Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends approval of minor Eastern Coachella Valley plan amendment
Summary
The Riverside County Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve General Plan Amendment No. 240,002, a ministerial amendment to the Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan that removes two legacy policies and corrects mapping and technical errors. Staff said the change does not alter zoning or allowed uses.
The Riverside County Planning Commission voted unanimously Feb. 4 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt General Plan Amendment No. 240,002, a minor amendment to the Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan (ECVAP).
Victoria Gomez, a county planner, told the commission the amendment would remove policies 2.2 and 2.3 tied to a previously denied Paradise Valley specific plan, excise references to Specific Plan 385 (Vista Salata), and revise maps and tables to correct technical and geographical errors. Gomez said the amendment contains no entitlements, does not change zoning or permitted uses, and is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act’s common‑sense exemption, CEQA section 15061(b)(3).
Gomez said the project area lies within the ECVAP boundaries east of La Quinta and described the amendment as intended to preserve internal consistency with the county general plan and to fix mapping errors. She said notices were published in the Desert Sun on Jan. 8, 2026, and that the county received five public comments; two opposed and three supported the amendment. Supporters included environmental organizations that flagged habitat preservation and MSHCP compatibility as benefits.
During the public hearing, an online speaker identified by the clerk as Marjith Chiriakou said she opposed the changes, arguing the amendment would complicate future growth and limit options for housing and businesses in eastern Riverside County. Dan Silver of the Endangered Habitats League spoke in favor, saying the amendment would remove internal conflicts with the county’s MSHCP conservation framework and assist permit alignment.
Commissioners asked staff whether the removal of the two policies would alter existing allowed uses or affect active site‑specific applications. John Hildebrand, planning director, responded that the amendment would not change zoning classifications or allowed uses; any future project would be evaluated on its own merits for utilities, access, fire safety and other constraints. He said initiation or adoption of the amendment does not confer the right to grade or construct.
A commissioner moved to approve the item as recommended in the staff report; the motion carried 4‑0. The commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025‑007 recommending approval of GPA No. 240,002 to the Board of Supervisors.
The commission’s recommendation now advances to the Board of Supervisors, which will consider the staff findings, the planning commission resolution and public input before taking final action.
