NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE OECLARA TJON
Notice is hereby given that the City of Cathedral City, has completed an Initial Study of the Rio Vista Village, General Plan Amendment 97-67, Specific Plan 97-SS and Tentative Tract Map 28639, project in accordance with the City's Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. This Initial Study was undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of such Initial Study, the City's staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Negative Declaration . The Initial Study reflects the independent judgement of the City. The project site is not on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. Copies of the Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration are on file at City Hall, 35-325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 136, Cathedral City, CA 92234 and are available for public review. Comments will be received until December 24, 1997. Any person wishing to comment on this matter must submit such comments, in writing, to the City prior to this date. Comments of all Responsible Agencies are also requested.
At its meeting on January 14, 1998 at 7:30 p.m., the City Council will consider the Draft Negative Declaration. If the City Council finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, it may adopt the Negative Declaration. This means that the City Council may proceed to consider the project without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report.
Date Received for Filing:
(Clerk Stamp Here)
Staff Signature:
150_ /4
Dave Durflinger
Senior Planner
..
• CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENi
INITIAL STUDY
1. Project Title: Rio Vista Village Specific Plan 97-55, General Plan Amendment 97-67, Tentative Tract Map 28639
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Cathedral City 35-325 Date Palm Drive, Suite 136
Cathedral City, CA 92234
3. Contact Person & Phone Number: Dave Durflinger, Senior Planner (760) 770-037 4
4. Project Location: Northwest of the street intersection of Landau Blvd. and Verona Road, approximately ½ mile north of Vista Chino.
5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address.: Burnett Development Corporation 13031 Newport Avenue, Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92780-3517
6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: R1-7.2S
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, Including but no limited to late phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-elte features necessary for its Implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) If necessary).
Proposal for a planned development approval for 1362 dwelling units over approx. 303 acres, including a school site, day care, 3 acre and neighborhood commercial site. The project will involve off site improvements for traffic and flood protection and the amendment of the City's General Plan regarding the extension of Landau Blvd. (Please refer to attached Exhibits 4-D through 4-E, detailing the proposed uses).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the projecfs surroundings.
Attach additional sheets(•) If necessary).
North: Vacant railroad
South: Rio Vista (single family neighborhood)
East: Vacant
West: Vacant, flood control channel
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
Coachella Valley Water District, water and flood control Palm Springs Unified School District
FORMJ
• • The env1ronmenw factors chec~ed below would be potentially affected bv this proJect, 1nvolv1n1 at lea.st one impact that is a ''Potentially Siinif ,t (mpact" as indicated by dle checklist .he followin1 pases. - Land Use and Planning □ Transportation/Circulation □ Public Services ' ' ~
....., Population and Housing ,-,
Biological Resources C Utilities and Service Systems -
....., Geological Problems □ Enern and Mineral Resources □ Aesthetics '_,I ...., Water ,...,
Hazards D Cultural Resources _,I u
- Air Quality i""' C Recreation '--' Noise
□ Mandatory Findin1s of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the buis of this initial evaluation:
I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a siplificanc effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE OECL.ARA TION will be prepared.
I I find that although the proposed project could have a •isnificant effect on the environment, there will noc be a sipificanc effect in this cue because the m.itiaation meuura dacribed on an attached sheet have been added 10 the project. A NEGATIVE OECLAAATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed projecc MAY have a ~i1nific:anc effect on the Hvironmenc, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a siptificant effecc(1) on the environmenc, buc ac leuc one effect I) hu been adeq~tely analyz:ed in an earlier documenc pursuanc co applicable leau srudards, and l) hu been addressed by mitigation measures b&Nd on the earlier analysis u ducribed on attached sheeu. if the effect is a •potentia.lly sipificanc impacc• or "po<encially siplificanc unleu mitipced. • AA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. but it mutt an&Jyu only the effecll <ha& remain to be addrelled.
I find chat although the propoled project could have• tipificant effect on the environment. there WTLL NOT be a si1nificant effect in this case because &II pocentially sipificant effec1.1 (a) have been analyzed adequacely in an e&rlier ElR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or m.itiaated pursuant to cha& earlier EJR.
I includina revisions or ures that an impolOd upon the proposed projeca.
I ~~~~
Sisnature Dace
I /)~~./D v"{/-..:,£r
I
I
Pruued Name ✓
CITY<C.FJ/199'/Ul 130
For
/Z,
□
□
□
....
_J '• '• ..... s. ,0
< cc . r-
>-er:
I-
::)
<
CH NO ~
_J
,.ot9 o~S, < <
~
_J a..
• _J
UJ ~~ :t ,t C ¢' '9 ?- ::) C H z (>- < > > UJ UJ ~Ss C
C!) ~ z < < r-
~ cc < < < 0
g
_J X
~ 30TH
L.
~
RIO VISTA VILLAGE
0TYOFCA1HEDRAL 0TY
3S.32S 0Aff PAU. ~
Speeific: Plan No. BU1lNETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
CA TMEDaAL Cm , CA
760.770.0396
SP 97- llOII NIW1'011TAYl.!IJl'Tl211D
DEPT. 0, TUITIN. CA 714J4.4.1GI
COMMUNITY WARKENTIN PARTNERSHIP
DEVELOPMENT 2950 FAIIMOUNT IL\10.
lllYIUIDI .CA 12.SOI 9(11.711.5422
~
-;
~ :P
~
~
• ' • ' • -~ ' •, ..... •
AVE.
E8
ExHlBlT 4-8
VICINITY MAP
se«.c: NONC
0Aff .- I0..2U7
I j A brief explanation is required fc. . .J.11 answers except "No Impact" answers ... ..tare adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply co projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" enuies when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program ElR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Pocentially
Issues and Supporting (nformation Sources: Siaruficant
Potersially Unlea L- Than
Sipificam Mitiption Signifieant No Impact
Im,- lnc:oll'Onud lmpc
r. LAND USE ANO PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? □ □ □ SOURCE(S):
b) Conflict with applicable environmenw plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? □ □ □ SOURCE(S):
C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? □ □ □ SOURCE(S):
CITY-CC.FJ/199512.SI 130 FORM "J"
• •• PatentiaJ.Jy
Issues and Supporting Informatior. .urces: Sipilic:ara
'
,~., un1 .. LeN Than
Sisnilil:Mt Mitip&ioft Sia,ufii:ant No lmp.::t
lmpai:t lncorpoNed lmpc
'
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.a. impacts to soils or farm.Jands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? SOURCE(S): □ D 0
'
e) Disrupt or ~ivide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
I
minority community)? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
I a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
I b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area I
or extension of major infrastructure)? SOURCE(s):· □ □ % □ .I
c) Displace existin1 housing. especially affordable housing? 0 0 □ % SOURCE(S):
I
Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
I
a) Fault rupture? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ J;1'
b) Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(S): □ □ □ ¥1
c) Sejsmic ground failure. includin1 liquefaction? □ □ □ ;!f SOURCE(S):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(s): 0 D □ J;1 I e) Lands I ides or mudflows? SOURCE(s): D □ 0 ~
I f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading. or fill? 0 □ □
I
SOURCE(S):
I CITY-CC.FJ/199512.51130 FORM "J9
Pap 4 of 12
~ Poc.nuaily
fsi,ues and Supporting Informatio Jurces: Siputicanc
Pocentially. un1 .. Lau Than
'
Siptilicanc Mitiplion Si&Nficanc No lmpKi
lmpacc lncorponted lm,-i
-
g) Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S): □ □ □ ;1
h) Expansive soils? souRcE(s): □ □ □ d
I
i) Unique geologic or physical features? SOURCE(s): □ □ D .ef I IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
I
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
I b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
I c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of I
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? SOURCE(S):
□ D D
( d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body'? SOURCE(S): D □ D
I e) Changes in currents. or the course or direction of water I
movements? SOURCE(s): D D □
I
t) Change in .the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,.or throu1h interception of an aquifer by cues or excavations· or through
I
substantial loss of groundwater recharae capability?
