential park and recreational impacts.
PDF 5.13-1 The Section 24 Specific Plan establishes a park requirement for residential development of 3 acres of park space per 1,000 residents, which will be met through a combination of land dedication, improvements, private recreation, and in -lieu fees. The following parks and recreation aspects shall be included within the Project Site:
• Pedestrian trails
• Bicycle Trails
• Golf cart linkages
• Neighborhood parks
• Water features
• Athletic courts and facilities
• Community club houses/pools/spas, plazas, courtyards, jogging paths PDF 5.13-2 Parks developed within the Project Site will complement the natural desert environment of the Coachella Valley through the use of drought tolerant plants detailed in the Section 24 Specific Plan, Chapter 4.5, Table 2, Landscape Plant Palette.
4. Project Impacts
Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated
Active Adult Community
The Active Adult Community would develop up to 1,200 single -family residential dwelling units that would generate approximately 2,160 residents8 within the Project Site. Approximately 85 acres within the Active Adult Community would be provided for private parks and open space. As the Project Site is 8 Average active adult residential dwelling unit is 1. 8 persons. 1,200 active adult dwelling units * 1. 8 persons per dwelling unit = 2,160 residents.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-726
5.13 Recreation
located within unincorporated Riverside County and within the City SOI, it would have direct impacts to the County and City recreational and park facilities.
This increase in population would incrementally increase the demand of existing neighborhood and community parks in Rancho Mirage as well as within the Cove Communities. The Section 24 Specific Plan establishes park requirements for residential development of 3 acres of park space per 1,000 residents .
The Active Adult Community is required to provide 6.5 acres of usable parkland . This parkland requirement would be met through a combination of land dedication, improvements, private recreation, and in-lieu fees to the City if annexed . Parkland within the Active Adult Community would complement the natural desert context of the Coachella Valley and would incorporate public art and water features combined with enhanced vegetatio n providing recreational opportunities within the development , as identified in PDF 5.13-2.
If the 6.5 acres of parkland in the Active Adult Community is developed under the City’s jurisdiction, the developer will pay the City’s in lieu fee, subject to partial credit for the private recreational facilities constructed on site. For property develo ped under Tribal jurisdiction, the Tribe will require the developer to either construct the required parks (another 6.5 acres total) or pay to the City an amount equal to the City’s in lieu fee to fund City park facilities.
The Active Adult Community would provide an extensive private parks and open space component of approximately 85 acres, which would substantially exceed the 6.5-acre parkland requirement. The Active Adult Community would consist of a combination of neighborhood parks, trail linkages, water features, clubhouses, plazas, courtyards, jogging paths, and community pools as identified in PDF 5.13-1.
The nature of development within the Active Adult Community would be a master planned community that would have a variety of private streets and recreational open space. Open space and landscaping would be used to provide people with places to sit, relax, and gather. The recreational amenities are integrated into the design of the Project and would be constructed consistent with City guidelines; therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Tribal Planning Areas
The development of the Tribal Planning Areas would result in similar impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities. The Tribal Planning Areas would consist of mixed-use, resort, and retail development, which would include common and private recreational opportunities such as walkways, multipurpose paths, enhanced streetscapes, and plazas for gathering spaces . The Tribal Planning areas would develop up to 1,206 multi -family residential dwelling units that would generate approximately Meridian Consultants 5.13-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-727
5.13 Recreation
2,171 residents9 within the Project Site This increase in population from the Project would incrementally increase the use of existing neighborhood and community parks in County and the City, as well as within the Cove Communi ties. As previously discussed, the Specific Plan’s established park land -to-resident ratio of approximately 3 acres per 1,000 residents, translates to a demand of 6.5 acres within the Tribal Planning Areas. This incorporation of parkland within the Tribal Planning Areas would minimize the demand of the Tribal Planning Area residents on the County and City’s existing parks and recreational facilities. However, as previously discussed, residents may use other County and City parks and recreation facilities.
If less than 6 .5 acres of parkland is set aside and improved in the Tribal Planning Areas, Mitigation Measure MM 5.13-1 would require the contribution of an in-lieu parkland fee, or their equivalent, to mitigate potential impacts to County and/or City (if annexed) parks and recreation facilities. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse phy sical effect on the environment
Active Adult Community & Tribal Planning Areas
The Active Adult Community would include recreational amenities throughout the development which would consist of neighborhood parks , trail linkages, water features, clubhouses, plazas, courtyards, jogging paths, and community pools. These recreational amenities are incorporated into the design of the Project and would be constructed concurrently with the Project. The short -term impacts, applicable Project Design Features, and Mitigation Measures associated with the construction of these facilities are addressed in Sections 5.2, Air Quality ; 5.5, Geology and Soils; 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions ; 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality ; 5.10, Noise; and 5.14, Traffic and Transportation. Construction of the recreational amenities would not result in significant impacts, but would contribute to the overall construction impacts. As described in the EIS sections listed above, impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Planning Areas
Development within the Tribal Planning Areas would consist of residential, resort, commercial, and mixed-use open spaces. The residential open space would include common and private recreational 9 According to the Section 24 Specific Plan, a total of 4, 331 residents are projected to reside within the Project Site. The Tribal Planning Areas would g enerate a total of 2 ,171 residents and the Active Adult Community would generate 2, 160 residents.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-728
5.13 Recreation
opportunities that pr ovide unfettered access for residents. Potential resort projects may consist of hotels that would incorporate paths or greenbelts to connect open spaces in adjacent P lanning Areas.
Walkways, multipurpose paths, enhanced streetscapes, and plazas for gathering spaces would be integrated into the commercial and mixed-use open spaces.
As with the Active Adult Community, these recreational amenities are incorporated into the design of the Project and would be constructed concurrently with the Project. The short -term impacts associated with the construction of these facilities are addressed in Sections 5.2, Air Quality; 5.5, Geology and Soils; 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; 5.7, Hydrology and Water Quality; 5.10, Noise; and 5.14, Traffic and Transportation. Construction of the recreational amenities would not result in significant impacts, but would contribute to the overall construction impacts. As described in the EIS sections listed above , impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the Project and related projects , along with the buildout of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) and the City and County General Plans, would increase the use of existing recreational facilities in the Reservation, the City , and County. This increase in population would put an additional demand on the existing parks and recreational facilities that serve the Reservation, the City , and the County . All of these projects would be subject to the development impact fees, and developer in-lieu fees, or their equivalent, as established in the Section 24 Specific Plan, the City’s Municipal Code, and the County development impact fee for Western Coachella Valley . Development of the related projects would not demand any unanticipated constru ction or expansion of park and recreational facilities within the Reservation, the City, and the County as those amenities would be incorporated within each Project design, and in each jurisdiction’s General Plan. Therefore, the cumulative impacts on parks and recreation would be less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition to the PDFs identified in Section B.3, the following Mitigation Measure has been identified to mitigate parks and recreation impacts:
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
MM 5.13-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, individual project proponent s shall pay applicable in-lieu parkland fees, or equivalent, to ensure adequate funding for parks and recreation improvements.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Meridian Consultants 5.13-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-729
5.13 Recreation
Mitigation Measure MM 5.13 -1 requires payment of in-lieu parkland fees, or their equivalent, to minimize the Project’s impact on parks and recreation land and facilities within the County and /or City.
Therefore, payment of these fees and PDF 5.13- 1 and PDF 5.13- 2 would result in less than significant impacts to existing and future parks and recreational facilities.
Meridian Consultants 5.13-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-730
Meridian Consultants 5.14-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.14 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the proposed Project to result in transportation and traffic impacts within the Coachella Valley, the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”), the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”), and surrounding communities. Information from the following study of the Project Site and surrounding area is incorporated into this Section:
• Traffic Impact Study for Section 24 Specific Plan, Endo Engineering, April 2014.
A complete copy of this study is included in the Technical Appendices to this Draft EIS ( Appendix G).
Please see Section 9.0 for a glossary of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
Regional Access
The Project Site is centrally located within the Coachella Valley, which is separated from the Greater Los Angeles Area to the northwest by the San Gorgonio P ass, through which Interstate 10 (I -10) and the Union Pacific Railroad are the major transportation corridors. The Project Site is situated between the desert resort cities of Palm Springs on the west and Palm Desert on the east. Cathedral City is located both west and north of the site. The City surrounds the Project Site on all sides and the Specific Plan area is an island of unincorporated land.
Regional access in the Coachella Valley is provided by the I- 10, which provides access through the valley from the northwest to the southeast. I -10 extends from western Los Angeles County, through San Bernardino County and Riverside County to the east across Arizona.
Regional access to the Project Site is currently available from I- 10, via the recently completed interchange at Bob Hope Drive. Motorists can access I-10 in both directions through the Bob Hope Drive Interchange, which includes a new eight-lane overcrossing at I-10 and new ramps configured as a spread diamond interchange. Motorists from Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, and Thousand Palms to the east can also access I -10 from Ramon Road through the eastbound on -ramp located east of Bob Hope Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad.
12-731
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Highways and Local Streets
Highways
Interstate 10 (I -10) is located one-quarter mile north of the Project Site . I-10 is currently an eight -lane freeway west of the Monterey Avenue Interchange and a six-lane freeway east of this Interchange . The posted speed limit on I-10 in the Project vicinity is 70 miles per hour (mph).
In the vicinity of the Project Site , d iamond interchanges are located at Monterey Avenue, Bob Hope Drive, and Date Palm Drive. The Date Palm Drive interchange is located 3.5 miles northwest of the Bob Hope Drive Interchange. The Monterey Avenue Interchange is approximately 1.5 miles south east of the Bob Hope Drive Interchange.
Regional access to the Project Site is provided from the Bob Hope Drive Interchange via eastbound and westbound on and off-ramps.
Local Streets
Bob Hope Drive is classified as a six -lane divided Major Arterial roadway in the Rancho Mirage General Plan and a six -lane divided Urban Arterial highway in the County of Riverside General Plan. Bob Hope Drive is a designated truck route and scenic corridor that was recently improved in conjunction with the interchange improvements at I -10. Adjacent to the Project Site, Bob Hope Drive currently consists of three northbound through lanes and two southbound through lanes with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. The posted speed limit is 50 mph south of Dinah Shore Drive.
Bob Hope Drive overpass of I-10 provides three northbound and southbound lanes. D ual left-turn lanes and two through lanes in one direction with three through lanes in the opposite direction are provided at the end of the ramps . The street flares at Ramon Road to provide an exclusive southbound right-turn lane, dual southbound left-turn lanes, and three through lanes.
Ramon Road is a four-lane divided arterial street immediately east of Bob Hope Drive. West of Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road is a five -lane divided arterial street for approximately 950 feet, with two westbound and three eastbound through lanes. West of the five -lane section, Ramon Road provides three through lanes in each direction with a raised center median divider. Ramon Road is classified as a Major A rterial roadway in the Rancho Mirage General Plan with a 120 -foot right-of-way. In the vicinity of the Project Site, Ramon Road has intersections with Da Vall Drive, Los Alamos Road, and Bob Hope Drive. The posted speed limit is 55 mph between Bob Hope Drive and Da Vall Drive.
Dinah Shore Drive is a four-lane divided Minor Arterial roadway with 110-foot right-of-way containing a 16-foot wide raised landscape median and two travel lanes in each direction. The south side of Dinah 12-732
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Shore Drive is fully improved adjacent to the Mission Hills Golf Resort with a 23- to 25 -foot wide landscaped parkway containing a meandering 5- to 8- foot multi- use trail. The posted speed limit on Dinah Shore Drive is 45 mph west of Da Vall Drive, and 50 mph between Da Vall Drive and Monterey Avenue.
Los Alamos Road is currently a two -lane undivided roadway between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. It is fully improved on the west side. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. A meandering 8- foot wide multiuse trail exists on the west side of Los Alamos Road that accommodates golf carts, pedestrians, and cyclists. Both the City and County circulation plans classify Los Alamos Road as a future four-lane divided roadway with the required right-of-way by the City classification at 110 feet.
Da Vall Drive, north of Ramon Road, is a four- lane undivided roadway that narrows to a two -lane undivided roadway before terminating south of the Union Paci fic Railroad and I- 10. Da Vall Drive is improved as a four- lane divided roadway south of Dinah Shore Drive with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. North of Dinah Shore Drive, Da Vall Drive is partially improved. The east side of Da Vall Drive was fully improved in conjunction with the development of the adjacent Mission Hills community.
The west side of Da Vall Drive is not fully improved at this time. The west of the roadway is fully improved for approximately one-quarter mile south of Ramon Road, adjacent to the Desert Shadows RV Resort and Forest Lawn Memorial Park and Mortuary. Approximately 3,500 feet south of Sunshine Way, Da Vall Drive is currently a two -lane undivided roadway except where the pavement width flares to 38 feet to accommodate a southbound left -turn bay for access to the Mission Hills community. The west side of Da Vall is fully improved for 130 feet immediately north of Dinah Shore Drive.
Rattler Road is designated as a four- lane divided Major Collector roadway between Ramon Road and 30th Street. Rattler Road was recently improved between 30th Avenue and Ramon Road to provide access to the Rancho Mirage High School, but is not completely built out . The posted speed limit on Rattler Road is 40 mph unless children are present, when it is 25 mph.
Gerald Ford Drive is a four-lane divided Minor Arterial roadway with a 110-foot right-of-way. The posted speed limit is 50 mph in the vicinity of the Project Site. Trucks are not allowed to use Gerald Ford Drive.
Monterey Avenue is a six -lane divided roadway north of Dinah Shore Drive that provides north -south access be tween I-10 and State Route (SR) 111. It is designated as a six -lane divided Major Arterial roadway by the Rancho Mirage General Plan.
12-733
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Traffic Study Intersections
The Project Site is bounded by four of the roadways described above: Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, Los Alamos Road, and Ramon Road . It is bordered to the south and west by the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Mission Hills community. The Desert Ridge Shopping Center is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive. The Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa is located south of Ramon Road and east of Bob Hope Drive.
Based on the location of the Project Site , the configuration of roadway network in the vicinity of the Project Site, the amount of traffic the proposed uses would generate , and existing and projected traffic conditions, a ”Study Area” was defined to identify the traffic impacts of the proposed Project that extends east of Da Vall Drive to Monterey Avenue and south of I-10 to Gerald Ford Drive.
The locations of the study intersections are shown on Figure 5.1 4-1, Study Area Intersections. The seventeen existing major signalized intersections in this Study Area include:
1. Bob Hope Drive at the I-10 Westbound Ramps
2. Bob Hope Drive at the I-10 Eastbound Ramps
3. Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road
4. Rattler Road at Ramon Road
5. Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road
6. Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road
7. I-10 Eastbound Ramp at Ramon Road
8. Los Alamos Road at Via Bella
9. Bob Hope Drive at Casino
10. Da Vall Drive at Dinah Shore Drive
11. Los Alamos Road at Dinah Shore Drive
12. Westin Mission Hills Access at Dinah Shore Drive
13. Westin Resort Villas Access at Dinah Shore Drive
14. Bob Hope Drive at Dinah Shore Drive
15. Key Largo Avenue at Dinah Shore Drive
16. Monterey Avenue at Dinah Shore Drive
17. Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive
12-734
Legend
Existing Key Intersection
Project Site
1 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.
