HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 87-2 Commercial Core Area Specific Plan 4.4
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO: (X) Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) Secretary for Resources
County of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. Rm 1311
4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Riverside, CA 92502 , , r ,
FROM: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108
or 21152 of the public resources code.
Project Title/Common Name: CZ 87-2 , Palm Desert Commercial Core Area
Specific Plan.
Date of Project Approval : July 23, 1987
State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted):
Contact Person: Philip Drell
Project Location: Properties fronting on Highway 111 , El Paseo and Alessandro
Drive between the city's eastern and western city limits.
Project Description: A Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan establishing
Planning and redevelopment policies in the area.
This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following
determinations reaarding the above described project:
1 . The project ( ) will , (X) will not, have a sign ficant effect on the
environment.
2. __ An environmental impact report was prepared for this project
pursuant -to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental
impact report may be examined at the above city hall address.
_X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of C_EQA. A copy of the negative declaration may
be examined at the above city hall address.
3. Mitigation measures (X) were, t ) were not, made a condition of the
approval of the project.
4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X) was not,
adopted for this project. BOARD OF UP RNV) OFR
J, _
-- J U l 2 91987
Siana�ure Title
Date Received for Filing C urty
AT
Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
CASC NO. GPA 87-2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert ,
Cal ifornia , did on the 14th day of May , 1987 , hold a duly
noticed public meeting to consider the Commercial Core Area
Specific Plan and assocfated Negative Declaration of Environ-
mental Impact estabiishing Planning and Redevelopment Agency
pollcles for the City' s El Paseo/Highway III/Alessandro Drive
commercial corridor.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements
of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the
CaIIfornIa Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", In
that the Director of Community Development/Planning has
determined that the protect wliI not have an adverse impact on
the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS , at said public hearing , upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments , if any , of all
Interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did
find the following facts and reasons to exist to Justify their
approval :
1 . The proposed land uses and policies promote a more
logical and compatible pattern of commercial develop-
ment than existing conditions.
2. The proposed policies are designed to increase the
economic potential of existing commercial areas while
protecting adJacent residential areas from the
potential negative impacts of increased commercial
activity.
3. The proposed land uses and policies are consistent
with the goals of the Palm Desert General Plan and
will promote the health, safety and general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert , as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the City Council in this
case.
2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact ,
"Exhibit A" , Is hereby approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-30
3. That the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan, GPA 87-2,
Exhibit "B", is hereby approved.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert City Council, held on this 23rd day of July, 1987, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, CRITES, SNYDER, KELLY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: WILSON
ABSTAIN: NONE
RICRARD S. KEL Y, MAYOR
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. G!LtIGAN
CITY CLERK `
EXHIBIT "A"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to Title 14. Division 6. Article 7. Section 15083
of the California Administrative Code.
CASE NOs GPA 87-2 PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPON50Rt CITY Of PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATIONs
A sneciflc plan establishing planning and redevelopment collcles for the Palo
Desert Highway 111. El Paseo and Alessandro Orlve Commercial Core (so* attached
meal.
The Director of the Department of Community Development. City of Palm Desert.
California. has found that the described orolect will not have a significant
eff act' on the environment. A coov of the initial study has been attached to
document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures. 1f any.
included In the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be
found attached.
RAMON A. DIAZ. DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/dig
EXPLANATION FOR RESPONSES IN
INITIAL STUDY GPA 07-2
PALM DESERT C011MERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
1. EARTH
The or000sal involves projects in an already highly urbanized area. There
will be no significant imoacts.
Z. AIR EMISSIONS
The proposals involve changes to traffic circulation patterns to improve
access and safety for existing commercial areas and orovisions for
additional off-street narking. No significant Increase in air emissions
are�anticloated.
3. WATER
No significant lmpacts.
40 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE
Area Is an existing highly urbanized commercial district with no
significant olant or animal resources.
637 NATURAL RESOURCES a ENERGY
The proposal represents a reorganization of the existing land resources
to achieve greater land use efficiency. There will not be a significant
increase in the consumatlon of natural resources.
8. RISK OF UPSET
The city's zoning. fire. health and safety ordinances strictly regulate
use of hazardous substances to orotect oubiic safety. The existing
commercial zoning does not oermit industrial type uses.
9. The area is not subject to unusual flooding or geologic hazards.
10. NOISE
The oroposai recommends creation of substantial buffer area between
commercial and residential uses diminishing notentlal noise impacts.
11. LAND USE
The ar000sal will result In a 12 foot exoansion of the commercial zone
along the northern boundary of the study area. Presently this area Is
composed of a mixture of vacant lots* apartments. orofesvional offices.
oarking lots and single family homes. The oIan Is designed to create a
more compatible mix of commercial land uses with a substantial buffer
zone adjacent to the single family residential zone.
GPA 87-2 CONTINUEO
12. OPEN SPACE
I
There Is no designated existing open space In the area.