D D D Jlf SOURCE(S):
I
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 1roundwater? □ □ D % SOURCE(S):
I
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? SOllRCE(s): □ □ □
f'
I CITY-CC.FJ/199512' l 130 FORM "J"
Page S of 12
I
-.. l'llletlUaily
Issues and Supporting Information ~ ·ces: Sipwicars
I
Potentially uni .. L-'lnan
Sipifi~ Mitiaaoc,n Siarufi~ No lmpa.:t
lrnp-=t lnc:orporad lmpKt
I
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public: water supplies? □ □ □ SOURCE(S):
I V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
I
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? SOURCE(S): · □ □ D Jt I
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? souRcE(s): □ □ □ I
c) Alter air movement, moisrure, or temperarure, or cause any change in climate? souRcE(s):
□ □ D
:I d) Create objectionable odors? SOURCE(S): □ □ j1 □
I VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
I
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic: congestion? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ I
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? SOURCE(S): D □ □
c:) [ nadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? SOURCE(S):
□ □ □
d) Insufficient parkin1 capacity on-site or off-site? □ D □ I
SOURCE(S):
e) Hazards or barrien for pedestrians or bicyclists?
I
SOURCE(S):
□ □ □
I
I CrrY-CC.FJ/1995/2'1130 FORM "J-
I
,.
I Potential.ly
Issues and Supporting Information "'"urces: Sianificant J
Potentially uru ... Les, Than
Sipufic:ant Mitia-ion Sipuficanc No Impact
lmpai:t lncorpo....,_, Impact
I f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? D D D I
SOURCE(S):
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? SOURCE(s):
I
D D □
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
I
Would the proposaJ result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
I
animaJs, and birds)? SOURCE(S): D □ □
I
b) LocaJly designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
SOURCE(S):
□ □ □
I c) LocaJly designated naturaJ communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(S): □ □ 0 %
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernaJ pool)? □ SOURCE(S):
□ □ ~
e) Wildlife dispersaJ or mitigation corridors? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ ~ \
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposaJ: .
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? □ □ □ SOURCE(S):
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? SOURCE(s): □ □ □
CITY-CC.F1119951151130 FORM "J"
• ••
Patanlially
Issues and Supporting lnformatic. .. . fources: Siarufic:ara '
Potlnially uni .. LA.Than
Sianific:ant Mitipjon Sipitic:ara Nolmpa:c
lmpa:c lneorpc,rud lmpaas
'
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and I
the residents of the State? SOURCE(s):
□ □ □
[X. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
I a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, I
chemicals or radiation)? SOURCE(s): D □ □
I
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(s): □ D □
I c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
I d) Exposure of people to existin1 sources of potential I
health hazards? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
I
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass. or trees? SOURCE(s): □ □ □
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) [ncreases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ -' b) Exposure of people to severe noise °levels? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ I XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered 1ovemment
I
services in any of the following areu:
a) Fire protection? SOURCE(S): D □ □
I
I CITY-CC.FJ/1995/2'1130 FORM "J"
I
, l
.I Pacentia!ly
Iss-aes and Supporting Information .urces: Silftili~
I
Pocentially uni ... lMI Than
SianifiRnt Mitiplion Sill\&ficanc No Impact
lmpai:t lr11:0rpo..-.t lmpa:c
I b) Police protection? SOURCE{S): □ □ □ .2f
I
c) Schools? SOURCE{s): D D D ~
I
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? □ )lf D D SOURCE{S):
e) Other governmental services'? SOURCE(S): □ D □
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gu'? SOURCE(s): □ D □ %
b) Communications systems? SOURCE{s): D D D J2i
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities'? SOURCE{s): D D D ¢
d) Sewer or septic tanks? SOURCE(s): □ □ D ~
e) Storm water drainage'? SOURCE(s): D D ¢ □
f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S): ·· □ □ D ~
g) Local or regional walet' supplies? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(s): D □ □ CITY-CC.FJ/1995/2'1130 FORM "r
•'
r""""'~Y
Issues and Supporting Information S, :es: ~i&Nfican1
Potentially UnJe. L .. Tnan
Sil!Uficam Mitis-ion Sipufican1 No lmpaa
Impact lncorporlled lmpai:c
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? □ □ □ SOURCE(S):
C) Create light or glare? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disrurb paleontological resources? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ ~ b) Disrurb arch~logical resources? SOURCE(s): □ □ □ ~
I JZ( c) Affect historical resources? SOURCE(S): □ □ □
:I
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? □ □ □ SOURCE(S):
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? souRcE(s): □ □ □
xv. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) r ncrease the demand for neighborhood or regionaJ
parks or other recreational facilities? □ □ □
SOURCE(S):
b) Affect existin1 recreational opportunities? □ □ □
SOURCE(S):
CrTY-CC.FJ/1995/2$1130 FORM "J"
I •.
I xvr. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(0).) In this case a discussion should identify the foUowin1:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above check.list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable leraJ standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by miti&ation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe, on attxhed sheets, the ~itigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY-CC.FJ/1995/2' 1130 FORM "J"
- ··
I
I
----II
II
II
~
I
I
t
~
II
. '
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINC:r' ")f SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major proceeds of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
shon-term. to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in coMection with
the effects of put projects. the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
II CITY-CC.FJ/1995/251130
II
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
FORM "J"
Attachement A: Initial Study for the Rio Vista Village Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map
XVI. EXPANDED CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
1. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? The project will extend streets and infrastructure north of the Rio Vista neighborhood making development north and northeast of the project area more feasible. The amount of growth potential in this area is limited however by existing environmental constraints including wind and blowsand (Weaver report, November 8, 1991), noise and vibration (RKJK. Preliminary Noise Study, October 14, 1997), and the size of the area which is limited by the location of the railroad.
2. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
The soil conditions in the area require remedial measures be taken during construction to control wind erosion and blowing sand. Such rem~diation is mandatory for construction projects.
3. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? The development of the area will result in a reduction in absorption rates and the potential for increased runoff. Such increases are typical of residential development and the applicant has conducted a hydrology/drainage study dated October 7, 1997, that bas identified the amount of onsite retention required in order to mitigate the potential impact. The Specific Plan and Tentative Tract map reflect these findings and include drainage retention areas as a part of the development proposal.
4. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? The project area is partially within a flood zone as identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), dated June 18, 1996, (Community-Panel Nwnber 060704 0005 C). The project area is impacted by the Morongo Wash. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), is the responsible flood control agency for the Morongo Wash. The agency prepared a report in April of 1993 (Bechtel) that identified deficiencies in the easterly wash levee. The project proposal includes working with CVWD to complete the requisite levee improvements as a part of the project development. The improvements, according to the CVWD report, will allow the project area to be removed from the flood zone.