Gerald Ford Dr.
. r D e p o H b o B
Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Paci/f_ic Railroad
30th Ave.
. r D l l a V a D . e v A y e r e t n o M
d a o R s o m a l A s o L
Project
Site
Casino
n i t s e W
s a l l i V t r o s e R
n i t s e W
s l l i H n o i s s i M
Via
Bella
d a o R r e l t t a R
y e K
. e v A o g r a L
Rio Del Sol
1 5
2 3 4 6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 Study Area Intersections
FIGURE 5.14-1
044-001-13
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
320016000 6400
N
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN
SOURCE: Endo Engineering - 2014
12-735
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
In addition, there are six proposed intersections in the Study Area, as shown in Figure 5.14-2:
18. Street “C” at Ramon Road
19. Street “D” at Ramon Road
20. Bob Hope Drive at Street “D”
21. Bob Hope Drive at Street “E”
22. Los Alamos Road at Street “A”
23. Los Alamos Road at Street “B”
Existing Transportation System
Public Transportation
SunLine Transit Authority (SunLine ) provides public transit service within the Coachella V alley. The Project Site is served by SunLine Route 32, which travels between Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms, and Cathedral City via Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, Monterey Avenue, and Ramona Road. The buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts and bike racks, facilitating mass -transit travel for a wide variety of riders.
Golf Carts and NEVs
The design of the proposed Project is intended to maximize connectivity for pedestrians between the different uses within the Planning Areas defined by the Specific Plan . Residents of Rancho Mirage use golf carts for more than transportation on individual golf courses. They are used for local trips made between residences and commercial and medical facilities, City Hall, and golf cart paths in adjoining cities. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) defines golf carts as vehicles designed to operate at a maximum speed of 15 mph and states that golf carts can be driven only on roadways with posted speed limits of up to 25 mph except in cases where travel on roadways with higher speed limits is permitted by ordinance or resolution of a local authority. The CVC defines neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) as vehicles that can reach speeds of 20 to 25 mph within one mile. NEVs may be o perated on any roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less and may cross at intersections that have a higher speed limit than 35 mph.
There are three classifications for Golf cart paths (Class I, Class II, and Class III). Class I paths are completely separated from the roadway used by motor vehicles. Class I facilities are for shared one -way or two-way use by golf carts, bicyclists, and pedestrians and are incorporated in Class I bikeways. Class II golf cart facilities provide a striped lane on a street or highway for one -way golf cart and bicycle travel. 12-736
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Class III facilities are established by placing “Golf Cart Route” signs along roadways with speed limits of 25 mph or less to provide linkages for Class I or Class II facilities.
Bikeways
Caltrans standards are used to design bikeways by most jurisdictions throughout California, and the City adheres to Caltrans bikeway standards. There are three classifications for bicycle facilities: Class I, Class II, and Class III bikeways.
A Class I Bikeway is a bike path that provides for bicycle travel on a right -of-way completely separated from any street or highway. The paths may be located along alignments parallel to streets or unrelated alignments as long as there is no encroachment from motor vehicle or pedestrian traffic except at grade intersections. A Class II Bikeway is a bike lane that provides a striped lane for one -way bike travel within the paved area of a street or highway. These bike lanes are within an exclusive right -of-way designated for use by bicyclists. However, cross traffic is permitted for driveway access. A Class III Bikeway is a bike route in which both bicycle and motor vehicle traffic share the same roadway surface area. The route is marked with signs or stenciled lettering on the pavement identifying the roadway as part of a bikeway system.
Within the City, Class I bikeways are typically a combined meandering sidewalk and bike path within the landscaped parkway along arterial streets. Most of the arterial streets within the City have a roadbed of sufficient width to allow for a minimum four-foot wide Class II bike lane along the curb. The Conservation and Open Space Element states that Class III bike routes are not recommended for Rancho Mirage except: (1) where Class I and II facilities are not feasible and an essential regional bike route connection is desired, or (2) where Class I and Class II facilities are not warranted due to lesser roadway classifications.
The combined length of the existing bikeways within the City totals approximately 17 miles. The existing bikeways have been funded by the City with General Funds or Development Impact Fees (DIF) and new development projects are required to construct and pay for required bikeways . The following Class II bikeways exist within the vicinity of the Project Site. • A Class II bikeway extends 4.7 miles along the east side of Bob Hope Drive, from Ramon Road south to Sunrise Drive
• A Class II bikeway extends 2.0 miles along Gerald Ford Drive from Los Alamos Road to Monterey Avenue
12-737
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• A Class II bikeway extends 1.7 miles along Ramon Road from the western city limit to Bob Hope Drive
• A Class II bikeway extends 0.4 miles along Los Alamos Road, south of Gerald Ford Drive to Sunny Lane
• A Class II bikeway is located on the west side of Bob Hope Drive, south of Cherry Hills Drive to Sunrise Drive
• A Class II bikeway is located on Monterey Avenue, between Dinah Shore Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.
Railroad Facilities
The Union Pacific Railroad line is located south of I- 10 and north of Ramon Road, approxima tely 0.2 miles north of the Project Site. A grade separated railroad crossing exists where Bob Hope Drive crosses over the railroad line, north of the project site. The recently completed I -10 interchange project at Bob Hope Drive included the construction of a new six-lane bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad. The Union Pacific Railroad provides freight rail service to Riverside County.
AMTRAK provides regional passenger rail and bus service in the Coachella Valley. The nearest AMTRAK station to the Project Site is located within the City of Palm Springs. AMTRAK provides bus connections on a daily basis to and from the San Bernardino AMTRAK station for other Riverside County areas.
Existing Traffic Conditions
Available 24 -hour traffic count data collected for roadways within the northern portion of the Study Area during September 2012 are provided in Table 5.14-1, Weekday Traffic Counts. These traffic counts were conducted shortly after the Bob Hope Drive I -10 interchange was completed. Peak -season traffic count data available from the City is also shown in Table 5.1 4-1. A comparison of the count data collected in March 2013 to the new 24-hour traffic counts collected in November 2013 validated the use of a five percent seasonal expansion factor. Existing w eekday level o f service ( LOS) counts for both signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in Table 5.1 4-2, Existing Weekday Peak -Hour Delay and LOS at the Unsignalized Key Intersections, and Table 5.14-3, Existing Weekday Peak -Hour Delay and LOS at the Signalized Key Intersections. All of the 17 key intersections are currently providing acceptable levels of service in peak season during the weekday morning and evening peak hours.
12-738
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.14-1
Weekday Traffic Counts
Roadway Segment Traffic Count Datea Weekday Two-Way Volumeb Da Vall Drive
North of Ramon Road 3/19/13 8,655
South of Ramon Road 3/19/13 10,771
North of Dinah Shore Drive 3/19/13 9,009
North of Gerald Ford Drive 3/19/13 10,708
Bob Hope Drive
South of Varner Road 9/05/12 11,802
North of Ramon Road 11/06/13 17,035
North of Ramon Road 9/5/12 13,394
South of Ramon Road 11/7/13 18,243
South of Ramon Road 3/11/13 18,954
South of Ramon Road 9/15/12 14,611
North of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 [17,559]b
North of Gerald Ford Drive 3/11/13 19,923
North of Frank Sinatra 3/12/13 18,712
Rio Del Sol Road
North of Varner Road 9/5/12 5,488
Monterey Avenue
North of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 [44,125]b
South of Dinah Shore Drive Winter 2013 [31,702]b
Dinah Shore Drive
West of Da Vall Drive 3/19/13 18,940
West of Bob Hope Drive 11/6/13 17,481
West of Bob Hope Drive 3/11/13 16,415
West of Monterey Avenue 3/5/13 24,627
East of Monterey Avenue Winter 2013 9,575
Gerald Ford Drive
West of Bob Hope Drive 3/11/13 14,296
East of Bob Hope Drive 3/11/13 12,470
Ramon Road
West of Da Vall Drive Winter 2013 [22,682]b
East of Da Vall Drive 3/19/13 24,255
West of Bob Hope Drive 11/6/13 20,557
West of Bob Hope Drive Winter 2013 [23,736]b
West of Bob Hope Drive 9/5/12 17,695
East of Bob Hope Drive 11/6/13 16,280
12-739
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Roadway Segment Traffic Count Datea Weekday Two-Way Volumeb East of Bob Hope Drive Winter 2013 [26,402]b
East of Bob Hope Drive 9/5/12 13,589
West of Varner Road Winter 2013 [11,693]b
West of Varner Road 9/5/12 9,658
East of Varner Road 9/5/12 10,506
Varner Road
West of Bob Hope Drive 9/5/12 4,153
East of Bob Hope Drive 9/5/12 11,791
a. Traffic count data shown for September 2012 and November 2013 was collected by Count Unlimited, Inc. and was not expanded to reflect peak season conditions. The 24-hour directional traffic count data shown for March 2013 was collected by Newport Traffic Studies and reflect peak season conditions. This data was available on the City of Rancho Mirage website. b. The Winter 2013 24-hour two-way traffic count data shown in brackets was taken from the CVAG 2013 Traffic Census Report.
Table 5.14-2
Existing Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOSa
at the Unsignalized Key Intersections
Unsignalized Intersection
Existing (2013)
Major Street Left-Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street Approachc
Move Delay/LOS
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.77] 7.5/A EB 9.4/A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.88] 7.4/A EB 9.0/A
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.82] 9.5/A NB 12.3/B
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.91] 10.2/B NB 18.0/C
Notes:
a. The values shown assume an 8 percent truck mix and the intersection geometrics. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed Project but signalized with the project. b. Delay = average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOSD; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32.
c. EB = Eastbound. NB = Northbound. Delay = average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32).
12-740
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.14-3
Existing Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS
at the Signalized Intersections
Signalized Intersection
Existing Without Project
Delay (Sec./Veh.) Critical V/C LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Westbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 1] Morning Peak Hour [PHF=0.87] 15.2 0.32 B
Evening Peak Hour [PHF=0.91] 19.0 0.41 B
Bob Hope Drive at Eastbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 2] Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.87] 10.0 0.38 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.97] 9.1 0.27 A
Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.96] 28.7 0.63 C
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.90] 24.8 0.52 C
Rattler Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 4]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.91] 8.8 0.29 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.86] 7.3 0.34 A
Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 5]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.83] 5.0 0.32 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.93] 4.2 0.27 A
Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 6]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.86] 20.6 0.56 C
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.97] 21.2 0.52 C
Eastbound I-10 Ramps at Ramon Road [Intersection 7]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.88] 3.6 0.48 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.91] 5.2 0.49 A
Bob Hope Drive at Casino [Intersection 9]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.83] 4.7 0.37 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.87] 7.5 0.43 A
Da Vall Drive at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 10]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.83] 27.5 0.64 C
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.88] 27.5 0.69 C
Los Alamos Road at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 11]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.78] 5.7 0.30 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.85] 5.2 0.43 A
Westin Mission Hills at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.90] 5.9 0.29 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.91] 6.9 0.41 A
Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.84] 25.9 0.56 C
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.89] 25.7 .61 C
12-741
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized Intersection
Existing Without Project
Delay (Sec./Veh.) Critical V/C LOS
Key Largo Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 15]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.86] 5.1 0.20 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.92] 5.2 0.26 A
Monterey Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 16]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.86] 21.8 0.66 C
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.95] 30.0 0.82 C
Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 0.85] 31.3 0.73 C
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 0.96] 29.2 0.66 C
2. Regulatory Setting
Regional and Local Setting
Regional Transportation Improvement Plans
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is a multi-modal long-range planning document prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in coordination with federal, state, and other regional, subregional, and local agencies in southern California. The RTP, prepared every th ree years, addresses future needs based on a 20 -year projection. It includes programs and policies for congestion management, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, roadways, freight, and finances. It is used as a long -range plan for federally funded transportation projects.
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a 7 -year program including all regional and local capital improvement projects that maintain or improve the LOS for traffic and transit and conform to transportation-related emission air quality mitigation measures. Currently, regional projects are programmed in the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), while locally funded projects (off the State Highway System) are identified in local agency CIPs. To comply with Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Statutes, CIP requirements are identified through the RCTC TIP development process. Projects in the CIP may be incorporated into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for the programming of Flexible Congestion Relief (FCR) and Urban and Commuter Rail funds.
Congestion Management Program
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is intended to link land use, transportation, and air quality with reasonable growth management methods, strategies and programs that effectively utilize n ew transportation funds to alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) that 12-742
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-13 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
prepares the Riverside County Congestion Management Program updates in consultation with local agencies, the County of Riverside, transit agencies , and subregional agencies like the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG).
The RCTC has designated a system of highways and roadways to include (at a minimum) all S tate Highway facilities within Riverside County and a system of principal arterials as the Congestion Management System (CMS). All State Highways within Riverside County have been designated as part of the CMP System of Highways and Roadways. The following facilities are designated as part of the Riverside CMP System of Highways and Roadways in the Coachella Valley:
• I-10 (San Bernardino County line to State line)
• SR 111 (I-10 to Imperial County line)
• Ramon Road (I-10 to SR 111/Gene Autry Trail)
• Monterey Avenue (I-10 to SR 111)
Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) administers the Coachella Valley Regional Arterial Program, which allocates Measure A and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) fu nds for necessary improvements to the regional transportation system.
Measure A, approved by Riverside County voters in 1988, approved a one-half cent increase in sales tax over a twenty year period to be used for transportation purposes. In November 2002, Riverside County voters approved a 30 -year extension of Measure “A” (2009 –2039). Measure A funds contribute a portion of the cost of transportation system improvements projected to be needed over the next 25 years.
The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program was developed to generate additional funds to fund improvements to the regional arterial roadway system. The TUMF is a development impact assessment that provides funding for transportation improvements required to support new development based on the number of vehicle trips new development will generate. Approximately 55 percent of the funding provided by CVAG consists of TUMF funds with the remainder consisting of Measure A funds. CVAG prepares the Transportation Project Priority Study (TPSS) every five years to determine funding for improvements to regional arterials by prioritizing the eligible study segments based on an assessment of the need for improvement.
12-743
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-14 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Available TUMF and Measure A revenues are applied to the TPPS projects in order of priority. Because the project priorities set out in the TPPS control the order of funding, it also generally controls the approximate timeframe for each project.
To conform to CVAG policies, all CVAG member agencies require the construction of ado pted road construction standard improvements for regional roads located adjacent to land development projects.
