Riverside County planners punt on 8,500-home proposed town south of Joshua Tree National Park

The Riverside County Planning Commission last week delayed action on Paradise Valley, a proposed community that would allow up to 8,490 homes to be built on a property south of Joshua Tree National Park, on the outskirts of the eastern Coachella Valley.

The proposal from developer GLC Enterprises LLC has faced years of pushback from environmental advocates, as well as state and federal wildlife agencies, who have warned that Paradise Valley would disturb the environmentally-sensitive desert dry wash habitat and disrupt areas populated by the desert tortoise and other wildlife. 

If approved, the Paradise Valley project would be a landmark test of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, a long-debated agreement that local cities started to prepare in the mid-1990s. The plan aims to conserve 240,000 acres of open space in the Coachella Valley and protect wildlife while facilitating the construction of new infrastructure outside of conservation areas. Limited real estate development can take place within conservation areas, however, including the 5,000-acre property owned by GLC, but is subject to additional review.

Paradise Valley developers are currently seeking the go-ahead from the planning commission to bring a bundle of approvals to the county Board of Supervisors. Because Paradise Valley is located in a conservation area, the development proposal must also pass an extra layer of scrutiny called a joint project review, which is designed to make sure the proposed community complies with the MSHCP.

But developers disagree with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, the public agency implementing the conservation plan, over when that review needs to take place. The conservation commission has said it must conduct a joint project review of the specific plan now, in its entirety. Developers have argued that they can wait until after the specific plan is approved because they will still need to get additional approvals before they can start building.

The Paradise Valley plan extends north and south of Interstate 10, west of Cotton Springs Road, north of Box Canyon Road and east of the Cactus City Rest Area.

The community would be arranged into six neighborhoods covering a 1,848-acre expanse, with thousands of homes, as well as 1.38 million square feet of commercial space. The balance of the 5,000-acre plan area would remain undeveloped. 

Tom Kirk, the executive director of the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, reminded county officials in a May 9 memo that the commission previously deemed earlier versions of Paradise Valley to be inconsistent with the MSHCP.

If the commission came to the same conclusion today, he wrote, developers would have to either modify their plans to reduce the impact of Paradise Valley or swap land outside the conservation area for the land they plan to develop inside of it. 

Russell Brady, the Riverside County planner assigned to the Paradise Valley project, said CVCC has also raised questions about whether developers would be able to acquire adequate conservation land. If they couldn't, he said, the specific plan could not be constructed.  

Paradise Valley's final environmental impact report, which has not been approved, suggested developers would acquire and conserve additional land to offset the impact of Paradise Valley and comply with the MSHCP.

At the May 15 meeting, Katie Barrows, a staff member at the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission, told the planning commissioners that Paradise Valley would mark a departure from precedent since there has been very little development in conservation areas since the MSHCP was permitted. 

"We're also concerned, in terms of the applicant's presentation, that this leaves the county and the decision makers, including the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, without a presentation of the project as a whole," she said.

Barrows estimated that the joint project review would take about 90 days to complete.

At Wednesday's meeting, Travis Cullen of Envicom Corporation, a consultant for GLC, said the joint project review isn't needed until after the initial approval of Paradise Valley's specific plan, since developers would still need additional approvals, like building permits, before they could start construction.

Only then, Cullen argued, would developers' conduct meet the legal definition of "taking" under environmental protection laws—that is, killing, capturing or harming endangered species protected by environmental protection laws—which would trigger the joint project review.

The Planning Commission will meet on June 5 to review potential updates on Paradise Valley and to schedule the next discussion of the item. At the earliest, a hearing would take place in August. The commission would then make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on whether to approve a series of plans and a change of zone needed in order for Paradise Valley to move forward.

At the May 15 meeting, Paradise Valley representatives emphasized the aspects of their proposal that might allay the concerns of conservation groups, including efforts to meet the county's greenhouse gas reduction goals, to conserve water and to minimize light pollution. 

GLC representatives also discussed at length how residents would travel to, and within, Paradise Valley. They predicted that 84 percent of Paradise Valley residents would work in Paradise Valley, reducing traffic between the new community and other urban centers. In addition, GLC's plans call for a shuttle between Paradise Valley and the SunLine Transit hub in Indio, as well as trails and roads built to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians.

The planning commissioners questioed some of the developers' claims.

Aaron Hake, the commissioner representing the Riverside County's district said he was worried about whether Paradise Valley's transit plans are viable.

"My concern is that you're going to build in this plan some great infrastructure for the availability of transit, but does the size and the density and the economics of what you're building actually allow for transit to be economically viable?" he asked, noting that existing communities like Mecca and Thermal struggle to get service from SunLine.

Ruthanne Taylor Berger asked if GLC is prepared for the possibility that the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission might review the project and find it inconsistent with the MSHCP.

"What happens, or are you prepared, I guess, for going through this process and not finding consistency, or not being able to move forward, or the project requiring significant redesign? That could be an outcome," she said.

Frans Bigelow of GLC said developers have been prepared for that eventuality "all along."

"We've recognized all along that this process is very detailed and very specific and that our obligation as the applicant is to provide the mitigation land required per the MSHCP," he said.

During public comments after the developer’s presentation, a string of opponents testified that the project would brighten night skies at the popular national park and destroy irreplaceable woody wash habitat for desert tortoises, among other significant impacts. Most disturbing to many, the large-scale project would be built in the middle of the long-negotiated conservation portions of the Coachella Valley species habitat plan.

Wayne Brechtel, an attorney for the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, pushed back on the claim that, at this stage, no Coachella Valley Conservation Commission review is needed because developers are not seeking to disturb earth yet. 

“Common sense doesn’t need to leave the room here," he said. "You’re being asked to approve a document that shows thousands of acres would be disturbed, yet they’re saying no, that’s not what it shows. That’s an insult to your intelligence and the public’s intelligence and it won’t stand legally.”

Margit Chiriaco Rusche was the only community member who spoke in favor of the development. She is the CEO of Chiriaco Summit, a transit stop west of the Paradise Valley proposal.

"It is inevitable that growth go east on the I-10," she said.

Amy DiPierros covers real estate at The Desert Sun. Reach her at amy.dipierro@desertsun.com or 760-218-2359. Follow her on Twitter @amydipierro.

Janet Wilson, the environment reporter at The Desert Sun, contributed to this report.