1 •.
S. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
During project construction, vehicle emissions, dust and ~lowing sand could result in exposure of nearby residents to these air pollutants. The city requires all construction projects to comply with local mitigation measures for dust and blowing sand.
6. Create objectionable odors?
See number 5 above regarding limited exposure during construction.
7. Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
The project Traffic Impact Analysis, RKJK, dated October 8, 1997, includes mitigation measures for identified potential traffic impacts. These mitigation measures have been made a part of the project description.
8. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, f1Sh, insects, animals, and birds)?
The project area is within the habitat area of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata), a "threatened" species listed by the U.S. Dept. oflnterior. A Habitat Conservation Plan for the lizard is in place that requires a mitigation fee to be paid by the developer.
9. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? \
The project area is within an active blowsand zone as identified by the Cathedral City General Plan.
Mitigation is required to prevent sand and sand particulates known as PM-10 from becoming a health haz.ard for the project inhabitants. The project plan includes a blowsand mitigation program that is substantiated as effective by a report from Mr. Donald C. Weaver, P.E., an expert on aeolian sand transport, analysis and control. The project plan proposes a series of permanent and interim blowsand fencing, landscaping and sand impound areas, as well as an ongoing blowsand maintenance program for the project.
10. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
A portion of the project area is directly adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way for a rail line. A Preliminary Noise Study, dated October 14, 1997, has been prepared for the project 2 ' . '
'
which includes recommended mitigation. These measures have been incorporated into the project proposal as necessary to bring the project into compliance with the Cathedral City General Plan requirements for exterior and interior noise level thresholds.
11. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
The project will include substantial improvements of roads, parks, parkway landscaping, blowsand control structures and drainage retention facilities, all requiring ongoing and long term maintenance.
The project includes a requirement for the formation of a Homeowners Association with appropriate Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C.&R.'s), as necessary to partially offset the long term public maintenance costs related to the project.
12. Storm water drainage?
An on-site storm water collection and retention facility is a part of the project proposal. A hydrology/drainage study accompanies the project proposal.
13. Create light or glare?
The project potential for generating nuisan~es related to outdoor lighting and glare are minimal and established development review criteria for outdoor lighting and public street lighting are sufficient to mitigate this potential.
14. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? The project includes a proposal to develop public and private open space and recreation areas. 3 Attachment B: Initial Study for the Rio Vista Village Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Tentative Tract Map
EARLIER ANALYSES
a). Earlier analyses used.
Coachella Valley Master Environmental Assessment, Final MEA Document, 1979 City of Cathedral City General Plan EIR, 1983-(S.C.H. 82121302) Redevelopment Agency Project Area #3 EIR
Environmental Assessment 91-496, Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 91-59 and Change of Zone 91-85
These Environmental Docwnents are hereby incorporated by reference and are available for review at the City of Cathedral City administrative offices located at 35-325, Date Palm Drive, Suite 136, Cathedral City, CA 92234. The backgrowid environmental information pertaining to the assessment of the potential for environmental impacts based upon the continued urbanization of the area pursuant to the subject properties base land use designation, are the sections being referenced in particularly from the above referenced docwnents. Further, blowsand and drainage studies are referenced from the previous Negative Declaration.
b). Based on review of the referenced environmental docwnentation, the Planning Division has determined that the project is within the scope of the projects analyzed by the Environmental documentation listed above and that the preparation of further environmental documentation in support of the proposed Negative Declaration is not required. The determination is based upon the following:
1. The project could not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified potential impacts, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, 15162( aX 1 ). Discussion: The use and improvements both proposed and anticipated in relation to the subject project could not generate any impacts that were not already considered and analyzed as a part of the previous analysis of the General Plan residential land use designation, the zoning and the RDA project area.
2. The project contemplated will not require major revisions of the Environmental documentation listed above due to substantial changes in the circumstances wider which the site could be developed and/or due to the involvement of new environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(2).
Discussion: The conditions wider which the project area was analyzed within the 1 referenced Environmental documents have not changed. No new development has occurred in the surrowiding area that could create cumulative impacts different than those potential cumulative impacts previously analyzed.
3. No new information of substantial importance exists showing that the project could result in impacts identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3)(A)-(D).
Therefore, it has been determined that the proposed Negative Declaration will not require any additional study and may incorporate all previous Environmental documentation by reference.
c.) The project includes mitigation measures adequate to reduce potential project impacts to a level below significance. Those mitigation measures are detailed within Chapter 6 of the draft Specific Plan text (attached).
2 SECTION 6
IMPLEMENTATION
This section discusses phasing, infrastructure construction and finance, environmental mitigation programs and the development of CC&Rs administered by a Community Association (HOA).
6.1 PHASING
The project is intended to be developed in three master phases. Each of these master phases may have one or more sub-phases to facilitate the development and financing of infrastructure and other public and private improvements. Each master phase is intended to be functionally independent in terms of the need to rely on subsequent, future phases.
6.1.1 Phase I: Phase I begins at the comer of Landau and Verona and extends north and west to the northerly extension of A venida Quintana. Phase I includes the Village Center and both residential land use areas permitting multi-family housing.
Infrastructure required to serve this phase is will primarily focus around .the boulevard which is the central organizing element of the village. Backbone utility systems will be installed and designed with the ultimate density and size of the village in mind. Sizing of utilities will include provisions for density/unit transfers in future phases.
A The extension of Landau Boulevard is accommodated by the offer of dedication of the required right-of-way along the easterly and northerly property lines. ,
BURNn'T Dcvn.OPMENT CORl'OIIATIOIY
W.uUM'Jlll P,um,/lJI.SfflP
6-1 RlO VISTA VtlJ.4Gt SPEClflC PU.N
CAntEI>AAL Cm SPECIFIC PLAN No. 97-
size and .1"".ational requirements of the Palm Springs Unified School Districl C A sped~ .and use designation C(R) Commerc.. __ (Reserve) has been created to permit useful development of lands adjacent to and parallel with the railroad right-of-way which are initially being kept undeveloped to assist in the blowsand mitigation program.
D The easement used for blowsand mitigation along Verona that was granted by the land owner to the City will revert to public right-of-way to improve the north half of Verona as each phase is developed.
E A four acre site has been reserved for development as a community wide water park. A fee of _ per unit is being collected from units being developed in La Pasada, Rio Vista Village and __ to fund acquisition and development of this park. Design and construction of the park are subjects in discussion with the City. Final determination of the financing, construction and ownership/operation of the facility are yet to be determined.
6.1.2 Phase II: Phase II completes the middle third of the site.
6.1.3 Phase Ill: This last phase completes the project and builds out the available land to the westerly boundary, adjacent to the pipeline easement and blowsand berm.
6.1.4 It is the intent of the master developer to construct the backbone utility systems, improve certain roads and streets, parks, storm water retention basins and provide public area landscaping in the interest of establishing the theme and tone for the entire village. It is also the intent of the master developer to secure such public assistance in the financing of such improvements as is available or may be obtained with City assistance and cooperation.
6.2 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Certain improvements to adjacent properties are contemplated in the overall development of Rio Vista Village. These include Verona Avenue, Landau Boulevard and blowsand mitigations in Morongo Wash.