City of Rancho Mirage General Plan
The Project Site is located within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage as defined by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) . The City has adopted LOS D as the maximum acceptable service level for peak operating periods in the Circulation Element of the City of Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan.
Bob Hope Drive is classified as a Major Arterial (six -lane divided) in the City of Rancho Mirage 2005 General Plan to accommodate future traffic projections and be consistent with the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) network designations. Bob Hope Drive was extended north of Ramon Road to Varner Road in conjunction with the recent construction of a new spread diamond I-10 interchange. This new interchange replaces three of the four ramps previously located at the Ramon Road diamond interchange. Only the eastbound I-10 on-ramp from Ramon Road was retained.
Ramon Road is classified as a 6 -lane divided Major Arterial between Da Vall Drive and the I -10 overcrossing. A 120-foot right-of-way is typically required of facilities with a Major Arterial designation.
Dinah Shore Drive is classified as a 6 -lane divided Major Arterial, between Los Alamos Road and Monterey Avenue. A 120 - foot right -of-way is typically required of roadways with a Major Arterial designation. Between Plumley Road and Los Alamos Road, Dinah Shore Drive is classified as a 4 -lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110 -foot right-of-way. Prior to the 2005 update of the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Dinah Shore Drive, between Los Alamos Road and Bob Hope Drive, was designated and constructed as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial with a 110-foot right-of-way.
Los Alamos Road is classified as a 4-lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right- of-way.
Da Vall Drive , south of I- 10, is designated as a 4 -lane divided Minor Arterial, which typically requires a 110-foot right-of-way.
12-744
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-15 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Monterey Avenue is a six-lane divided roadway, north of Dinah Shore Drive, which provides north-south access between I-10 and SR 111. It is designated as a 6-lane divided Major Arterial within the study area in the Rancho Mirage General Plan.
Rattler Road is designated as a four-lane divided Major Collector between Ramon Road and 30th Street.
Major Collectors typically require a 100-foot right-of-way.
North of Ramon Road, a future four -lane divided Minor Arterial is shown in the Circulation Element extending across Section 13 to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor where it turns northwest and continues to Da Vall Drive. This future Minor Arterial is shown intersecting Ramon Road opposite Street “C,” the future full-turn Section 24 access connection proposed between Planning Areas 1 and 2.
A Future Minor Arterial with a four- lane divided cross- section is shown in the Circulation Element extending east of Bob Hope Drive across the Section 19 Specific Pl an area to Key Largo Avenue. This Minor Arterial intersects Bob Hope Drive north of the point where the alignment of Bob Hope Drive turns west of the eastern boundary of Section 24. This location appears to be opposite the Section 24 Specific Plan future full-turn site access proposed on Bob Hope Drive at Street “D” [Intersection 20].
Riverside County General Plan
Riverside County collaborates with cities to implement and integrate right -of-way requirements and improvements standards for General Plan roadways that cross jurisdictional boundaries. For development with the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction, city standards should generally apply where annexation to the City will logically occur in the short to intermediate range future. Where roadways designed to differing city and County standards meet, the transitional areas are to be designed on an individual basis to facilitate satisfactory operational and safety performance.
Urban arterials typically provide six or eight through lanes. Riv erside County has designated four Urban Arterials within the study area: (1) Bob Hope Drive, between Varner Road and Dinah Shore Drive, (2) Ramon Road, west of I- 10 to Da Vall Drive, (3) Dinah Shore Drive, between Los Alamos Road and Monterey Avenue, and (4) Monterey Avenue, between Varner Road and Gerald Ford Drive.
Arterial Highways typically provide four or six through lanes and have a raised median. Six roadways in the study area are designated Arterial Highway in the Riverside County Circulation Eleme nt: 1) Varner Road, northwest of Ramon Road, (2) Ramon Road, east of Varner Road, (3) Dinah Shore Drive, between Plumley Road and Los Alamos Road, (4) Gerald Ford Drive, (5) Bob Hope Drive, south of Dinah Shore Drive, and (6) Monterey Avenue, south of Gerald Ford Drive. 12-745
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-16 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Major Highways typically provide four through lanes with a painted median. Riverside County has designated three Major Highways in the study area including: (1) Da Vall Drive, south of I- 10, (2) Los Alamos Road, between Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive, and (3)Monterey Avenue, between Ramon Road and Varner Road.
Secondary Highways require a 100 -foot right -of-way and provide four through lanes with no median.
Two of the roadways within the Study Area are classified as Secondary Highways by the County of Riverside: Rio Del Sol Road, north of Varner Road, and Varner Road, southeast of Ramon Road.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the envir onment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have a significant impact to traffic and transportation if it would:
Threshold 5.14-1: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)
Threshold 5.14-2: Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways
Threshold 5.14-3: Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Threshold 5.14-4: Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Threshold 5.14-5: Result in inadequate emergency access Threshold 5.14-6: Result in inadequate parking capacity Threshold 5.14-7: Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)
12-746
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-17 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
2. Methodology
The following provides an overview of the methodology utilized to conduct the impact analysis presented in this section.
Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model
The Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), completed in May 2009, was developed with the cooperative efforts of the Riverside County Transportation Department (RCTD), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
The SCAG Regional Transportation Model encompasses a large geographic area that consists of the Counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. T he RivTAM incorporates a detailed description of Riverside County, while maintaining consistency with the SCAG Regional Model.
RivTAM is intended for use for transportation planning purposes throughout Riverside County by all levels of governmental jurisdiction and by private entities and as a tool to determine t he potential impacts of large development proposals, General Plan land use changes, and forecasting for Transportation projects.
Analysis Years and Scenarios
Development of the Active Adult Community in Planning Area 8 will occur first with development of this area projected to be completed by the year 2022. While no specific timeframes have been identified for development of the Tribal Planning Areas, development by the 2035 horizon year in the RivTAM Model is anticipated. This is a conservative assumption made for the purpose of assessing the potential traffic impact of the P roject. The Tribe currently has no plans or timing defined for development of the Tribal Planning Areas, and it is anticipated that development of the uses that would be allowed by the Section 24 Specific Plan would extend beyond 2035. To assess the potential project and cumulative impacts with the development of the Active Adult Community by 2022 and development of the Tribal Planning Areas by 2035, the following scenarios were studied:
• Existing Conditions
• Existing Conditions Baseline Plus Initial Phase - Active Adult Community • Existing Conditions Baseline Plus Full Project Development of Tribal Planning Areas 12-747
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-18 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• Future (Year 2022) Baseline Traffic Conditions
• Future Conditions (Year 2022) Baseline Plus Initial Phase -Active Adult Community • Future (Year 2035) Baseline Traffic Conditions
• Future Conditions (Year 2035) Baseline Plus Full Project Development of Tribal Planning Areas For each development scenario, peak season morning and evening peak hour conditions were evaluated to establish whether or not mitigation would be required to achieve the applicable intersection performance standards.
Intersection Analysis
Intersection analysis was completed using t he most recent version of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+). An 8-percent truck mix was assumed for the peak hour operational analysis of existing and year 2022 conditions. A 5-percent truck mix was assumed for the future year 2035 operational analyses. The peak hour factors determined from the peak hour traffic counts at the existing key intersection were assumed for the existing and year 2022 operational analyses. The future year 2035 analysis assumed a peak hour factor of 1.0.
Traffic Counts
Manual intersection turning movements were counted at the seventeen existing intersections studied to document the existing travel patterns within the study area. 1 The intersection counts w ere collected continuously in the morning peak hours (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and evening peak hours (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). This data was used to evaluate the existing baseline traffic operations during the peak travel hours on the adjacent streets.
Additionally, 24-hour directional traffic counts were collected at the following five locations: Bob Hope Drive (north and south of Ramon Road); Ramon Road (west of Bob Hope Drive and west of I -10 eastbound on-ramp); and Dinah Shore Drive (west of Bob Hope Drive). Th e 24-hour traffic counts were used to identify the relationship between the daily two -way traffic volumes on area roadways and the peak hour traffic volumes on those roadways. The 24-hour traffic count data was also used to identify an appropriate seasonal adjustment factor for use in expanding the peak hour count data to reflect peak season conditions in the study area.
1 Count Unlimited, Inc., November 6, 2013.
12-748
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-19 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Trip Generation and Distribution
The proposed Project would allow development of up to 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,600 feet of non-residential development. The active adult residential, multi- family residential and range of commercial uses allowed by the Specific Plan will each generate trips with a unique profile that peak at slightly different times of the day, on different days of the week, and with different percentages of inbound versus outbound trips during the peak hours.
The number of trips generated by the proposed residential and non -residential uses will vary by season and peak during the winter months, when tourist s and visitors are attracted to the area. The tourist season in the Coachella Valley extends from October through May, with the peak occurring in January.
The seasonal influx of part -year residents begins in October and reverses by April. The number of tourists and part-year seasonal residents decrease substantially after April.
The development of mixed-use projects, such as the proposed Project , reduces trip generation because some of trips generated by the residential uses would be captured by the commer cial uses within the Project. The internal capture rate between the proposed residential and non -residential uses on -site would be limited by the total number of residential trips. Since the residential trips represent approximately 14 percent of the total amount of trips generated by all the proposed uses, a conservative internal capture rate of 15 percent of the residential trips was assumed for purposes of analysis.
The Active Adult Community in Planning Area 8 would generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips, 234 morning peak hour trips and 289 evening peak hour trips. As no commercial uses are anticipated in this initial phase of development, no adjustments were made to this amount of trips for the analysis of the first phase.
When all uses allowed by the Specific Plan in Planning Areas 1 -8 are fully developed, the proposed Project would generate a combined total of 71,260 adjusted weekday trips. Approximately 2,630 weekday trips are expected to occur between the different uses proposed within the site using internal streets.
Approximately 68,630 weekday trips are projected to be external trips ; that is trips that start or end outside of the Project Site . During the morning peak hour on weekdays, the proposed Project would generate a total of 1,677 adj usted trip-ends of which 1,565 would be external trips and 112 would be internal trips. The external trips would include 751 inbound and 812 outbound trips. During the evening peak hour, a total of 6,957 trips would be generated. Approximately 6,759 would be external trips and 12-749
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-20 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the remaining 198 would be internal trips. The external trips would include 3,524 inbound and 3,433 outbound trips.
Pass-by trips will be attracted to the commercial uses in the Project Site from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets. While these pass -by trips would be turning in and out of the site access points, these trips would not be new trips on the roadway network. For this reason, these trips were deducted from the background t raffic when the site traffic was assigned to the adjacent roadways. The pass -by trips were included in the traffic volumes entering and exiting the development at the site access points to fully assess potential impacts. Depending on the type of commercial uses developed , up to approximately 25 percent of the commercial trips could come from pass -by traffic on the adjacent streets. Since the commercial uses anticipated on-site have not been established, a conservative pass-by rate of 15 percent was assumed.
The 68,630 projected external weekday trips include an estimated 9,180 daily pass -by trips that would be using the adjacent roadways with or without development within the Project Site. Therefore, full development of the uses that would be allowed by the proposed Specific Plan would add 59,450 new weekday trips to the surrounding street system. During the morning peak hour on weekdays, the proposed Project would add 688 new inbound and 749 new outbound trips to the surrounding street system. During the evening peak hour on weekdays, the proposed Project would add 688 new inbound and 749 new outbound trips to the surrounding street system.
The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) 2004 Origin Destination Survey found that 92 percent of all trips by Coachella Valley residents were made in private passenger vehicles. Four percent of trips in were completed by walking, one percent by riding a bicycle , and one percent by public transportation. The remaining trips were completed by school buses and other modes. Based on this study alternative transportation modes account for less than five percent of all trips generated in the Coachella Valley. While the proposed Specific Plan has been designed to maximize the use of alternative transportation modes, no adjustment was made for the use of alternative transportation modes in order to provide a conservative assessment of the potential traffic impacts of the proposed Project.
Project Site traffic was assigned to the surrounding street system based upon the location of the existing and future land uses that would attract site traffic and generate trips destined to the site. The proposed Project Site access locations ( as shown in Figure 5.1 4-2, Access and Intersection Control ), any anticipated left-turn restrictions at the proposed site driveways , and access to regional transportation facilities were also considered in the site traffic assignment. 12-750
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-21 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
As discussed above, t he proposed initial phase of development, the Active Adult Community would generate approximately 4,480 weekday trips. The Active Adult Community would be developed as a gated community with three access connections to the surrounding roadways located opposite existing intersections. The distribution of the traffic from the Active Adult Community is shown in Figure 5.14-3, Site Traffic Distribution: Active Adult Community.
The primary access for the initial phase is proposed on Dinah Shore Drive, opposite the existing signalized access to the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort [Intersection 12]. A pproximately 57 percent of the traffic generated by the Active Adult Community (2,550 ADT) is projected to access Dinah Shore Drive at this location. Access to Bob Hope Drive is proposed opposite the signalized intersection of Casino via an internal street aligned south of Planning Areas 2 and 3 and north of Planning Areas 4 and
5. This access would accommodate approximately 35 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (1,570 ADT) and provide the most direct connection to I- 10 for regional trips. Access to Los Alamos Road would be opposite the existing unsignalized intersection at Via Bella [Intersection 8].
Approximately 43 percent of the site traffic generated by the initial phase ( 1,930 ADT) would enter and leave the Active Adult Community via this access connection. This intersection would remain unsignalized upon completion of the initial phase of development.
The Active Adult Community will ultimately have access to Bob Hope Drive via the westerly extension of Casino Road between Planning Areas 2 and 3 and Planning Areas 4 and 5). This access would accommodate 35 percent of the traffic generated by the initial phase (1,570 ADT) and provide the most direct connection to I-10 for regional trips.
The distribution of all traffic generated from full development of the uses allowed by the Section 24 Specific Plan as proposed are shown in Figure 5.14- 4, Site Traffic Di stribution: Full Project Development. The percentages shown in Figure 5.14-4 reflect the combination of all new inbound and outbound external site trips to be added to the surrounding street system. The percentages shown were determined for the 59,450 primary external weekday trips generated by the proposed Project.
Consultation with City of Rancho Mirage
The scope and methodology for preparation of the Section 24 Traffic Impact Study was discussed and coordinated with the City at a meeting held in January 2014, prior to preparation of the study. The number and locations of the intersections to be studied were reviewed, as well as the use of the RivTAM to assess project and cumulative impacts. The number of intersections proposed for study was increased at the request of the City. In addition, it was agreed that the RivTAM was the most appropriate traffic demand model available for use.
12-751
Access and Intersection Control
FIGURE 5.14-2
044-001-13
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
10005000 2000
N
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN
SOURCE: MSA Consulting - 2014
12-752
Legend
Percent of Primary Daily Trips5.7
22.1 23.0 23.0 4.0 4.0
8.0 15.0
12.9 27.0 27.0
0.9 4.9
4.9 1 . 8 10.4
6.5 8.0 2.0 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.
Gerald Ford Dr.
. r D e p o H b o B
Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Paci/f_ic Railroad
30th Ave.
. r D l l a V a D . e v A y e r e t n o M
d a o R s o m a l A s o L
Project
Site
Casino
n i t s e W
s a l l i V t r o s e R
n i t s e W
s l l i H n o i s s i M
Via
Bella
d a o R r e l t t a R
y e K
. e v A o g r a L
Rio Del Sol
6.0 20.1 20.1
2 . 4
0 . 0 1
5.8 9 . 2 1
1 . 6 2
1 . 6 1
9 . 4
0 . 2
9 . 2
0 . 3 2
0 . 8
24.8 9.8
12.9 25.0
40.0 35.0
Site Traffic Distribution:
Active Adult Community
FIGURE 5.14-3
044-001-13
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
320016000 6400
N
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN
SOURCE: Endo Engineering - 2014
12-753
Legend
Percent of Primary Daily Trips5.7
14.6 21.9 22.1 20.9 20.2
8.2 10.4
7.3 8.1 6.2
2.0 7.3
7.3 9 . 6 21.0
0.9 9.3
11.3 3.0 Ramon Road
Dinah Shore Dr.
Gerald Ford Dr.
. r D e p o H b o B
Varner Road
Interstate 10
Union Paci/f_ic Railroad
30th Ave.
. r D l l a V a D . e v A y e r e t n o M
d a o R s o m a l A s o L
Project
Site
Casino
n i t s e W
s a l l i V t r o s e R
n i t s e W
s l l i H n o i s s i M
Via
Bella
d a o R r e l t t a R
y e K
. e v A o g r a L
Rio Del Sol
8.3 14.3 14.3
1 . 3
1 . 7
4.1 1.8 2.6
3 . 4 2
9 . 7 2
1 . 4 1
7 . 9
7 . 5
7 . 3
8 . 3
2 . 0
0 . 9
3 . 5
24.8 14.6
18.6 Site Traffic Distribution: Full Project Development FIGURE 5.14-4
044-001-13
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
320016000 6400
N
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN
SOURCE: Endo Engineering - 2014
12-754
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-25 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The City was also provided the opportunity to review a draft of the Traffic Impact Study. The City provided three major comments related to the approach and methodology used to develop th e Traffic Impact Study. The first comment from the City questioned whether the RivTAM accurately represented full development of the land uses allowed by the City’s General Plan, given that the traffic volumes in the Section 24 Traffic Impact Study project ed for the year 2035 for Bob Hope Drive north and south of Ramon Road, Ramon Road, and Dinah Shore Drive were lower than the volumes produced by the City’s 2005 General Plan Traffic Model (RMTM). In response to this comment, the assumptions in both the City’s model and RivTAM were reviewed in detail. Through this review , it was determined that the RivTAM model used in the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Study is a more sophisticated, comprehensive, and current model than the 2005 RMTM, and reflects the ful l amount of population and housing projected in the City’s General Plan. It was also determined that the 2005 RMTM assumed that a large amount of employment-generating uses would be developed north of the I- 10 in areas that were in the City’s Sphere of Influence at that time. As a result of subsequent changes to this area, including adoption of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) that permanently preserves a substantial amount of land north of the I -10, this area is no longer expected to generate the amount of employment assumed in the RMTM. Thus , the RMTM future traffic projections overstate the development potential and future traffic volumes that will impact the circulation network within the City. RivTAM includes an updated employment forecast for the City that reflects regional growth forecasts prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Therefore, while RivTAM includes less employment in the City than the City’s 2005 RMTM, the employment p rojection in RivTAM is both more current and more reliable. The other major factor identified that results in the difference in traffic volumes produced by the two models is that the 2005 RMTM does not reflect recent major and t he future planned improvements to the circulation system in the area, such as the improvement of the Bob Hope Interchange and five other nearby freeway interchanges. These improvements added capacity to accommodate additional traffic that would reduce the traffic volumes on major arterial roadways near the I- 10 that are not reflected in the RMTM. For these reasons, the RivTAM model provides more reliable future forecasts that more accurately reflect the traffic impacts that will result from development of the land uses allowed by the City’s General Plan.
The second comment asked if the 1-mile study area was sufficient in size and noted that studies typically prepared for similar projects under the Riverside County Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines generally examine all intersec tions within 5 miles of a site where the project would contribute 50 or more peak-hour trips. In determining the scope of study, the Riverside County TIA Preparation Guide
was reviewed and considered because Section 24 is located in unincorporated Riverside County. Under the County TIA Guidelines, proposed s pecific plans that generate more trips than the land uses allowed by the Riverside County General Plan, which are reflected in the RivTAM model, may need 12-755
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-26 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
improvements beyond the General Plan Circulation Element classifications and require a larger study area. Similarly, specific plans in undeveloped areas with interim roadway improvements may require a larger study area to evaluate the timing of future road way widening. In addition, specific plans with rapid development schedules may result in near- term impacts over a larger area and require an extended study area. T he Section 24 Specific Plan has none of these characteristics. The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would generate fewer trips than the development that would be allowed by the Riverside County General Plan land use designations for Section 24. Most of the streets serving the development are also fully widened. The traffic study area was expanded at the request of the City to include all key intersections within 1 mile of the site, a study area much larger than the area studied by the City for the Section 19 Specific Plan project , located immediately east of Section 24, that will generate an amoun t of traffic similar to the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. For these reasons, the study area was determined to be sufficient to identify all potential impacts of the project on traffic conditions in the area.
The third comment related to the use of th e RivTAM model for analysis of cumulative impacts and questioned if the RivTAM model data needed to be adjusted to reflect related projects in the City and adjacent jurisdictions that would contribute to cumulative impacts. The potential for the Section 24 Specific Plan to contribute to short -term cumulative impacts would be limited because the only portion of the Project planned for development by 2022 is the Active Adult Community, which represents only 6 percent of the P roject’s total trip generation. The cumulative impact analysis for the year 2022 reflects the related projects identified by the City that would develop by 2022. The other related projects in the area consist of other major specific plan projects where no development has occurred or is pro posed at this time and, for these reasons, these projects are not expected to contribute to short- term cumulative impacts. For the year 2035 long -term traffic scenario, the Section 24 Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study used the RivTAM to address cumulative traffic impacts based on the growth projections included in RivTAM, which include growth projected throughout six Southern California counties. All cumulative development through the year 2035 in Rancho Mirage, unincorporated Riverside County, and Tribal lands, as well as in the neighboring cities , is included in RivTAM. The SCAG growth forecast s used to develop RivTAM are also considered to be conservative at this time because these projections do not reflect the slower growth that has occurred since 2008 due to the economic recession. When these growth forecasts and RivTAM are updated , the horizon year growth forecast is expected to decrease by approximately seven percent to reflect the slower growth during the recent recession. As a result, the current version of RivTAM provides a conservative estimate of projected growth and likely cumulative traffic impacts from this growth. All of the City’s comments on the traffic study are attached to the Traffic Impact Study as Appendix 6, which is located in Appendix G in the EIS. 12-756
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-27 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Level of Service
The Highway Capacity Manual provides the best available techniques for determining capacity, delay, and levels of service for transportation facilities. 2 The relationship between peak hour intersection control delay and levels of service is shown in Table 5.14-4, Signalized Intersection Level of Service.
Table 5.14-4
Signalized Intersection Level of Service
LOS
Average Total Delay per Vehicle
(Seconds)
Traffic Flow Characteristics Signalized Unsignalized
A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 Good progression, few stops, and short cycle lengths. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and many do not stop.
Little or no delay at unsignalized intersections.
B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 Good progression, short cycle lengths or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Short traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.
C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 Satisfactory operation with fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear.
Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles and overflow occurs. A significant number of vehicle stop but many pass through without stopping. Average traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.
D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 Tolerable delay, where congestion becomes more noticeable and many vehicles stop. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
Longer delays may result from some combination of
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios.
Long traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.
E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Unstable flow with poor progression, frequent cycle failures, long cycle lengths and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures and long queues are frequent occurrences. This is considered the limit of acceptable delay by many agencies. Very long traffic delays at unsignalized intersections.
F > 80 > 50 Considered unacceptable to most drivers. Arrival flow rates exceed the discharge capacity of intersection with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths as well as high V/C ratios and high delay. Unacceptable traffic delays at unsignalized intersections
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Fourth Edition, 2000; pp. 10-16.
2 Highway Capacity Manual; Fourth Edition; TRB Report 209; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council; Washington, D.C.; 2000
12-757
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-28 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Local and Regional Performance Standards
Public agencies with jurisdiction over the transportation facilities within the Study Area include: (1) the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), (2) the Riverside County Transportation Commission (as the designated Congestion Management Agency for Riverside County), (3) the Riverside County Land Management Agency, (4) the City of Rancho Mirage, (6) the City of Cathedral City, and (7) the City of Palm Desert. Each of these agencies has adopted roadway performance standards, as described below:
Caltrans
Caltrans District 8 has jurisdiction over I-10 and the traffic signal timing for ramps that provide access to I-10. For freeway segments, Caltrans requests operational analysis based on the methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000). For basic freeway segments, the measure of effectiveness is density in terms of passenger cars per mile per lane. The truck mix is needed to expand the traffic volume on the freeway segment to passenger car equivalents (PCEs) and the performan ce standard throughout California is set at the transition between LOS C and LOS D.
However, the Interstate 10 Route Concept Fact Sheet (Caltrans, March 2000) which is currently being updated identified future right -of-way requirements and a design concept to accommodate development of the uses allowed by local general plans with a target of maintaining LOS “E” during the peak periods in the urbanized and urbanizing areas and LOS “C” in the rural areas. The rationale for maintaining these levels of service was “to achieve a reasonable balance between desired levels of mobility and forecasted traffic with consideration of development abutting rights of way and constrained financial transportation resources.”
Riverside County Transportation Commission
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has jurisdiction over all intersections and segments along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways within Riverside County. The CMP System includes all State highways ( I-10 and SR 111) and the following Principal Arterials: Ramon Road (west of I-10), and Monterey Avenue (between I -10 and SR 111). RCTC requires LOS analyses to be conducted using HCM-based methods.
The minimum level of service standard for intersections and roadway segments within the CMP System of Highways and Roadways is LOS E unless the intersection or segment had a lower level of service or LOS F in 1991 when the baseline CMP data was collected. 12-758
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-29 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
County of Riverside
The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan establishes Level of Service C as a target for all county maintained roadways and conventional State highways, except that LOS D is allowed in urban areas at intersections of any combination of Major Streets, Arterials, Expressways, or conventional State highways within one mile of a freeway interchange, and also at freeway ramp intersections. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan states that LOS D is allowed in Community Development areas at intersections of any combination of secondary highways, major highways, arterials, urban arterials, expressways, conventional state highways or freeway ramp intersections with LOS E allowed in community centers as designated in the General Plan , to the extent that it would support transit- oriented development and walkable communities.
Riverside Cou nty policy also permits applying city standards to development within the Sphere of Influence of an incorporated jurisdiction where annexation to the city will logically occur in the sho rt to intermediate range future. The Project Site is within the sphere of influence of the City of Rancho Mirage.
City of Rancho Mirage
The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan calls for the maintenance of Level of Service D for the Rancho Mirage circulation network, based upon peak hour intersection operation.
Cathedral City
For planning and design purposes, Cathedral City has also established Level of Service D as the minimum peak hour system performance standard for Cathedral City circulation network.
City of Palm Desert
The Circulation Element of the City o f Palm Desert General Plan states that peak hour intersection operation at LOS “C” or better is generally acceptable. Because LOS “C” represents a standard that is progressively more difficult and costly to achieve as traffic volumes grow in the City LOS “D” and/or a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is provisionally considered the generally acceptable service level for peak operating periods when all feasible intersection improvements have been implemented.
3. Project Design Features
The following features incorporated into the proposed Project would reduce the potential traffic and transportation impacts of the Project. These features were taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts. In addition to the specific features identified below, the Project includes improving 12-759
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-30 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the roadways adjacent to the Project Site consistent with adopted standards as required by CVAG Regional Arterial Program policies.
Active Adult Community
PDF 5.14-1 To ensure compliance with applicable roadway and access design standards, the final layout and site access design will be subject to the review and approval by the Tribe and, as appropriate, the City of Rancho Mirage and/or the County of Riverside , during the development review process. Entry drives, the internal circulation design, and other features may require additional street width beyond the minimums defined in the Specific Plan.
PDF 5.14-2 Adequate stacking distance (100 feet) will be provided on the approach to each of the three proposed gated entries to store vehicles entering the initial phase. The pavement in advance of the gate should be wide enough to allow an approaching vehicle to turn around in advance of the gate. Any gated entry that allow s visitor access should provide two entry lanes to allow residents to bypass the vehicles of visitors awaiting entry authorization.
PDF 5.14-3 The controlled primary entryways to the Active Adult Community will include provisions to facilitate access by emergency vehicles. If required, all power-operated controlled access devices shall have a radio-controlled override system capable of opening the gate or barrier when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles and be equipped to facilitate opening in the event of a power failure.
PDF 5.14-4 The streets within the Active Adult Community will be constructed and maintained as private streets in conformance with the standards in the proposed Specific Plan and designed to meet the standards of the applicable jurisdiction (e.g. City, County, or Tribe) public street system at the point where they connect.
PDF 5.14-5 A dequate off-street parking will be provided to meet the needs of residents and visitors.
Regular use of on-street parking for visitors will be accommodated.
PDF 5.14-6 The following improvements will be made at the access points to Planning Area 8:
1. The existing traffic control signal and approach lane geometrics at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Casino [Intersection 9] will be modified, as required when Casino is constructed between Street “D” and Bob Hope Drive. 12-760
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-31 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
2. The existing traffic control signal and approach lane geometrics will be modified at the intersection of the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort access with Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] to provide access to the initial phase of development. Two southbound entry lanes will be provided to permit residents to enter while a visitor awaiting authorization for entry.
3. A “STOP” sign will be installed facing vehicles in a single westbound exit lane at the site access point on Los Alamos Road, opposite Via Bella [Intersection 8]. A northbound and southbound left -turn bay shall be provided in the median on Los Alamos Road at this intersection.
Tribal Planning Areas
PDF 5.14-7 Adequate intersection approach lane geometrics, “STOP” signs, and new traffic control signals, will be provided as needed to accommodate the traffic generated by the development of the proposed Project.
PDF 5.14-8 Traffic signals will be warranted and sh all be installed when warranted along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive at the following five site access intersections to maintain acceptable levels of service in conjunction with adjacent development:
1. The Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13]
2. Street “C” at Ramon Road [Intersection 18]
3. Street “D” at Ramon Road [Intersection 19]
4. Bob Hope Drive at Street D [Intersection 20]
5. Bob Hope Drive at Street E [Intersection 21]
A minimum of two approach lanes will be provided at each of the minor -street approaches at each of these intersections to minimize the disruption of through traffic on the major street.