6.2.1 Verona Ave.: The north half of Verona will be improved as each phase of Rio Vista Village is developed. At the intersection of Verona and Landau is a proposed roundabout whose construction will require the assistance and cooperation of the City and adjacent landowners.
6.2.2 Landau Boulevard: A portion of Landau Boulevard outside of Rio Vista Village and extending north from Verona has been dedicated. The on-site portion will be improved by the master developer of Rio Vista Village. That portion serving the BuaHnT Drvno"""ENT CoRPOaATION
W.uUNnH PAlmlEJtJHll'
6-2 RJo VISTA V/UACE 5PCCff/C PLAN
CAffilPIIAI . Cm SPCCIFIC PLAN No. 97.
Village.
6.2.3 Blowsand Mitib .. dons: Rio Vista Village has pre.,.-"ed a blowsand mitigation program that calls for community cooperation and involves both on-site and off-site improvements. The master developer of Rio Vista Village contemplates completing at least a first phase of such improvements, both on- and off-site involving additional landscaping to the berm and the building of one or more fences in the Morongo Wash. (Refer to Section 6.6.1 BLOWSAND).
6.3 HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION AND COVENANTS, CONDITIONS&:
RESTRICTIONS
It is the intent of the master developer to create a Master Community Association (MCA) to administer the affairs of the owners of common property and the various interests of the association. The MCA will manage such affairs as come before the owners in common and will., at the minimum, manage the parks, . common area landscaping and infrastructure retained in ownership by the Master Community Association.
6.3.1 The master developer will establish Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions applicable to every property under the jurisdiction of the MCA.
6.3.2 Each residential project may create a local Home Owners Association (HOA) to which purchasers of homes will be members in addition to having membership in the Master Community Association.
6.3.3 Membership in the MCA will include every parcel in the specific plan area including commercial, institutional and recreational interests.
6.3.4 The master developer will retain an interest in local Home Owners Associations and in the MCA according to law and will continue to retain such interest until such time as all ownership in real property has been transferred to subsequent purchasers.
6.3.S The master developer will include homeowners on the Design Review Board in a minority position until such time as the master developer no longer has a majority ownership interest in the residential areas of the project.
6.4 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
The master developer may propose and the City may approve special improvement and maintenance districts, composed entirely of the specific plan area, for the purpose of contracting with the city or other public or private entity to develop, manage and maintain certain facilities such as reaeation, storm water retention, security or social services.
Bta.Hf:ff DnTWl'MENr Co«.POIIATION
W..utJCDmN P.urrND5HII'
6-3 RJo V&STA VIUACE SPF:CIFIC Pl.4.N
CATHa>MI. Crrr SPECir/C PI.IIN No. 97.
,"' be available and in the project's interests.
6.4.2 Currently asse~_.nent districts or special facilities/sef\ ... e districts apply to Rio Vista Village as follows:
A CTTY•WIDE COMMUNITY SERVICE AREA: There is an existing city•wide community service area which provides police service, parks and landscaping, street lighting, emergency and paramedic services. The charge is based on equivalent dwelling units (EDU). A single-family house is one (1.0) EDU. Vacant land is 1/2 EDU per acre. The charge for one EDU is $136 per year.
B COMMUNITY SERVICE AREA (CSA) NO. 152: There is another community service area which addresses the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The charge is $8.20 per unit per year.
C ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS: An assessment district was formed to install sewer and water system improvements in the Rio Vista (formerly Sun-X) Area. Burnett Development Corporation paid 572,000 for the oversizing of the mains and stubs to serve Rio Vista Village.
D ___ District_ established for the collection of funds to construct and maintain blowsand mitigation programs.
E ___ • District __ established to collect funds for the acquisition and development of a community park to be constructed within Rio Vista Village.
6.5 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROLS AND DESIGN REVIEW
A design guideline document entitled "Community Character Criteria" will be submitted for review and approval under separate cover after both Specific Plan and Master Tentative Tract Map approvals have been secured. It is the intent of the master developer, Burnett Development Corporation to enforce the design standards and guidelines contained therein.
6.S.1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: Burnett Development Corporation will establish a Design Review Board to administer the Community Character Criteria and deal with such issues as may come before the Board. The Board will consist of at least three voting members, one of who must be a licensed architect in the state of California, one of whom must be a representative of the master developer and one of whom is to be appointed by the Master HOA. At such time as the master developer no longer has a majority ownership interest in the residentially zoned property, two additional HOA memben may be appointed. The number of voting members mu~t Bia.NnT DtvtLDl'ftlENT Cou•o1tAT10N
WAU.EHmi PAlffll#DtSHII'
RJo VISTA V/UACE SPECIFIC PLAN
CAntfl>llAI. Crrr SPECIFIC Pu.N No. 97-
out, at least 01'" member must represent his interest- The licensed architect may come from the , &VA or be appointed at large.
6.6 ENVIRONMENT AL MITIGATIONS
6.6.1. BLOWSAND: Per report "Blowsand Considerations for the Rose Rose Trust Property", November 8, 1991, amended to address the conditions of the Rio Vista Village Specific Plan, October 16, 1997. Prepared by: Donald C Weaver, P.E., Corp., P.O. Box 5414, Riverside, CA 92517, (909) 684-6308. The Weaver report prepared in 1991 was reviewed by Mr. Weaver in 1997 and found to be factually correct for application at this time. Basic blowsand conditions, both causative phenomenon and the resulting set of environmental impacts remain unchanged. The currently recommended program of mitigations is tailored to the specific circumstances of Rio Vista Village and meets or exceeds the mitigations recommended in the 1991 report.
A BLOWSAND IMPACTS: Approximately 52,000 cubic yards can be expected to be intercepted by the upwind property boundaries on a mean annual basis. This is comprised of 15,000 cubic yards per year along the westerly boundary, where mean annual rates of sand transport range from 5 cubic yards per foot-wide path of sand movement at the southerly end to 10 cubic yards per foot-wide path at the northwest comer; and 33,000 cubic yards per year along approximately 3,100 feet of the northerly boundary between the CVWD levee and a point approximately 200 feet measured at a right angle to the railroad, and some 4,000 cubic yards per year across the remaining distance to the railroad. Mean annual rates along this line vary from the 10 cubic yards per foot-wide path of sand movement at the northwest comer to 15 cubic yards per foot-wide path at the point 200 feet from the railroad, and approaching 20 cubic yards per foot-wide path the remaining distance to the railroad.
B BLOWSAND MITIGATIONS: Development of the site will constitute an obstruction to the natural passage of sand, effectively resulting in the stoppage and retention of some 52,000 cubic yards of sand annually as noted above. Therefore implementation of appropriate protection at the upwind borders of the property will be necessary. Due to the existence of the CVWO channel directly upwind the subject property, unlike developments that can anticipate protection as other developments occur upwind and thus shield them from blowsand, properly designed and maintained blowsand control facilities will be necessary for this site indefinitely. This property is BuaNffl' DCV£l.Oll'IIIDIT' CoRl'OIIATION
W.uaM'IH PA.aTHDWIIP
6-5 Rio VISTA V1LJ.AC£ SPtCIFIC PIAN
CA1HU>IIAL CIT'I SPtCJFIC PIAN No. 9i•
blowsand control facilities off-site, in the cvwn channel. (1) l~ .s proposed that three sand fence 1-...ts be located adjacent to or within the Morongo Wash/Storm Water Channel which, with proper long-term maintenance, will adequately serve to control the transport of sand that would otherwise impact the subject property. The extent of the fencing clearly lies outside the boundaries of the property, indicating the need for a mitigation program requiring community level cooperation. The master developer will apply for an encroachment permit to construct such fences in accordance with letters of concurrence issued previously by CVWD.
(2) Adjacent to the westerly property line a blowsand maintenance access way, with a width of 20 feet has been provided to permit equipment to access the berm areas and remove sand as necessary. (3) Along the northeast boundary, adjacent to the railroad right of way, is a 200-foot wide corridor left essentially undeveloped. This is the area of most severe sand transport and by remaining undeveloped will permit convenient and unobtrusive access for maintenance and sand removal. Further, i~ light of the nature of the currently recommended areawide program .as extending northerly to the Railroad ROW, the 200 foot wide blowsand corridor recommended along the north east comer of Rio Vista Village is suitable for use as the future Landau ROW as well as for limited commercial uses such as storage provided blowsand conditions within the corridor at the time of such proposed development are verified as having been mitigated by the proposed fence and berm program.
(4) An existing berm is currently in place between the western edge of Rio Vista Village and the Morongo Wash. This berm is used for both flood control and blowsand control purposes. The top of the berm is planted with tamarisk trees that have become sparse due to the lack of il'rigation. The following components are proposed for the berm:
(a) Additional tamarisk trees to fill in the double row. (b) The installation of an above ground irrigation line to provide water for the tree rows.
(c) The planting of a layer of ground cover and low shrubs along the top of the berm to aid in capturing blowsand transported beyond the upwind fences.
BUJIHETT D£VttoPMDIT COAPOIIAnON
W.uKDmH PltlrfHmsllll'
Rio VISTA VIUACt SPrc,rrc PIJ\N
CATHEDlt/lL Cm SPtCIFIC PLAN No. 97-
... C<'"Struction and to mitigate blowsand in,oacts prior to complete build-
0\.&, of the project the following measure .. .tre proposed. (a) Construction vehicle and equipment routing will be directed to the northerly portions of the site.
(b) Watering and dust controls will be enforced per local ordinance.
(c) Blowsand fencing will be installed within the un-built portions of the project area in locations specifically selected to protect adjacent residential development. The number, extent and location of such fences will be determined as a function of phased building permits so that the mitigation measures may be tailored to construction and development schedules.
(d) Additional measures such as surface stabilization, the planting of ground cover and access control to prohibit vehicular use will all be reviewed as to their efficacy at the time the measures are required.
6.6.2 NOISE/VIBRATION: Per report "Rio Vista Village Preliminary Noise Analysis", City of Cathedral City, California, prepared by: Robert Kahn John Kain & Associates, Inc., 1601 Dove Street, Suite 290, Newport Beach, CA 92660, October 15, 1997.
A PROJECT IMPACTS: An acoustical analysis has been completed to determine the exterior and interior noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the Rio Vista Village project. The project site is located north of Verona Road and west of Landau Boulevard in the City of Cathedral City.
(1) The results of this analysis indicate that future vehicle noise &om the 1-10 Freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks are the principal source of community noise that will impact the site.
However, noise levels on the project site will meet the City's outdoor 6S CNEL exterior standard for outdoor areas and 45 CNEL interior noise standards, if the recommended mitigation measures include the construction of a 15 foot-high noise barrier, a "windows closed" condition requiring a mechanical ventilation system and upgraded windows for those residential units exposed to the 1-10 Freeway and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Noise control measure details are presented in the "Summary of Recommendations" of this report.
BllJINnT DEVELOf'MfNf' COlll'OIIATlON
W.uiaM'?H P.urntaJHII'
Rio VISTA v,u~cc SPCClFIC PIAN
CATHEDRAL Crrr SPtcmc PUIN No. 97-
B
i ... ~~nded to demonstrate that the noise --·iteria of the General Plan of C..athedral City for the project will be n,c:t, if the mitigation measures as recommended in this report are implemented.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES: The following mitigation measures are recommended to mitigate the project's potential noise impacts:
(1) TRAFFIC NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES: Prior to approval of any subsequent maps for the Rio Vista Village project, the developer shall coordinate with the City in providing mitigation of traffic noise impacts on existing residences . Specific mitigation shall include:
(a) Preparation of a detailed acoustical analysis determining precise needs for roadway attenuation,
(b) Construction of any improvements identified in the study as necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, and
(c) A fair-share assessment of fee responsibilities among the major developers for construction of improvements, based on each major development's contribution to traffic volumes along the impacted roadways.
(2) For all areas within the General Plan buildout (Post-2020) 65 CNEL roadway contours, residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. An acoustical study shall be prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering. Evidence that above standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted as follows:
(a) Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, at the sole discretion of the City, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the City for approval. The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise environment and preliminary mitigation measures.
Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy "B" below .
8UJINffl' DF:VELOPMINf' COltl'OllATION
WAHEHITN P All'tHDSHII'
6-8 RIO VISTA VtUACE SPECIFIC PUN
CATHEDAAL Cm- 5Ptcmc PuN No. 97•
... analysis report describing the ac"•tstical design features of the structures required to satisfy b.~ exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the City for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. (c) Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field testing in accordance with California Administration Code Title 25 regulations may be required by the County, to verify compliance with Sound Transmission Class (STC) and Impact Insulation Class (UC) design standards.
C CONSTRUCTION NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES: Construction shall not take place between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday. (1) All construction vehicles or equipment fixed or mobile-operated shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. (2) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive areas.
D UNIT VENTILATION: When the operable doors and windows are open, it is expected that the interior 45 CNEL limit for the Rio Vista Village may be exceeded. Therefore, a windows "Closed" condition is required for this use to meet the interior noise standard. For this windows closed condition, a means of mechanical ventilation may be provided using one of the following alternative methods:
(1) A "summer switch" on the forced air heating/cooling unit for the building. The summer switch permits fan operations for ventilation at reference points 1 and 2, independent of the heating and cooling function. The UBC requires that the system shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 5 cubic feet per minute of outside air per occupant, with a total circulated of not less than 15 cubic feet per minute per occupant in all portions of the building, during such time as the building is occupied. If the velocity of the air at the register exceeds 10 feet per second, the register shall be placed more than 8 feet above the floor directly beneath. The fresh air intake duct should be a flexible fiberglass sound attenuating construction. The duct may be at least ten (10) feet long or at least six (6) feet long with one sharp BuaNrrr D£\ll'Wl'IWEM' Co•,o,unoN
W.ulCEHffH PAlmlOSHII'
6-9 Rlo VISTA VU.lACE SPECIFIC PV.N
CATHEDML Cm SPECltlC Pt.AN No. 97.
(2)
damper before the fan.
duough wall air conditioner or heat ,. .. mp. Such a unit must supply a minimum of 5 cubic feet per minute outside air per occupant for the total circulated air of not less than 15 cubic feet per minute per occupant in all portions of the building, du.ring such time as the building is occupied. The unit should have an approximate overall dimension of 18" x 24" or less with a vent opening no greater than 6" in diameter. Or, the unit may be an approved alternative with acceptable acoustical transmission performance.