Adequate stopping sight distance, intersection sight distance and corner clearance will be provided at each of these intersectio ns to avoid conflicts between driveway traffic and vehicles waiting or turning at adjacent roadway intersections.
PDF 5.14-9 While not required to achieve acceptable levels of service , provision of right -turn deceleration lanes at the site access intersec tions on Bob Hope Drive, Ramon Road, and 12-761
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-32 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Dinah Shore Drive will be provided where 40 or more vehicles are projected to turn right into the site during the peak hour.
4. Project Impacts
Would the Project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections).
Construction
Project construction would generate traffic from construction worker travel, as well from the arrival and departure of trucks delivering construction materials, and the removal of debris generated by on -site activities. Both the number of construction workers and trucks would vary throughout the construction process in order to maintain a reasonable schedule of completion.
Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 6 to 8 years for the Active Adult Community and up to 20 years for the entire Project. Constructio n for the Active Adult Community is expected to commence during or after 2016. Temporary impacts would occur during the construction of infrastructure improvements serving the Project, including the widening of Bob Hope Drive, and other offsite roadway and infrastructure improvements. Construction of these infrastructure improvements would cause short -term impacts related to noise, dust, and traffic flows as a result of temporary lane closures. Mitigation Measure MM 5.14 -1 would substantially reduce the tem porary short term construction related traffic impacts to a level of less than significant.
Existing Conditions Plus Initial Phase (Active Adult Community) The evaluation of peak hour traffic operations at the seventeen key intersections in terms of control delay and levels of service (LOS) is summarized in Table 5.1 4-5, Initial Phase Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS at Unsignalized Intersections and Table 5.14-6, Initial Phase Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS at Signalized Intersections . The addition of project traffic, associated with the initial phase of the proposed Project, to existing traffic volumes , would result in minimal change to the peak hour level o f service at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Casino [Intersection 9]. The morning and evening peak hour service level at this intersection would drop from LOS A to LOS B.
The intersections of Monterey Avenue at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersect ion 16] and Key Largo Avenue at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 15] are addressed in the General Plans of both the City of Rancho Mirage and the City of Palm Desert. Although Palm Desert has identified LOS C as a target, for peak operating periods, LOS D and/or a maximum volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 is provisionally acceptable 12-762
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-33 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
where maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented. Because all m aximum feasible intersection improvements have been made at the intersection of Monterey Avenue at Din ah Shore, LOS D is used as the performance standard for this intersection. Key Largo Avenue at Dinah Shore Drive is not yet fully improved, but the projected LOS in the future will not exceed LOS C.
The intersection of Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17] would require additional queue storage length to prevent spillback into the adjacent through lane. The City of Rancho Mirage has included improvements to this intersection in the 2014 -2015 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Construction is scheduled to start in May 2015 and end in October 2015. These improvements would provide an adequate level of service at this intersection in 2035.
Table 5.14-5
Initial Phase Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOSa
at Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project Existing With Initial Phase Change In Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc
Minor Street
Approach
Move
Delay/
LOS Move
Delay/
LOS Delay LOS
Los Alamos Road at Via Bella [Intersection 8]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF =
0.77]
7.5/A EB 9.4/A 7.5/A EB 10.3/B 0.9 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF =
0.88]
7.4/A EB 9.0/A 7.5/A EB 10.0/B 1.0 No
Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF =
0.82]
9.5/A NB 12.3/B 9.8/A NB 13.0/B 0.7 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF =
0.91]
10.2/B NB 18.0/C 10.5/B NB 19.9/C 1.9 No
Notes:
a. The values shown assume an eight percent truck mix and the intersection geometrics. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed Project but signalized with the project. b. Delay = average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOSD; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32.
c. EB = Eastbound. NB = Northbound. Delay = average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32).
12-763
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-34 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Based on the City performance standard for intersection operations, and the other performance standards identified by Riverside County and nearby cities, the proposed Project would not result insignificant impacts on the operation of the intersections studied.
Table 5.14-6
Initial Phase Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS
at Signalized Intersectionsa
Signalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project Existing With Initial Phase Change In Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Westbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 1] Morning Peak Hour
[PHF=0.87]
15.2 0.32 B 15.3 0.33 B 0.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF=0.91]
19.0 0.41 B 19.4 0.42 B 0.4 No
Bob Hope Drive at Eastbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 2] Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.87]
10.0 0.38 A 9.9 0.39 A -0.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.97]
9.1 0.27 A 8.9 0.28 A -0.2 No
Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.96]
28.7 0.63 C 28.7 0.63 C 0.0 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.90]
24.8 0.52 C 25.0 0.54 C 0.2 No
Rattler Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 4]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.91]
8.8 0.29 A 8.7 0.30 A -0.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
7.3 0.34 A 7.2 0.35 A -0.1 No
Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 5]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.83]
5.0 0.32 A 6.2 0.36 A 1.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.93]
4.2 0.27 A 5.3 0.31 A 1.1 No
Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 6]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
20.6 0.56 C 20.7 0.57 C 0.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.97]
21.2 0.52 C 21.2 0.52 C 0.0 No
Eastbound I-10 Ramps at Ramon Road [Intersection 7]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.88]
3.6 0.48 A 3.6 0.49 A 0.0 No
12-764
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-35 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project Existing With Initial Phase Change In Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.91]
5.2 0.49 A 5.2 0.50 A 0.0 No
Bob Hope Drive at Casino [Intersection 9]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.83]
4.7 0.37 A 4.7 0.37 B 0.0 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.87]
7.0 0.32 A 7.0 0.32 A 0.0 No
Da Vall Drive at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 10]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.83]
27.5 0.64 C 27.8 0.64 C 0.3 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.88]
27.5 0.69 C 27.5 0.69 C 0.0 No
Los Alamos Road at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 11]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.78]
5.7 0.30 A 5.9 0.31 A 0.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.85]
5.2 0.43 A 5.5 0.44 A 0.3 No
Westin Mission Hills at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.90]
5.9 0.29 A 11.0 0.36 B 5.1 A-B
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.91]
6.9 0.41 A 8.6 0.47 A 1.7 No
Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.84]
25.9 0.56 C 26.1 0.58 C 0.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.89]
25.7 0.61 C 26.3 0.64 C 0.6 No
Key Largo Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 15]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
5.1 0.20 A 5.1 0.21 A 0.0 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.92]
5.2 0.26 A 5.2 0.26 A 0.0 No
Monterey Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 16]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
21.8 0.66 C 22.1 0.67 C 0.3 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.95]
30.0 0.82 C 30.6 0.82 C 0.6 No
Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.85]
31.3 0.73 C 31.6 0.74 C 0.3 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.96]
29.2 0.66 C 29.3 0.67 C 0.1 No
12-765
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-36 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project Existing With Initial Phase Change In Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics and an eight percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay (≤ 10 sec./veh. = LOS A; > 10 and ≤ 20 sec./veh. = LOS B; > 20 and ≤ 35 sec./veh. = LOS C; > 35 and ≤ 55 sec./veh. = LOS D; > 55 and ≤ 80 sec./veh. = LOS E; > 80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16.
Existing Conditions Plus Full Project Development (Tribal Planning Areas) Table 5.1 4-7, Full Project Development Weekday Peak -Hour Delay and L OS a t Unsignalized Intersections, and Table 5.1 4.8, Full Project Development Weekday Peak -Hour Delay and LOS at Signalized Intersections, shows the changes that would result from the additional traffic generated by full development of the uses that would be allowed by the Specific Plan as proposed . The addition of traffic from full development of the proposed Project would potential ly impact the unsignalized intersection of Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] . A traffic control signal would be installed in conjunction with the site access connection proposed opposite the existing Westin Resort Villas access on Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] and activated when warranted by site traffic volumes. With traffic signal control, this intersection would operate at LOS A during the mornin g peak hour and maintain LOS C operation during the evening peak hour.
The addition of site traffic associated with full development of the proposed P roject to existing traffic volumes would result in a change in the morning peak hour LOS at two intersections where site access connections are proposed. The eastbound approach at the unsignalized intersection of Los Alamos Road and Via Bella would experience change from LOS A to LOS B with the addition of project traffic . This impact is not significant.
12-766
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-37 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.14-7
Full Project Development Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOSa at Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project
Existing With Full Project
Development Change In
Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc
Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc
Minor Street
Approach
Move
Delay/
LOS Move
Delay/
LOS Delay LOS
Los Alamos Road at Via Bella [Intersection 8]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.77]
7.5/A EB 9.4/A 7.6/A EB 10.3/B 0.9 A-B
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.88]
7.4/A EB 9.0/A 7.8/A EB 11.5/B 2.5 A-B
Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.82]
9.5/A NB 12.3/B NAd NAd NAd NA NA
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.88]
10.2/B NB 18.0/C
NAd NAd NAd NA NA
a. The values shown assume an eight percent truck mix and the intersection geometrics and traffic control. NA = Not Applicable. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the Proposed Project but signalized with the project.
b. Delay = average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOS D; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32.
c. EB = Eastbound. NB = Northbound. Delay = average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32). d. Signal warrants me.
As shown in Table 5.1 4-8, Full Project Development Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS at Signalized Intersections, the addition of traffic from the Project will change the level of service at eight of the intersections studied. All intersections in the City would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service based on the City’s performance standards for intersection operat ions with existing plus full project development traffic volumes and the site access improvements proposed at intersections 8, 9 and 13.
The level of service is projected to drop from LOS C to LOS D at intersections 3, 16, and 17. With the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] all of the intersections studied would provide acceptable levels of service with existing plus full project development volumes and the site access improve ments. Impacts would not be significant for this reason.
12-767
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-38 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.14-8
Full Project Development Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOSa at Signalized Intersections
Signalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project
Existing With Full Project
Development Change In
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Westbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 1] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF=0.86]
15.2 0.32 B 17.6 0.40 B 2.4 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF=0.91]
19.0 0.41 B 28.1 0.80 C 9.1 B-C
Bob Hope Drive at Eastbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 2] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.87]
10.0 0.38 A 9.1 0.46 A -0.9 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.97]
9.1 0.27 A 5.8 0.47 A -3.3 No
Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.96]
28.7 0.63 C 29.2 0.67 C 0.5 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.90]
24.8 0.52 C 35.2 0.87 D 10.4 C-D
Rattler Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 4]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.91]
8.8 0.29 A 8.2 0.33 A -0.6 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.86]
7.3 0.34 A 6.6 0.52 A -0.7 No
Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 5]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.83]
5.0 0.32 A 7.1 0.43 A 2.1 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.93]
4.2 0.27 A 10.6 0.58 B 6.4 A-B
Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 6]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.86]
20.6 0.56 C 21.4 0.65 C 0.8 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.97]
21.2 0.52 C 29.7 0.87 C 8.5 No
Eastbound I-10 Ramps at Ramon Road [Intersection 7]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.88]
3.6 0.48 A 3.8 0.57 A 0.2 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.91]
5.2 0.49 A 11.0 0.88 B 5.8 A-B
12-768
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-39 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project
Existing With Full Project
Development Change In
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Casino [Intersection 9]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.83]
4.7 0.37 A 22.3 0.68 C 17.6 A-C
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.87]
7.5 0.43 A 50.1 0.92 D 42.6 A-D
Da Vall Drive at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 10]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.83]
27.5 0.64 C 28.9 0.68 C 1.4 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.88]
27.5 0.69 C 34.2 0.70 C 6.7 No
Los Alamos Road at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 11]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.78]
5.7 0.30 A 6.9 0.36 A 1.2 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.85]
5.2 0.43 A 10.0 0.64 B 4.8 A-B
Westin Mission Hills at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.90]
5.9 0.29 A 7.1 0.34 A 1.2 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.91]
6.9 0.41 A 7.9 0.52 A 1.0 No
Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF =0.82]
NAb NAb NAb 7.1 0.33 A NA NA
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.91]
NAb NAb NAb 20.3 0.76 C NA NA
Bob Hope Drive at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.84]
25.9 0.56 C 26.4 0.64 C 0.5 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.89]
25.7 0.61 C 31.8 0.84 C 6.1 No
Key Largo Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 15]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.86]
5.1 0.20 A 4.9 0.23 A -0.2 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.92]
5.2 0.26 A 5.7 0.37 A 0.5 No
Monterey Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 16]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.86]
21.8 0.66 C 23.3 0.71 C 1.5 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.95]
30.0 0.82 C 41.9 0.93 D 11.9 C-D
12-769
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-40 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Existing Without Project
Existing With Full Project
Development Change In
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.85]
31.3 0.73 C 33.3 0.79 C 2.0 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.96]
29.2 0.66 C 36.1 0.85 D 6.9 C-D
a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes intersection geometrics and a five percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS was determined from the delay (≤ 10 sec./veh. = LOS A; > 10 and ≤ 20 sec./veh. = LOS B; > 20 and ≤ 35 sec./veh. = LOS C; > 35 and ≤ 55 sec./veh. = LOS D; > 55 and ≤ 80 sec./veh. = LOS E; > 80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16. NA = Not Applicable. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable when an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed Project but signalized and improved with the Project
b. Unsignalized (See Table 5.14-5).
Future (Year 2022) Traffic Conditions with Initial Phase (Active Adult Community) Future traffic conditions in 2022 were projected to allow for identification of the impacts of development of the initial phase of the Project, the Active Adult Community in Planning Area 8. Table
5.14-9, Future (Year 2022) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS at Unsignalized Intersections Conditions and Table 5.1 4-10, Future ( Year 2022 ) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS Summary a t Signalized Intersections, show projected traffic conditions without and with the addition of traffic from the Active Adult Community . As shown, a ll intersections will operate at acceptable levels or service in the year 2022 and the initial phase of the Project will not result in any significant impacts.
12-770
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-41 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.14-9
Future (Year 2022) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOSa
at Unsignalized Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersection
Year 2022 Without Project Year 2022 With Initial Phase Change In Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc
Minor Street
Approach
Move Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay LOS
Los Alamos Road at Via Bella [Intersection 8]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.77]
7.7/A EB 10.3/B 7.7/A EB 11.3/B 1.0 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.88]
7.5/A EB 9.5/A 7.7/A EB 10.6/B 1.1 A-B
Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 13] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.82]
9.6/A NB 12.5/B 10.0/A NB 13.2/B 0.7 No
Evening Peak
Hour [PHF = 0.88]
10.4/B NB 19.8/C 10.7/B NB 22.1/C 2.3 No
a. The values shown assume an eight percent truck mix. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed Project but signalized with the project. b. Delay = average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOS D; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec./veh. = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32
c. EB = Eastbound. NB = Northbound. Delay = average approach control delay (second vehicle) for the minor street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32).