(3) An attic fan system. Such a system would bring outside air to the building interior and exhaust· the interior area air past a ceiling fan into the attic space and out the attic vent. The air may be ducted into the building through 10 feet of flexible fiberglass ducting, with one sharp 90° bend. The intake opening for the ducting should be in the side of the building .which faces away from the 1-10 Freeway. As required by the UBC, the system must provide 5 cubic feet per minute of outside air per occupant, with a total circulated of not less than 1 S cubic feet per minute per occupant within all portions of the building, during such time as the building is occupied.
(4) Any other method of ventilation which meets the UBC requirements for 5 cubic feet per minute of outside air per occupant, with the total circulated of not less than 15 cubic feet per minute pre occupant in all portions of the building, during such time as the building is occupied.
E NOISE CONTROL BARRIER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS: The
necessary noise barrier mitigation will be accomplished if the noise barrier construction materials have a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area. The recommended barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom, and no openings or decorative cutouts should be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. The required noise control barriers may be constructed using one of the following alternative materials:
(1) Masonry block;
(2) Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or 1 inch thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot; (3) 1/4 inch thick glass, acrylic plastic, or other transparent materials with sufficient weight per square foot may be used to provide views; BllltHffl' Dr:vrtoPMDIT Coal'OMnoN
W.UICENTl'H P.urrHDISHII'
RJo VISTA VU.LACE 5P£CIFIC PLAN
CATH£DIIAI. Crrr SPECUIC Pl.AN No. 91-
,~· (5) Any combination of these materials or other construction materials "' .1 a minimum weight of 3.5 pounds ~ . square foot of face area.
6.6.3 TRAFFIC IMPACT: Per report "Rio Vista Village Traffic Impact Analysis", City of Cathedral City, California, prepared by: Robert Kahn John Kain & Associates, Inc., 1601 Dove Street, Suite 290, Newport Beach, CA 92660, October 8, 1997.
A DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION: Rio Vista Village has been designed to incorporate Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) circulation features. In addition, the propose development minimizes "through traffic" impacts to the sunounding area by terminating Landau Boulevard within the boundary of Cathedral City.
(1) For Opening Year traffic conditions, the project site is proposed to be developed with 260 single-family detached residential dwelling units, 156 apartment dwelling units, 179 condominium dwelling units, and 7 acres of park use. For buildout traffic conditions, the project site will be developed with a total of 1,030 singl~family detached residential dwelling units, 1S6 apartment dwelling units, 179 condominium dwelling units, 7 acres of park, 700 student elementary school and 15,000 square feet of commercial retail.
(2) For existing traffic conditions, the study area intersections operate at Level of Service "C" or better during the peak hours. The proposed Opening Year development is projected to generate approximately 5,290 trip-ends per day with 400 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 530 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. (3) The proposed buildout development is projected to generate a total of approximately 15,570 trip-ends per day with 1,230 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 1,520 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. The proposed project will have access to the extensions of Landau Boulevard and A venida Quintana.
(4) For Opening Year without project traffic conditions, study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "C" or better during the peakhours without improvements.
(5) For Opening Year with project traffic conditions, study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "C" or better during the peak hours without improvements.
(6) For study area buildout without project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at BUJtNnT DE\'tLOPMDff CoaPOICATION
WAJIKEM?N PMmlaJHII'
6-11 Rio VISTA VIUAC£ SPECIFIC PLAN
CATHCOIIAL Crrr Sl'ECJFIC PLAN No. 97•
•· improvements: Gene Autry Trail (NS) at Vista Lhino U:W i; Date l . ..n Drive (NS) at Vista Chino (EW).
(7) For study area buildout without project traffic conditions, study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-4. (8) For study area buildout with project traffic conditions, the following study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak hours, without improvements: Gene Autry Trail (NS) at Vista Chino (EW); Date Palm Drive (NS) at Vista Chino (EW).
(9) For study area buildout with project traffic conditions, study area intersections are projected to operate at Level of Service "D" or better during the peak hours with the improvements listed in Table 5-6. (10) For study area building traffic conditions with the project, a traffic signal is projected to be warranted at the following study area intersections: • landau Boulevard (NS) at Rio Vista Boulevard (EW).
B PHASE I MITIGATIONS: For Phase 1 of the project site, the following network features should be constructed.
(1) Construct the extension of Landau Boulevard as a Secondary Highway to the Rio Vista Boulevard one-way couplet
(2) Construct the Ria Vista Boulevard couplet from Landau Boulevard to west of the central project traffic circle.
(3) Construct a traffic roundabout at the intersection of Verona Road and Landau Boulevard.
(4) Construct the northerly extension of Avenida Quintana as a Local Collector.
( S) Improve the north side of Verona Road from A venida Quintana to Landau Boulevard at its ultimate half-section width as a Local Collector.
C PHASE 2 MITICATIONS: For Phase 2 of the project site, the following additional network features should be constructed.
(1) Construct a Collector connection to Verona Road from Rio Vista Boulevard between the proposed elementary school and the project commercial retail site.
(2) Complete the westerly extension of Rio Vista Boulevard.
BUIIHE'IT Dn'ELMMIHf CoaPOaAnoN
W.uUNnN PAll'fHDSHP
6-12 RJo VISTA VtUACt 5PCC/Ftc PLAN
CATHIDRAL ClrY SPtartc Pv.N No. 97.
Ul nu.a,
d !lopment of the site north of the pr ct which will take access to the northerly extension of Landau Boulevard.
(4) The project should contribute to the installation of off-site traffic signals when warranted through the payment of traffic signal mitigation fees.
(S) The project should participate in an areawide funding program to provide phased implementation of the study area buildout approach lane geometrics at study area intersections as shown on Exhibits S-1 through 5-Q.
6.6.4 HYDROLOGY: Per report "Rio Vista Village Hydrology/Drainage" prepared by Mainiero Smith and Associates, 777 Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301, Palm Springs, CA, October 7, 1997
A IMPACTS: The site generally drains &om northwest to southeast. It is proposed that Boulevard Retention Areas as well as the Verona Retention Areas be used to retain 100% of the stormwater runoff &om a 100 year 24- hour storm. Based on the Land Use Plan for Rio Vista Village approximately 60 aae-feet of total storage capacity is required to retain the 100 year 24-hour storm. In addition, the Morongo Creek Stormwater Channel, the neighborhood park, the .roundabouts, portions of the school site and the swimming lagoon will not contribute to the stormwater runoff that must be retained.
B MmGATIONS: In general, it is proposed that storm water retention be accommodated by a series of linear retention basins located either within the 100 foot wide median of the main boulevard or in a 40 foot wide easement along the south side of the project adjacent to the Verona Road ROW. (1) The Boulevard Retention Areas are 7.5 acres in size and have a capacity of 54 acre-feet. Each basin is intended to receive storm water from a designated section of the project and are not intended to pennit flow from one basin to another. These basins are a maximum of 8 feet deep and have side slopes of 4:1 to generate the required volume of retention.
(2) The Verona Retention Areas are 4 aaes in size and have a total capacity of 15 aae-feet. Each basins is a maximum of S feet deep with side slopes of 4:1.