Table 5.14-10
Future (Year 2022) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS
at Signalized Intersections
Signalized
Intersection
Year 2022 Without Project Year 2022 With Initial Phase Change In Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Westbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 1] Morning Peak Hour
[PHF=0.86]
16.1 0.45 B 16.6 0.45 B 0.5 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF=0.91]
20.5 0.56 C 20.7 0.57 C 0.2 No
Bob Hope Drive at Eastbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 2] Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.87]
10.5 0.48 B 10.5 0.49 B 0.0 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.97]
8.5 0.38 A 8.4 0.39 A -0.1 No
12-771
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-42 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Year 2022 Without Project Year 2022 With Initial Phase Change In Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.96]
36.5 0.83 D 37.4 0.84 D 0.9 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.90]
28.0 0.71 C 28.4 0.72 C 0.4 No
Rattler Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 4]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.91]
9.1 0.40 A 9.1 0.41 A 0.0 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
8.2 0.48 A 8.2 0.49 A 0.0 No
Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 5]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.83]
6.3 0.47 A 7.1 0.51 A 0.8 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.93]
4.8 0.39 A 6.1 0.41 A 1.3 No
Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 6]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
22.7 0.73 C 23.0 0.74 C 0.3 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.97]
23.0 0.68 C 23.3 0.68 C 0.3 No
Eastbound I-10 Ramps at Ramon Road [Intersection 7]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.88]
4.3 0.59 A 4.4 0.60 A 0.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.91]
5.9 0.60 A 5.9 0.61 A 0.0 No
Bob Hope Drive at Casino [Intersection 9]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.83]
4.7 0.49 A 4.7 0.49 A 0.0 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.87]
6.9 0.41 A 6.9 0.41 A 0.0 No
Da Vall Drive at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 10]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.83]
29.3 0.70 C 29.9 0.71 C 0.6 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.88]
30.0 0.76 C 30.0 0.76 C 0.0 No
Los Alamos Road at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 11]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.78]
6.7 0.37 A 6.9 0.38 A 0.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.85]
6.0 0.52 A 6.2 0.54 A 0.2 No
Westin Mission Hills at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.90]
6.1 0.34 A 10.7 0.40 B 4.6 A-B
12-772
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-43 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Year 2022 Without Project Year 2022 With Initial Phase Change In Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./
Veh.) LOS
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.91]
7.7 0.49 A 8.8 0.53 A 1.1 No
Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.84]
27.2 0.67 C 27.7 0.70 C 0.5 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.89]
26.4 0.65 C 27.0 0.66 C 0.6 No
Key Largo Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 15]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
5.1 0.26 A 5.1 0.27 A 0.0 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.92]
5.6 0.33 A 5.7 0.34 A 0.1 No
Monterey Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 16]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.86]
21.6 0.67 C 21.8 0.68 C 0.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.95]
33.2 0.87 C 33.8 0.88 C 0.6 No
Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17]
Morning Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.85]
38.9 0.83 D 40.0 0.84 D 1.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 0.96]
33.4 0.79 C 33.8 0.80 C 0.4 No
a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay ≤10 sec./veh. = LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh. = LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh. = LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh. = LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh. = LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16.
Future (Year 2035) Traffic Conditions with Full Project Development Future projected traffic conditions in 2035 were analyzed to allow for identification of the impacts of full development of the proposed Project. F uture year 2035 conditions without and with the addition of traffic from the Project are presented in Table 5.14-11, Future (Year 2035) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS at Unsignalized Site Access Intersections and Table 5.1 4-12, Future ( Year 2035 ) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS at Signalized Intersections. As discussed above, additional improvements to the intersection of Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Driv e [ Intersection 17] are needed to maintain an acceptable level of service. The City will be constructing these improvements in 2015 and with these improvements, this intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service in 2035.
12-773
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-44 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.14-11
Future (Year 2035) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOSa
at Unsignalized Site Access Intersections
Unsignalized
Intersection
Year 2035 Without Project
Year 2035 With Full Project
Development Change In
Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc Major
Street Left
Turnb
Delay/LOS
Minor Street
Approachc
Minor Street
Approach
Move Delay/LOS Move Delay/LOS Delay LOS
Los Alamos Road at Via Bella [Intersection 8]
Morning
Peak Hour
7.7/A EB 10.2/B 7.8/A EB 11.0/B 0.8 No
Evening Peak
Hour
7.5/A EB 9.7/A 7.9/A EB 12.3/B 2.6 A-B
Los Alamos Road at Multi-Family Residential Access [Intersection 22] Morning
Peak Hour
N/Ad N/Ad N/Ad 7.7/A WB 10.0/A N/A N/A
Evening Peak
Hour
N/Ad N/Ad N/Ad 8.0/A WB 10.5/B N/A N/A
Los Alamos Road at Retail Access [Intersection 23]
Morning
Peak Hour
N/Ad N/Ad N/Ad 7.8/A WB 10.0/B N/A N/A
Evening Peak
Hour
N/Ad N/Ad N/Ad 8.3/A WB 12.6/B N/A N/A
a. The values shown assume a five percent truck mix, a peak hour factor of 1.00. N/A = Not Applicable. The change in delay and LOS associated with site traffic is not directly comparable if an intersection is unsignalized without the proposed Project but signalized with the project.
b. Delay = average control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the left-turn move from the major street onto the minor street. LOS was determined from the delay (0-10 sec./veh. = LOS A; 10-15 sec./veh. = LOS B; 15-25 sec./veh. = LOS C; 25-35 sec./veh. = LOS D; 35-50 sec./veh. = LOS E; 50+ sec/veh = LOS F) per HCM 2000 page 17-2 and 17-32. Intersection 22 has an average control delay that rounds up to 10.0 seconds per vehicle (LOS A) whereas intersection 22 has slightly more than 10.0 but less than 10.1 seconds per vehicle of delay, which corresponds to LOS B. c. EB = Eastbound. WB = Westbound. Delay = average approach control delay (seconds/vehicle) for the minor-street approach that exhibits the most delay at this intersection. LOS was determined per the HCM 2000 (page 17-2 and 17-32). d. This intersection would not exist.
Table 5.14-12
Future (Year 2035) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOSa
at Signalized Intersections
Signalized
Intersection
Year 2035 Without Project
Year 2035 With Full Project
Development Change In
Delay
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./Veh.) LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Westbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 1] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
15.4 0.45 B 17.6 0.50 B 2.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
20.0 0.56 C 35.8 0.91 D 15.8 C-D
12-774
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-45 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Year 2035 Without Project
Year 2035 With Full Project
Development Change In
Delay
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./Veh.) LOS
Bob Hope Drive at Eastbound I-10 Ramps [Intersection 2] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
10.8 0.39 B 10.6 0.46 B -0.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
8.9 0.37 A 7.0 0.57 A -1.9 No
Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3] b
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
41.0 0.90 D 47.7 0.95 D 6.7 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
27.0 0.70 C 40.5 0.93 D 13.5 C-D
Rattler Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 4]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
8.7 0.40 A 9.1 0.44 A 0.4 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
7.3 0.47 A 7.5 0.62 A 0.2 No
Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road [Intersection 5]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
6.0 0.42 A 7.3 0.52 A 1.3 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
4.9 0.41 A 11.5 0.69 B 6.6 A-B
Bob Hope Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 6]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
21.1 0.62 C 21.9 0.69 C 0.8 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
22.5 0.63 C 37.6 0.85 D 15.1 C-D
Eastbound I-10 Ramps at Ramon Road [Intersection 7]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
3.4 0.48 A 3.6 0.56 A 0.2 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
5.1 0.51 A 9.2 0.85 A 4.1 No
Bob Hope Drive at Casino [Intersection 9]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
12.8 0.47 B 15.9 0.59 B 3.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
12.2 0.37 B 30.7 0.83 C 18.7 B-C
Da Vall Drive at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 10]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
26.4 0.58 C 27.2 0.62 C 0.8 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
27.6 0.66 C 31.6 0.79 C 4.0 No
Los Alamos Road at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 11]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
6.4 0.30 A 7.2 0.34 A 0.8 No
12-775
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-46 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized
Intersection
Year 2035 Without Project
Year 2035 With Full Project
Development Change In
Delay
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C LOS
Delay
(Sec./Veh.) LOS
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
5.6 0.46 A 9.7 0.63 A 4.1 No
Westin Mission Hills at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12] Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
5.9 0.28 A 6.8 0.31 A 0.9 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
7.3 0.43 A 7.8 0.51 A 0.5 No
Westin Resort Villas at Dinah Shore [Intersection 13]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
5.1 0.24 A 6.7 0.29 A 1.6 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
6.0 0.36 A 17.0 0.65 B 11.0 A-B
Bob Hope Drive @ Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 14]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
23.1 0.54 C 25.5 0.58 C 2.4 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
25.9 0.63 C 30.9 0.82 C 5.0 No
Key Largo Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 15]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
10.2 0.35 B 9.9 0.37 A -0.3 B-A
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
13.5 0.56 B 13.9 0.66 B 0.4 No
Monterey Ave at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 16]
Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
20.1 0.58 C 21.2 0.61 C 1.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
33.5 0.83 C 41.0 0.93 D 7.5 C-D
Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17] c d Morning Peak
Hour [PHF = 1.00]
35.5 0.80 D 38.6 0.84 D 3.1 No
Evening Peak Hour
[PHF = 1.00]
31.7 0.76 C 41.0 0.90 D 9.3 C-D
a. Delay = Intersection Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operation methodology implemented by the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+ Version 5.3). LOS is the intersection level of service. LOS was determined from the delay ≤10 sec./veh. = LOS A; >10 and ≤20 sec./veh. = LOS B; >20 and ≤35 sec./veh. = LOS C; >35 and ≤55 sec./veh. = LOS D; >55 and ≤80 sec./veh. = LOS E; >80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per 2000 HCM page 10-16. b. Add second southbound left-turn lane
c. Add a second eastbound left-turn lane
d. The mitigation identified for intersection 17 to maintain LOS D or better operation was assumed both with and without site traffic to show the change in the delay and LOS associated with site traffic.
As shown in Table 5.1 4-12, the site traffic associated with full Project development is projected to change the evening peak hour LOS at nine of the key intersections evaluated by one level of service. Five 12-776
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-47 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
of these intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better without mitigation. Two of these intersections, Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road [Intersection 3] and Bob Hope Drive at Gerald Ford Drive [Intersection 17] are projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service. The remaining intersections would be improved with the development of the proposed Project to accommodate site access and these improvements would result in an acceptable level of service.
As shown in Table 5.1 4-12, the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Gerald Ford Drive is projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service in 2035 . The eastbound left -turn volume on Gerald Ford Drive at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive will require additional queue storage length in the future.
The City has approved and funded improvements to this intersection planned for completion in 2015.
The planned improvements will provide dual left -turn lanes and a dedicated right -turn lane on all four approaches at this intersection, which will ensure an adequate level of service is maintained. The Project will not result in a significant impact at this intersection for this reason.
The intersection of Da Vall Drive at Ramon Road is also projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service in 2035 and additional improvements will be needed to maintain an acceptable level of service.
The eastern side of Da Vall Drive has been improved, between Ramon Road and a point just north of Via Del Paradiso, to provide approximately 35 feet of pavement with curbs, gutters, and a multi- use trail.
The two existing southbound lanes on Da Vall Drive at this intersection include a dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through/right -turn lane. O ne additional southbound left -turn lane will be required on Da Vall Drive, at the intersection of Ramon Road, to accommodate the projected fu ture year 2035 traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service.
Both Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive are included in the Regional Arterial Program and eligible for Measure A and TUMF funds for these improvements. Future improvements to Da Vall Drive are identified in CVAG Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS). While not currently identified for funding, these improvements would be funded in the future when needed to maintain an acceptable level of service.
Future Site Access Intersections
All of the future proposed full -turn site access intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed improvements and full development of the uses that would be allowed by the proposed Specific Plan. Future conditions at the three unsignalized site access intersections along Los Alamos Road [Intersections 8, 22, and 23] are shown in Table 5.1 4-11. As shown , these three unsignalized site access intersections would provide LOS B or better operation for motorists o n the minor-street approaches.
12-777
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-48 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Future conditions at the three signalized site access intersections proposed opposite the existing T- intersections on Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive [Intersections 9, 12, and 13] are shown in Table
5.14-12. Signalized full-turn site access connections are proposed at 0.25 -mile spacing intervals along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive. Full -turn site access connections along Dinah Shore Drive are proposed opposite the existing signalized intersection providing acc ess for the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort and Spa (1,780 feet east of Los Alamos Road) as well as opposite the unsignalized access for the Westin Resort Villas (1,220 feet west of Bob Hope Drive). With site traffic, the peak hour traffic signal warrants would be met and new traffic control signals would be installed at the se intersections concurrent with development.
Table 5.1 4-13, Future ( Year 2035) Weekday Peak -Hour Delay and LOS at Signalized Site Access Intersections, shows the projected overall intersection average delay and levels of service during the peak hours at the proposed future full -turn signalized site access intersections along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive [Intersections 18, 19, 20, and 21]. As shown, all four of the intersections proposed along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the peak hours in the future year 2035 with the traffic volumes generated by full development of the Project. During the peak hours the levels of service at these site access intersections are projected to be LOS C or better.
Table 5.14-13
Future (Year 2035) Weekday Peak-Hour Delay and LOS
at Signalized Site Access Intersections
Signalized Intersection
Avg. Delaya
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C Ratio LOSb
Street “C” at Ramon Road [Intersection 18]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 5.0 0.44 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 17.1 0.81 B
Street “D” at Ramon Road [Intersection 19]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 5.6 0.47 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 28.2 0.93 C
Bob Hope Drive at Street “D” [Intersection 20]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 6.8 0.51 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 16.7 0.78 B
Bob Hope Drive at Street “E” [Intersection 21]
Morning Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 6.4 0.53 A
Evening Peak Hour [PHF = 1.00] 11.2 0.69 B
a. Average Delay = Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle). Assumes existing intersection geometrics and a five percent truck mix. Based upon the Highway Capacity Manual signalized operational methodology implemented by Version 5.3 of the Highway Capacity Software (HCS+). PHF is the peak hour factor specified in the Riverside County Transportation Department Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide (2008).
12-778
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-49 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Signalized Intersection
Avg. Delaya
(Sec./Veh.)
Critical
V/C Ratio LOSb
b. LOS is the intersection level of service. The LOS was determined from the delay (≤10 sec./veh. = LOS A; >10 and ≤20./veh. = LOS B; >20 and ≤ 35 sec./veh. = LOS C; > 35 and ≤ 55 sec./veh. = LOS D; > 55 and ≤ 80 sec./veh. = LOS E; > 80 sec./veh. = LOS F) per page 10-16 of the HCM.
As demonstrated above, all intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS under each development scenario. Additionally, the Project street system would be designed and constructed to maximize mobility, minimize congestion, and assure that all intersections operate at LOS or better during peak hours of traffic, as generated by the full project development of the proposed Project.