BuaNffl' DEVEl,Ol1f11n:Jff COUOAAnON
W.ulE'fflH PAIC'fft/DSlll7
6-13 RJo VISTA VIUACC SPECIFIC PUN
CAntmllAL Cm SPECIFIC PuN No. 97-
Existing Assessment istricts, Community Service Distr and Community Facility Districts may be used when such existing districts meet the requirements of Rio Vista Village. In the event that a new district could serve as a means of securing the needed financing, the master developer will determine the feasibility of creating such new district(s) and assist the City in their creation.
6.7.1 BACKBONE CIRCULATION SYSTEM: The master developer shall on a phased basis construct the backbone circulation system of streets, sidewalks, parkways, curb and gutters and service lanes. The precise phasing shall be determined by the sequence of Tract Maps submitted within each major phase.
A It is the intention of the master developer to develop the streets and service lanes as public Rights-of-Way and turn such public facilities over to the City for maintenance.
B In the event a particular project selects to utilize a private street system, maintenance costs shaU be determined and included in the local Home Owners Association dues structure.
6.7.2 UTILITIES: All required backbone utilities for each major phase shall be installed by the master developer in accordance with currently accepted practices.
6.7.3 PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES: The master developer shall be responsible for the design, construction and interim maintenance of the Entry Feature Park, the Village Commons and the Water Park/Beach Club.
A ENTRY FEATURE PARK: This passive park at the entry to the village will serve as the site for the entry monument. This monument is intended to provide a distant visual clue to the location of Rio Vista Village. The master developer shall design, construct and provide interim maintenance of this park/monument until such time as the Master HOA assumes responsibility.
Discussions are on-going as to the manner in which the design will take place, competitions, selected commissions and the developer's choice being the currently discussed alternatives.
B VILLAGE COMMONS: The Village Commons is the local village park and will be constructed in Phase I. The design, construction and interim maintenance will be the responsibility of the master developer until the Master HOA assumes control.
C WATER PARK/BEACH CLUB: This facility is intended to meet the water oriented recreation needs a service area much larger than Rio Vista Village.
As such, the design, construction, operation and maintenance are not the BUJINETT DEVUOl'MDIT COltPOltATION
WitalEfflH PtlltTH~
6-14 RJo V.IS'l"A VtUACE SPECIFIC PUN
C.~TH£DltAL Cm SPECl1/C PUN No. 97-
'.
6.7.4 aesue to assist m me aes1gn ana conscrucuon or me rac111ty as a component part l .'hase I and is in discussion with .e city regarding ownership, operations and maintenance responsibilities. It is clear, however, that the issues of ownership, operational control, legal liability and facility maintenance have not been resolved to the level necessary to execute the agreements between Burnett Development and the City.
COMMON AREA LANDSCAPE TREATMENTS: The master developer will improve all . common landscape areas on a phased basis and. provide interim maintenance until the Master HOA assumes responsibility. These improvements will be in accordance with the Master Landscape Plan.
6.8 FLOOD CONTROL: The Whitewater River and Morongo Wash are regional waterways serving to channel local flood waters. While outside the purview of the developers of Rio Vista Village, the master developer is working with CVWD to coordinate the flood control and blowsand mitigation programs. Currently the Morongo Wash is blocked upstream of Rio Vista Village by the elimination of the bridge at the railr-oad more than 10 years ago. Discussions with CVWD indicate that a proposed trestle crossing of the Wash is in the design stage and within the near future the restoration of Morongo Wash as an active component of the regional flood control system is probable. At that time, CVWD is expected realign the channel and complete the concrete lined levee from Verona Road to the UP/SP railroad ROW
6.8 ADMINISTRATION AND AMENDMENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN
The Director of Community Development shall determine if any proposal submitted for development review requires Planning Commission review and approval, including public hearings pursuant to City zoning procedures and policies. The underlying principles of the specific plan, however, endorse flexibility, adaptability and options as opposed to fixed and pre-determined solutions. As the Director reviews proposed development proposals, including altemative development approaches, findings shall be made in light of these underlying principles as well as the specific letter of the regulations.
6.8.1 When a development proposal is determined to be consistent with the purpose and intent of this specific plan, approval may be granted including minor and incidental changes to the development standards within this specific plan.
6.8.2 APPEALS: Appeals of the decisions of the Director of Community Development or of the Planning Commission shall be administered per the policies and ordinances of the City Zoning Ordinance and according to prevailing law.
BU11Nffl' 0£VE1DPMEHT COAl'ORATION
W.uU1oo'FtH P.umtOSHIP
6-15 Rio VISTA V11.tAC£ SPECIFIC PU.N
C.~THfl>ltAL Crrr SPECIFIC PLAN No. 97.
~ ·
T L
117I~ L
I l
~ Ii
f ~: ~
J~ I [ ]
L L '[
-
C .
LAND USE PLAN
The Land Use Category applying to the entire site per the a.mended General Plan of May, 1988 is "L" Low Density Residential permitting 2 to 4.5 units per acre.
Rio Vista Village Specific Plan proposes to apply the "L" category over the entire 302.62 acre site, thus permitting a maximum of 1362 units. W_ithin the boundaries of the specific plan, however, a variety of densities are proposed as are commercial, institutional and recreational uses.
LEGEND
SYMBOL
L
e
LANO USE
CATEGORY
Low Density
Residential
Commercial
Institutional
Recreational
School (e)
DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE
Uses include circulation, detention areas and related
infrastructure.
Residential housing types ranging from single family homes to attached single family and attached multi-family
housing. Also permitted are assisted care facilities of any type. Second units are permitted in specifically designated areas.
Neighborhood level commercial uses and/or institutional uses providing neighborhood and village level goods and services.
Reaeational and open space uses intended to serve
neighborhood, village and ci ty level recreational needs.
Elementary school per the request of the Palm Springs
Unified School District
APPROX.
ACREAGE
245 aaes
12 acres
7 acres
10 acres
E8
RIO VISTA VILLAGE
0rY OF CA™EORAL 0TY
35-325 DA Tl P AU,( 0lJV£
Specific f'lan No.
SP 97-
BURNETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
13031 NIWl'OU AVl, 5ul'T1 l00
EXHllJIT 4-C
LAND USE
PLAN CA THEDltAL CITY , CA
760.770.CI396
0EJ'T. OF
COMMUNITY
0£\IEI.OPMENT
TUSTI", CA 714..544.7600
WARKENTIN PARTNERSHIP
2t5<J FAlaMOUN'T ILYO .
RIVHSll>l .CA 92501 tOt.711..5422
SCAU : NON[
DATE: 10.%6.17
--• -
BSE•A
~ S.l
5.3 R-8 !
6.1 6.4
R-5
R-4
S.2
R-4
5.4 R-8
•• 6.2
R-8
6.3 R-5
6.S
R-S
I
I 3.1
R-4
3.2 R-4
33 R-4
4.1 R-6
4.2 R-6
4.3 R-6
' ,
I 1.1
MF·2
R•2
I u
R-6
C
2.1 R-5
2.2 2.3
R-5 ES
PLANNING
AREA6.0
PLANNING PLANNING
AREA 4.0
PLANNING AREAS AND LAND USE CATEGORIES
RESIDENTIAL USES:
AREA 2.0
R-2 Cluster lots of a minimum 2000 S.F. in area at a maximum density of 15 DU/ AC.
R-4 Lots of a minimum 4000 S.F. in area at a maximum density of 8 DU/ AC R-5 Lots of a minimum 5000 S.F. in area at a maximum density of 6.5 DU/ AC R-6 Lots of a minimum 60005.F. in area at a maximum density of 5.5 DU/ AC R-8 Lots of a minimum 8000 S.F. in area at a maximum density of 4.5 DU/ AC MF-2 Multi-family dwellings at a density not to exceed 20 DU/ AC.
ASF-4 Attached single family dwellings at a density not to exceed 15 DU/ AC.
NON-RESIDENTIAL USES:
1.2 MF•2
VC Village Commons: A community level park serving the residents of Rio Vista Village.
ES Elementary School: A .10 acre site offered to .the Palm Springs Unified School District.
REC A 4 acre site for use as a city-wide park.
2.5 C-I
C-1 A 3 acre site for development of village level services to meet the daily needs of the local community .
DA Detention areas to hold storm water runoff per city requirements. These areas are developed as multi-use corridors permitting active recreation and passive park uses.
BSE
C(R)
ROW
Blowsand Easements: These areas are set aside as catchment areas for transported blowsand .
These areas are also used for access and maintenance of the blowsand mitigation devices Commercial (Reserve): Sites reserved for commercial development.
Right-ofWay: Parcels offered for dedication as public streets serving adjacent parcels .
ABBREVIATIONS
S.F. Square Feet
OU/ AC Dwelling Units per Acre
RIO VISTA VILLAGE
OT'YOF CA'Jli'£01W. 0rY
35-32.5 DA n PALM DllVI
CA T'HEDRAL Crrr , CA
760.770.!1396
Spea.!1c: Plan No.
SP 97-
DEPT. 0P
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
BURNETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
I J021 N IW"01T A Y1. 9.Jffl 200
TUSTIN, CA 71'J64JGI
WARKENTIN PARTNERSHIP
2950 FAIIMOUNT IILVD.
Rl"'IISIDI .CA 91501 Q .l'U.5422
EXHIBIT 4-D
PLANNING
AREAS
.k:AU:: NONC
OAl't : 10.1, .,1
.. -• • • • • • ;a
-
Vt: V ',AGE CONKONS 2.88
Jl0W S:.. . .,.:J:T RIGHT OF 1Gl' 36. 6S
DA DEn:NTION BASIN DD 11. 30
BSI A BLOWS AND EASEMENT A 2 6 . 41
BSE JI BLOWSAND KAINT EASEMENT ! l. 151
SUBTOTAL 78.43
PLANNING AREAS
LAND USE DESIGNATION
LAND USE DESCRIPTION
1AJU:A IN ACRES
'-::;P:=EJUO:==T=TED=---=o::-::EN=s:--=I:-::n=-------
PA 1.0 MAX. ALLOW. UNITS
1,1 KF-2 MULTI-FAMILY lB.10 20 362
1.2 KF-2 KUL'l'I-FAMILY 14.61 20 292
1. 3 J\-7 USIDEN'l'IAL-SINGLE FAMILX 4. 95 5. S 27
1.4J\-7 USIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILX S.73 5.5 32
1. S lt-7 USIDEN1'IAL-SINGLE FAMILX l. 96 5. S 11
1. 6 THEME FU.~ PUJC O. 44 0
l.7- -----FU'l'URE==-="',,......,LAND:-"C""'."=-A-U--,-D~ED~I~C~A~'l'~I~O-N:----::3~.~g~2----- 0-c---- l. 8 C (It) COMKU.CIAL (USUVED) 4. 651 0
SUBTOTAL 54.40 724
PA 2.0
2. l ll-6 USIDENTUL-SINGLE FAMILl 13. 23 6. S 86
2 . 2 J\- 6 USIDENTU.L- SINGLE FAMILX 4 . 4 SI 6 . S 2 51 2 . 3 ES EI.£MtNT.Ucr SCHOOL l O . 0 0 0 0 2.4 -u_ c ___ WA_ TEJ\ __ ~-AJU<--U- CREA--1'I- o_N ____ 4 ___ 0~1---o---o----
2. 5 C-I COHK' L/INSTI'l'UTIONAL USES 3. 03 0 0
SUBTOTAL 34.82
PA 3.0
3.1 ll-4.S USIDENTU.L-SINGLE FAMILX 16.86
3. 2 J\-4. 5 RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILX 8. 68
3.3 ll-4.5 :RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILX 8.84
SUBTOTAL 34.38
B
8 8
13S
651
71 115
275
PA '· O ---------·------------------ A maximum of 1362 units are 4. 1 J\- 7 RESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILX 8 . 88 S. S 49 . I , f
NOTE ON MAXIMUM
UNITS ALLOWED
4. 2 -Jl-- -7--U- S_I_D_ENTI __ AL ___ S_IN_G_LE __ F_AMI __ L_X __ e __ -,-s--s-. -5--4-8 ___ perm~tted, UC usive .0 Th , . 3 J\-7 usmENTIAL-SINGLE FAMIL? 14 . 00 5 . 5 77 permitted second units. e SUBTOTAL 31 . 5 3 173 114S unit count represents th•
PA 5. o aggregate total of the
S .1 -J\---4-. s __ U_ S_I_D_EN_ T_I_AL _ __ S_IN_G_ LE __ F_AMI __ L_X_ l_7 ___ 1_5 ___ 8 __ l3_7 ___ maximum units allowed in
5. 2 J\-4. 5 USIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILX 8. 80 8 70 every planning area. In
5. 3 J\-8. 5 Rl:Sll>ENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILX 1. 56 4. s 7 pr.active, however, as S. 4 J\•8. 5 J\ESIDEN'l'IAL-SINGLE FAMILl S. 73 4. 5 26 individual planning areas UC PA 6.0
6.1:R-8.5
6.2:a~a.s
6.3 •• ,
,.,:a-6
6 . 5J\-6
SUBTOTAL 33. 24
USIDDl'l'IAL-SINGLJ: FAMILX
USI%>ElffIAL-SINGLE FAMILX
USIDDl'l'IAL-SINGLE FAMILX
USIDDl'l'IAL-SINGLJ: FAKILX
1. 511
5.73 8.80
3.21 J\ESIDENTIAL-SINGLE FAMILl 16 .17
SUBTOTAL 35.82
4 . 5
4.5 6.5
6.5 6.5
240
g
26 ---57
21 105
218
302. 62 ACRES 1745
approved, the accululated
total will be monitored by th•
Dept. of Community
Development and
density/unit transfers will b1
adjusted to ensure that no
more than the permitted 1365
units are approved.
RIO VISTA VII.LAG£
OIYOPCA'JHEDRAL CtY
35-325 OA?I PA.LW OalVI
Specilic Pill\ No.
SP 97-
BURNETT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
uasi NIWPOIT AV1. !lm'l2C0
EXHIBIT 4-E
STATISTICAL
SUMMARY CA lHEilltA1. Cm, CA
7'°.7'0.11396
D&Pr. 0,
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
TUSTIN, CA 7lU ... 7600
WARK ENTIN PARTNERSHIP
2950 F.UIMOUff ILVD.
ltPYIMIDI .CA 9250! IOt.71&.S4ZZ
SCAU; NONE
DA ft: I0.2'.17
-