Would the Project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestio n management agency for designated roads or highways?
The CMP identifies LOS E as the minimum level of service standard for intersections and roadways segments within the CMP System of Highways and Roadways, including Ramon Road and Monterey Avenue. The City of Rancho Mirage and the City of Cathedral City have identified Level of Service D as the minimum performance standard for the circulation network, based upon peak hour intersection operation. Both cities experience seasonal variations in traffic demand , which must be addressed in maintaining LOS D. For peak operating periods, LOS D and/or a maximum volume -to-capacity ratio of
0.90 is provisionally considered the generally acceptable service level by the City of Palm Desert, provided the target LOS “C” g oal is only exceeded where maximum feasible intersection improvements have been implemented . As shown in Tables 5.1 4-5 through 5.14-13, all intersections studies along these roadways would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) under existing and future (Year 2022) conditions . Maximum feasible improvements have been implemented for those intersections under the City of Palm Desert performance standard.
Additionally, the proposed Project will pay the CVAG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) , or an in-lieu fee equal to TUMF, which is the major source of regional roadway improvement fees in the Coachella Valley. The TUMF is a traffic mitigation fee program developed to ensure that fair- share contribution is made to future roadway infrastructure improvements of area -wide benefit prior to the issuance of building permits that results in a change of use and generates additional vehicular trips.
Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Palm Springs International Airport is the largest of the three airports serving the Coachella Valley. The airport is located approximately 3.6 miles west of the Project Site, within the City of Palm Springs. This 12-779
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-50 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
commercial airport is located north of Ramon Road and south of Vista Chino, between Gene Autry Trail and Farrell Drive. Air traffic patterns would not result in any safety risks to the project.
Would the Project substantially i ncrease hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? One of the objectives of the proposed Specific Plan is to design a street system that maximizes mobility, minimizes congestion, and assure s that all intersections and street segments operate at LOS “D” or better during the peak hours of traffic . The number of access points and intersections along arterials is limited in order to preserve mid-block and intersection capacities and to maintain public safety.
Initial Phase (Active Adult Community) Access
The initial phase of development would include the development of up to 1,200 single -family homes for active adults within Planning Area 8. The initial phase would be accessed via full-turn access connections proposed opposite two existing T -type intersections: Los Alamos Road at Via Bella [Intersection 8], and the Westin Mission Hills Access at Dinah Shore Drive [Intersection 12]. Ultimately, a third access to Planning Area 8 would be provided by the extension of Casino Road, from Bob Hope Drive to Plannin g Area 8.
The timing of the construction of Casino Road on -site, between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive, is currently unknown. The extension of Casino Road to Planning Area 8 may not occur until adjacent land within Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, and/or 5 is developed. Therefore, evaluations of the traffic impacts associated with the completion of the initial phase of development assumed that Casino Road would not be constructed between Planning Area 8 and Bob Hope Drive by the year 2022.
Access Plan to Support Development Upon Project Completion The site access plan proposed to support full development within the Project Site would include two existing signalized intersections (Intersection 9 and 12). Five future signalized full- turn site access intersections (Intersections 13, 18, 19, 20, and 21) are proposed. Three unsignalized full -turn site access intersections (Intersections 8, 22, and 23) along Los Alamos Road would serve site traffic. Seven future right-in/right-out site access connections are proposed in conjunction with the p roposed Project, three on Ramon Road, three on Bob Hope Drive, and one on Dinah Shore Drive. All of these right -in/right-out site access points would all be associated with phases of site development after the initial phase is completed.
12-780
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-51 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The two future signalized full-turn site access intersections proposed on Ramon Road, between Los Alamos Road and Bob Hope Drive, (Intersections 18 and 19) would be located opposite the future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 13 Specific Plan to the north.
The two future signalized full- turn site access intersections proposed on Bob Hope Drive, between Casino Road and Dinah Shore Drive, (Intersection 20 and 21) would be located opposite future access intersections associated with the adopted City of Rancho Mirage Section 19 Specific Plan to the east.
The site access points in the Section 24 Specific plan were located and designed in accordance with accepted planning principles and current traffic engineering practices. The site access and internal circulation plan would control access to more efficiently serve the mobility needs of through traffic on the adjacent arterial roadways as well as site access needs. The right -turn only access points would distribute the site traffic more evenly along key mobility corridors. The internal circulation plan is designed to provide cross -parcel connections to encourage site traffic to utilize the internal roadways for internal trip making.
The site access plan would maintain adequate spacing from adjacent street and driveway intersections for the primary signalized access points along the perimeter of the Project. The Riverside County access standards by corridor classification specify the use of one -quarter mile (1,320-foot) intersection spacing along Urban Arterials and Arterial Highways.
3 The signalized site access intersections proposed to serve the project would be located at one quarter -mile spacing intervals along Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive, consistent with the Riverside County standards.
Adequate inbound and outbound capacity shall be provided to accommodate the site traffic volumes.
The proposed traffic control type at the site access intersections appears to be appropriate. The proposed site access plan incorpo rates joint access (the sharing of a driveway access point by two or more Planning Areas), which is a desirable and effective means of minimizing the adverse impacts of site access connections on adjacent streets.
Right-In/Right-Out Access Connections
The proposed right -in/right-out access connections were designated by letter in clockwise order, beginning at the northwest corner of the site. Access A through Access C are proposed from west to east along Ramon Road to serve Planning Areas 1A, 2A, and 3 respectively. Access D through Access F are proposed from north to south along Bob Hope Drive to serve Planning Areas 4, 6A, and 7A respectively.
Access G is proposed on Dinah Shore Drive, west of Bob Hope Drive, to serve Planning Area 7A.
3 County of Riverside, General Plan, “Circulation Plan,” Table C-1. 12-781
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-52 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Access to Ramon Road
The proposed site access plan for Ramon Road would include the use of the existing signalized intersection of Los Alamos Road with Ramon Road [Intersection 5] to accommodate site traffic destined to and from Planning Areas 1A, 1B and 8. A future signalize d full-turn site access would be constructed on the south side of Ramon Road, one -quarter mile east of Los Alamos Road, at Street “C” [Intersection 18] to serve both the Resort uses in Planning Area 1 and the most intense Mixed Use Core uses proposed in Pl anning Area 2. A future signalized full- turn site access would also be constructed on the south side of Ramon Road, one -quarter mile west of Bob Hope Drive, at Street “D” [Intersection 19] to serve both the more intense Mixed Use Core uses in Planning Area 2 and the Retail uses in Planning Area
3. Street “D” would be improved within the Project Site as a four-lane divided Minor Arterial Roadway with a raised landscape median (16 feet in width) within a 110 - foot right-of-way. Sidewalks (5-feet in width) and bicycle lanes (5-feet in width) would be incorporated on both sides of this roadway.
Access to Bob Hope Drive
The proposed access along Bob Hope Drive would include the full improvement of the fourth intersection leg at the existing signalized intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Casino (Intersection 9). This intersection currently has signal mast arms and signal heads on all four approaches. The westerly extension of Casino Road would provide a direct and convenient route to and from the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa for all transportation modes. It would also substantially reduce the volume of site traffic turning right onto and left across Ramon Road, west of Bob Hope Drive.
Two future signalized full-turn intersections are proposed at one -quarter-mile intervals along Bob Hope Drive, between the existing signalized intersections at Dinah Shore Drive and at Casino. The future intersection of Bob Hope Drive with Street “D” (Intersection 20) woul d connect the proposed internal boulevard through the Project Site from Ramon Road to Bob Hope Drive. Intersection 20 would be located opposite the street proposed to serve the Section 19 Specific Plan area (east of Bob Hope Drive).
The future intersection proposed at Street “E” (Intersection 21) would be located between Planning Areas 6 and 7, opposite the future access proposed to serve the Section 19 Specific Plan area to the east.
Access to Dinah Shore Drive
The existing signalized intersection of Los A lamos Road with Dinah Shore Drive (Intersection 11) is located on the southwest corner of the initial phase of the Section 24 Specific Plan. The primary gated entry for the initial phase of development would be located approximately 1,770 feet east of Los Alamos Road, opposite the existing signalized access on Dinah Shore Drive associated with the Westin Mission 12-782
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-53 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Hills Golf Resort (Intersection 12). This access would require the construction of a north leg at the existing intersection and the modification of the existing traffic control signals.
The future access for Planning Area 7B would be located approximately 1,220 feet west of Bob Hope Drive, opposite the existing unsignalized access on Dinah Shore Drive associated with the Westin Mission Hills Resort Villas (Intersection 13). The ultimate site traffic volumes at this intersection are expected to meet traffic signal warrants. Traffic signal control would be constructed at this intersection in conjunction with the proposed site access improvements. This signalized intersection would be approximately 2,300 feet east of the signalized Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort access (Intersection 12).
Access to Los Alamos Road
The proposed Project would take access to Los Alamos Road at three proposed unsignalized full-turn site access intersections. The initial phase of the proposed Project would take access to Los Alamos Road opposite Via Bella at the existing unsignalized intersection [Intersection 8]. This intersection is located approximately 1,430 feet south of Ramon Road and 3,860 feet north of Dinah Shore Drive. It would be two-way stop controlled in the future.
Subsequent phases of development would take access to Los Alamos Road for the multi -family residential land uses proposed within Planning Area 1B via S treet “A” [Intersection 22]. This future site access connection on Los Alamos Road is not expected to accommodate sufficient future traffic volumes to warrant traffic control signals. The proposed Resort uses within Planning Area 1 would take access to Los Alamos Road via Street “B” [Intersection 23]. This intersection is also expected to be two -way stop controlled.
Street “D” (Proposed Internal Boulevard)
Street “D” would provide two travel lanes in each direction, separated by a raised landscape median 16 feet in width within a 110 -foot right-of-way. This internal multi-modal corridor would extend from its signalized intersection with Ramon Road to its signalized intersection with Bob Hope Drive. It would be aligned with Planning Areas 3 and 4 to the east and Planning Areas 2, 5 and 6 to the west. The alignment would facilitate the phased construction of various Planning Areas within the Specific Plan without interrupting access to the initial phase or previous phases of the development.
Street “D” would be accessible to automobiles, service vehicles, emergency vehicles, NEVs, and neighborhood circulator vehicles. This boulevard would provide seven -foot wide landscaped buffers with Palo Verde trees between the adjacent development areas and five- foot sidewalks proposed on both sides of the roadbed. A 5-foot-wide sidewalk and a Class II Bicycle Lane would be provided on each side of Street “D,” separated from the travel lanes by a 2-foot buffer. 12-783
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-54 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Site Access Spacing on Los Alamos Road
The Project includes two access intersections along Los Alamos Road within a distance of approximately 1,430 feet between Ramon Road [Intersection 5] and Via Bella [Intersection 8]. If the two access locations are evenly spaced, Intersection 22 and Intersection 23 wo uld be approximately 475 feet apart.
Driveway spacing is tied to the posted speed limit along arterials as well as the separation between the proposed access connections and adjacent roadway intersections.
Criteria used for the spacing of unsignalized access points include: (1) the distance from an intersection to the nearest driveway (corner clearance); and (2) the distance between driveways. Adequate corner clearance avoids conflicts between driveway traffic and vehicles stacking or turning at adjacent roadway intersections. The 95th-percentile back-of-queue length for the northbound left -turn movement on Los Alamos Road at Ramon Road is projected to be 12 car lengths (300 feet) during the evening peak hour in the year 2035 with site traffic. Therefore, if Street “B” intersects Los Alamos at least 300 feet south of Ramon Road, it will be outside the functional area of the adjacent intersection and provide adequate corner clearance.
The minimum standard for access spacing is frequently the same as for stopping sight distance. For example, a 35 mph roadway would require a minimum of 250 feet between site access points. This access spacing allows drivers on roadway where site access in being proposed to be prepared for entering and exiting vehicles at each site access point.
The current posted speed limit on Los Alamos Road is 50 mph. With a posted speed of 50 mph, the stopping sight distance would be 425 feet , and the intersection sight distance would 590 feet.
Therefore, the minimum separation between the site access points would be the stopping sight distance of 425 feet. D esirable intersection spacing would be equal to the intersection sight distance of 590 feet for a passenger car making a left turn onto Los Alamos Road from a stop. When Los Alamos Road is fully improved, it will likely have a lower posted speed limit. With a lower posted speed of 45 mph, the stopping sight distance would 360 feet and the intersection sight distance would 530 feet. The site access spacing along Los Alamos Road, between Via Bella and Ramon Road, should reflect the minimum stopping sight distance, based on the speed of the vehicles on Los Alamos Road. Clear sight triangles should be provided and maintained at each of the proposed site access intersections along Los Alamos Road.
Would the Project provide adequate parking?
The various uses proposed within the Project Site will be required to meet the parking standards specified in Table 5.14-14, Parking Standards , and the amount of parking will vary depending on the 12-784
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-55 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
number of units proposed and square footage of the non- residential uses. Parking may be provided through a combination of surface parking and/or parking structures, and there will be opportunities for shared parking among different land uses.
Shared parking can reduce th e amount of land needed for parking, creating opportunities for more compact development, more space for pedestrian circulation, and more open space and landscaping.
Shared parking analyses establish that as different land uses peak at different times, together these land uses do not need their maximum parking supply at the same time. Planning for each land use individually would result in an over- supply of parking in a location where there is a combination of land uses. Therefore, within the Project Site, there is the potential to share a pool of parking that is smaller than the amount that would be required for each land use individually.
However, because shared parking reductions depend on the specific type and size of land uses within a project, the specific parking demand ratio for each land use requires further study involving the specific type of land use and peak-hour demand. Therefore, a more specific shared parking analysis approved by the Tribal Council may be completed for projects proposed within the Project Site. As part of each study, the applicant will have to demonstrate that the proposed uses have different peak hours of parking demand or that the total parking demand at any one time will be adequately served by the total number of parking spaces provided.
Table 5.14-14
Parking Standards
Topic Standard Notes
Commercial and Office
General retail 3.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Family restaurant 10.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Fast food restaurant 15.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Casual and fine dining 18.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Active Adult Community
Club House
5.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
General office 3.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
for first 5,000 sq. ft.
Parking decreases to 2.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA for
additional sq. ft.
Medical office 4.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
for first 5,000 sq. ft.
Hotel
Hotel 1.1 per room Plus required spaces for ancillary uses Restaurant/lounge 10.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 6-foot maximum Meeting area/banquet
room
30.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Parking standard refers to “gross assembly or viewing area”
12-785
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-56 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Topic Standard Notes
Convention center 20.0 per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA
Residential
Multifamily 0-1 1.50 per unit All spaces must be enclosed in a garage or carport Multifamily 2+ bedroom 1.75 per unit All spaces must be enclosed in a garage or carport Single Family 2.00 per unit All spaces must be enclosed in a garage Guest spaces 0.15 – 0.25 per unit 0.15 multifamily/0.25 single family spaces may be uncovered
Structured Parking
Landscaping 50% coverage of visible
concrete surfaces
Parking structure facades shall achieve 50 percent
coverage of visible concrete surfaces with
landscaping. Coverage can be achieved through
measures such as planters along the visible edge of
the structure planted or through a vertical trellis
planted at the parking level, or by other means.
Bicycle Parking
Bicycle Parking 2 racks per project that
requires 40 or more non-
residential parking spaces
For any development that requires 40-80 non-
residential parking spaces, 1 rack that can support 2
bicycles shall be provided. For any development that
requires more than 80 non-residential parking spaces,
1 rack that can support 4 bicycles or 2 racks that can
support two bicycles shall be provided.
Alternative Vehicle Parking and Carpooling
Golf cart or neighborhood
electric vehicle parking
1 dedicated space for 0-
25 residential units; 2
dedicated spaces for 26-
50 residential units; 3
dedicated spaces for 51-
100 residential units; 4
dedicated spaces for 101
or more residential units
Parking shall be provided in a central location
accessible to the residential units. Parking stalls shall be covered to shield the vehicles from sun and
weather. The parking area shall also function as a
recharging station by providing electric vehicle ports.
As an alternative, projects may provide these spaces
within an enclosed garage as part of an individual
unit, so long as the space is in addition to the area
needed to accommodate the standard parking spaces.
Electric vehicle charging
station
1 charging station for
every application for
100,000 or more square
feet of non-residential
development.
The charging station shall be installed and function
prior to the issuance of final building permits for half of the proposed square footage. The charging station
location shall be as close as feasible to majority of the building entrances.
Carpool Parking Three percent of parking
spaces shall be set aside
exclusively for carpools
This requirement applies only to general or medical
office buildings with a GLA greater than 20,000 square
feet. Fractional requirements shall be rounded down
to the nearest whole number.
Parking Dimensions
Parking for non-residential use Parking for residential use 90 degree parking stall 9 feet x 18 feet 90 or 45 degree parking stall 9 feet x 18 feet 45 degree parking stall 9 feet x 19 feet Parallel degree parking stall 8 feet x 22 feet Parallel degree parking
stall
9 feet x 26 feet
12-786
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-57 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Topic Standard Notes
Parking for alternative vehicle use
90 or 45 degree parking
stall
8 feet x 16 feet
Parallel parking stall 8 feet x 20 feet
Notes: sq. ft. = square foot; GLA = gross leasable area
Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety such facilities?
Residents of Rancho Mirage use golf carts for more than transportation on individual golf courses. Golf carts are used for access between residences and the golf courses in adjacent neighborhoods. They are also used for local trips made between residences and commercial and medical facilities, the City Hall, and golf cart paths in adjoining cities. Refer to Figure 3.0 -8, Conceptual Pedestrian and Alternative Vehicle Circulation Plan, for the Specific Plan’s existing and future non -motorized circulation system.
Future sidewalk/bikeway/golf cart paths are planned on the perimeter of the Project Site (along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Los Alamos Road) that would link with the integrated system being developed throughout the Study Area.
The County of Riverside has pedestrian and multi-purpose trails that accommodate hikers and others as an integral part of the circulation system. These trails connect communities and activity centers and also provide recreational and leisure opportunities.
The City encourages pedestrian and non- motorized transportation by making provisions for sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi -use trails within roadway designs and rights -of-way. Alternative transportation corridors enhance and provide a range of mobility options for residents and visitors. The City encourages developments to consider pedestrian safety and accommodate safe routes that are clearly marked and striped. They should be designed as one -way routes to flow in the same direction as the adjacent automobile traffic. Combination sidewalk/bikeway/golf cart paths require a minimum eight-foot width.
The Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right -of-Way require that when new pedestrian facilities are planned in the United States, they must be accessible and usable by persons with disabilities (including physical, visual, hearing or cognitive impairments). 4 This includes provisions
4 United States Access Board, Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right -of-Way; Shared Use Paths, 2013. (36 CFR Part 1190)
12-787
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-58 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
for curb ramps and sidewalks where appropriate. These guidelines consider pedestrian facilities to include sidewalks, shared-use paths, shared streets, and off-road paths.
In accommodating pedestrians with disabilities, auditory, tactile, and kinesthetic information may be required to aid pedestrian movements at intersections and mid -block crossing locations. Treatm ents may include accessible pedestrian signals, audible signals, and other wayfinding cues. Ramps rather than stairs, curbs, or raised channelizing islands can enhance the mobility of people with disabilities including pedestrians with visual impairments.
No significant impacts would occur as the Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety such facilities.
5. Cumulative Impacts
The year 2022 and 2035 traffic analysis discussed above includes traffic from individual related projects and projected traffic increases from projected growth in background traffic.
The 2022 analysis considers traffic that will be generated by two app roved projects in the City . The Pelagic Residential project includes 122 single-family detached dwelling units and is located on the west side of Rattler Road, north of Ramon Road. The Rancho Mirage Rehabilitation Hospital is located on the southeast corner of the intersection Da Vall Drive and Ramon Road, and inc ludes an access on both Ramon Road and Da Vall Drive.
The trips that would be generated by these two approved projects was estimated and assigned to the surrounding street system and added to the future year 2022 non-site traffic volumes.
RIVTAM was used to forecast traffic volumes for the future horizon year 2035. Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the members of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) have approved RIVTAM as the regional traffic m odel for Riverside County, including the Coachella Valley. Future traffic projections from RIVTAM represent the best available projections for the study area through year 2035.
The traffic analysis zones in RIVTAM reflect SCAG modeling by Census Tract. Base year and future land use forecasts provided by individual jurisdictions and Riverside County are used in developing the socio - economic input data required by RIVTAM. The 2035 SCAG population and employment growth projections were allocated by area, base d on the existing and proposed future land use forecasts identified by each city. Riverside County planners provided estimates for Tribal lands and 12-788
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-59 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
unincorporated areas. RIVTAM reflects the transportation network shown in the approved general plans of the jurisdictions within the Coachella Valley.
Other major approved projects anticipated to develop in the vicinity of the Project Site include the Section 19 Specific Plans in the City to the east of the Project Site and the North City Specific Plan and North City Extended Specific Plans located north of I-10 in Cathedral City.
The Section 19 Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 2010, addresses the area located north of Dinah Shore Drive, between Bob Hope Drive and Key Largo Avenue. This adopted specific plan allows development of residential uses and non -residential (commercial/retail, office, resort, and mixed -use) development along with public facilities . The mixed -use development would include a town center, community retail shops and boutiques, high-end thematic restaurants, medium-density and high-density residential neighborhoods, resort and business hotels, retail space for the sale of furniture and furnishings, designer outlets, and resort recreational uses. No development activity has been initiated to date within this specific plan area.
The North City Specific Plan was approved by Cathedral City in 2009. The North City Specific Plan addresses the future development of 4,664 acres located north of I- 10, between the future northerly extension of Da V all Drive and Palm Drive. The North City Specific Plan mixed -use development was projected to require 50 years to complete. This specific plan designates approximately 235 acres BP (Business Park) and 518 acres are designated MU -U (Mixed Use -Urban). A tota l of 402 acres are designated MU -N (Mixed Use -Neighborhood) and a light industrial designation applies to 267 acres.
Finally, an OS -R (Open Space -Residential) designation applies to 832 acres and o verall, 2,900 acres would remain in OS (Open Space -Conservation). No development activity has been initiated to date within this specific plan area.
The North City Extended Specific Plan was approved in 2013 by Cathedral City to address the long range planning for approximately 592 acres annexed to the City locate d north of I -10 north and south of Varner Road on both sides of Bob Hope Drive. This specific plan designates approximately 65 acres Mixed-Use Urban (MU-U), 116 acres Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MU-N), 74 acres Industrial (I-1), and 240 Open Space (OS). No development activity has been initiated to date within this specific plan area.
In addition to these approved projects, the City annexed 193 acres in Section 13, located north of Ramon Road and west of Bob Hope Drive. The City adopted a Regional Commercial Land Use designation for this area at the time of annexation. Preparation and adoption of a specific plan is required before development occurs in this area.
12-789
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-60 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
MM 5.14-1 Prior to obtaining a grading permit, the individual project proponent shall prepare and submit to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians , City of Rancho Mirage and/or Riverside County for review and approval detailed construction traffic management plans, including street closure information, detour plans, haul rou tes, and staging plans as necessary for any off- site work that would encroach on public right -of-way. The construction traffic management plans shall include the following elements, as appropriate:
• Provisions for temporary traffic control during all construction activities adjacent to public right-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag person); • Construction-related vehicles shall not park on surrounding public streets; • Provision of safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers;
• Schedule construction-related deliveries to reduce travel during peak travel periods; • Obtain the required permits for truck haul routes from the Tribe , City of Rancho Mirage and/or Riverside County prior to the issuance of any permit for the project; • Obtain a Caltrans transportation permit for use of oversized transport vehicles on Caltrans facilities;
• Outline adequate measures to ensure emergency vehicle access during all aspects of the project’s construction, including, but not limited to, the use of flagmen during partial closures to streets surrounding the Project Site to facilitate the traffic flow until construction is complete; and
• Include the implementation of security measures during construction in areas that are accessible to the general public to help reduce any increased demand on law enforcement services, including fencing construction areas, providing security lighting, and providing security personnel to patrol construction sites.
MM 5.14-2 Appropriate right -of-way shall be provided by individual development projects to accommodate the ultimate improvement of the abu tting public roadways, and these roadways sections shall be fully improved in conjunction with the adjacent development project.
12-790
5.14 Traffic and Transportation
Meridian Consultants 5.14-61 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
MM 5.14-3 To ensure compliance with applicable roadway and access design standards when individual development projects are processed , their final layout and site access design shall be subject to review and approval by the Tribe and, as appropriate, the City of Rancho Mirage and/or Riverside County. The need for street widening to accommodate entry drives, the internal circulation design, and other features shall be accommodated on a project by project basis. A traffic signing and striping plan may also be required for review and approval in conjunction with detailed construction plans for any individual development project within the Project Site.
MM 5.14-4 All individual development projects shall comply with applicable requirements in the Section 24 Specific Plan and construct the future combination sidewalk / bikeway / golf cart paths along Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive and Los Alamos Road.
MM 5.14-5 The developers of individual development projects within the Project Site shall make a fair-share contribution to the cost for planned future roadway improvements by paying an in-lieu fee equal in amount to what the CVAG Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) would be for that project at the time building permits are issued.
MM 5.14-6 Individual proponents shall pay applicable fees to the appropriate jurisdictions to ensure that a fair- share contribution is made for improvements to the intersection of Da Vall Drive and Ramon Road, such as the TUMF program.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of the mitigation measure s identified above would reduce potential transportation and traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level.
12-791
5.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
This Section addresses the potential impacts of the Project on water service, sewer service, solid waste, and dry utilities. The information provided in this Section is based on correspondence and consultation with the Coachella Valley Water District, information from the Riverside County Waste Management Department, Southern California Edison, and the Southern California Gas Company. Each subs ection includes an introduction, followed by discussions of existing condition s, regulatory framework, methodology, Project Design Features, environmental impacts, cumulative impacts, and Mitigation Measures.
Meridian Consultants 5.15-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-792
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.15.1 WATER SERVICE
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the Project to result in water service impacts within the Coachella Valley, the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”), the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) , and surrounding communities. More specifically, this Section evaluates impacts associated with the Project that may potentially affect the regional and local water supply and water service systems. Various federal, State, regional, Tribal, and local programs and regulations related to anticipated water supply and demand impacts are also discussed in this Section. Information from the following study of the Project Site is incorporated into this Section:
• Section 24 Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification, November 2014 A complete copy of the Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification is included in the Technical Appendices to this Draft EIS ( Appendix H). Please see Section 9.0 for a glossary of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
Public Water Supply
The Coachella Valley Water District ( CVWD) is the Public Water System (PWS) for the area in which the Project is located. CVWD provides services for domestic water, irrigation water, sanitation sewer collection, wastewater reclamation and recycling, imported water, stormwater protection, and agricultural drainage. Some of the services provided by CVWD include the following:
• Colorado River irrigation distribution system. Agriculture is the primary user of Colorado River water reaching the Coachella Valley ( totaling 98.5 percent or approximately 300,000 acre -feet per year [afy]).
• CVWD provides domestic water for approximately 305,000 Coachella Valley residents. The distribution system includes 60 reservoirs, 1,993 miles of pipelines, and 96 active wells. • Sanitation service became a CVWD responsibility in 1968, when it acquired the Palm Desert Country Club Water Reclamation Plant and domestic w ater system. Presently, there are six water reclamation plants (WRP) providing wastewater treatment as well as recycled water supply in the CVWD service area.
12-793
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• CVWD has been recharging the groundwater basin in the Upper Valley since 1919, first with local water and later with imported water.
Development throughout the Coachella Valley has been dependent on groundwater as a source of supply. The demand for groundwater has annually exceeded the limited natural recharge of the groundwater basin. Therefore, imported water is used to recharge the aquifer and reduce groundwater overdraft.
Historical Context
The need to enhance the public water supply in the Coachella Valley has been recognized for many years. The formation of CVWD in 1918 was a direct result of the concern of local residents about a plan to export water from the Whitewater River to Imperial County. Early on, valley residents also recognized that action was needed to stem the decline of the water table, which was occurring as a result of local pumping in the east valley. As a result, CVWD entered into an agreement for the construction of the Coachella Branch of the All-American Canal in order to bring Colorado River water to the Coachella Valley. Since 1949, the approximate 120 -mile Coachella Branch of the All- American Canal has been providing water for irrigation use in the area that generally encompasses Indio and La Quinta southerly to the Salton Sea. Colorado River water is delivered by an underground irrigation distribution system from the canal to farms and a growing number of golf courses in the Coachella Valley. In recent years, CVWD has begun a program of recharging the aquifer in the eastern Coachella valley with this source.
The need for additional water supplies was recognized due to the onset of development in the western Coachella Valley. As a result, in 1963 CVWD and the Desert Water Agency (DWA), which serves the Palm Springs area and a portion of Cathedral City, entered into separate contracts with the State of California in order to ensure that State Water Project ( SWP) water would be available. Because a direct pipeline from the SWP system to the Coachella Valley does not exist, CVWD and DWA entered into an exchange agreement with MWD to receive water from the MWD Colorado River Aqueduct, which crosses th e upper portion of the Coachella Valley near Whitewater. In exchange, CVWD and DWA send their SWP water allocations to MWD. Since 1973, CVWD and DWA have been receiving Colorado River water from MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct turnout located at Whitewater Canyon to replenish groundwater in the Coachella Valley.