13. POPULATION
The area does not Presently contain a significant resident population.
14. EMPLOYMENT
The Proposal wi11 allow for increased economic activity and employment
within the existing commercial core area.
15. HOUSING
The plan will initially slightly decrease the number of housing units in
the clan area. Efforts will be made to 'replace this housing on land
Presently owned by the redeveloament agency in the neighborhood to the
north. The Palm Oesert General Plan Housing Element and the Paler
vlitag@ Specific Plan contains coil -les and programs which have
significantly Promoted the construction affordable housing to replace
those eliminated as cart of this Plan.
16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Along Highway Ill . the clan proposes redesign to Increase business
accessibility while reducing existing traffic conflicts at cross streett
frontage road Intersections. These changes will have a Positive impact
on circulation patterns. The 120 foot expansion of the commercial zone
on the north side of Alessandro Orive and north of the alley between
Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas Avenue will add approximately 18 acres of
land for Professional offices and retail/service use. Under the existing
combination of multi family and single famiiv land uses. the area would
accommodate 180 residential units generating 1260 ACT. Under the proposed
plan the 18 acre commercial expansion would Permit 313.632 square feet of
additional office/retail/service development generating 6586 ACT (assuming
21 ACT per 1000 square feet based upon 2/3 office at 12 ACT and 1/3
specialty retail at 40 ACT from Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook).
The net increase over the existing land use will be an additional 5326
trips spaced over the 1.5 mile commercial stria. Since clan Implemen-
tation will occur over a 10 year Period the annual increase will be
approximately 532 trips per year. The clan proposes that a major portion
of the expanded area be used for off-street Parking to accommodate the
Increased commercial development.
2
GPA 87-2 CONTINUED
MITIGATION
To Prevent this additional traffic from adversely effecting adjacent
residential zones. local residential streets which Presently intersect
Alessandro Drive will be cul-de-saced. The redesign of the frontage
road/Highway III/cross street circulation system will result in safer
more convenient access this mitigating the increase level of traffic.
17. PUBLIC SERVICES
The Project will involve oarticioation by the Palm Desert Redevelopment
Agency In the areas of public road reconstruction, parking lot
development. landscaping and maintenance. These Programs will be funded
through redevelopment tax increment and assessment districts.
18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE
Public expenditures will correspond to increased ravened generated by
the redevelopment area.
19. UTILITIES
No significant utility modifications are Proposed.
20. HUMAN HEALTH
The Proposed circulation changes will improve public safety.
21. SOCIAL SERVICES
NO impact.
22. AESTHETICS
The Proposed landscaping Programs for the frontage road and El Paseo will
greatly enhance the aesthetic quality of the area.
23. LIGHT ANO GLARE
All commercial lighting must meet stringent standards which Prevent light
spillover into residential areas.
24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
There are no significant archeologlcal/historical resources in the area.
3
" CASE NO.
r:
map
-e0w41MERe—iA L c:COav- `-Par( sec, PLOW
EN'0'n0m JTAL SEnVICES DEPT.
IYITIAL STUDY
MWIROMIENTAL EVALUATION C8ECXLIST
ti
VOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all *yes' and "maybe" answer, possible mitigation •
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets).
Yes Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures? _
b, Disruptions, displacements, campaction, or
overcovering of the soil? — —'
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief �--
features?
d. The destruction; covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? ✓
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? ✓
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors? ✓
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? , ..
2,
Yes Maybe No
3. Water. 'Will the proposal result in:
}.. Changes-in currents, 'or the course or
O'direction of water' movements?
b. Changes in-abs. 9 orpttnn rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and'amount of
surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the courts or fZoiw•of
flood waters?
d. Alteration of.the direction or rats of
flow of ground waters?
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, !
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? f
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of plants
(including tress, shrubs, grass, and
crops)? .
f
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
.�G
S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in:
A. Changes in the diversity of species, or r
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, or
insects)?
b: Reduction of the numbers of any 'unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
`
d. Oeterioration to existing wi idl i fe habitat? � ;;l
3.
Yes No
5. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in:.the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. 0epletion Of any non-renewable natural
resource? ,,
7. fnerSX. will the proposal result in:
a. use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ .011
b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the.deeelopment of new sources of
• energy?
S. Risk of Upset..- Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides.' oil , -chemicals, or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions?
9. Eonnomid Loss. Will the proposal result. in:
a. A change in -the value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding? ...� _ ✓
b. A change in the value of property and
improv enen:s exposed to geologic hazards
beyond accapted .co=unity risk standards?
10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing -
noise levels to -the point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
11. Land Use. Will .the proposal result in the
a to ration of the present developed or
planned land use of an area? • U/. -Ae
12. Open Soace. • Will the proposal lead to a
decrease to the .tmount of designated open
space?
13. Population. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration or the location, distribution.
density, or growth rate of the human
population of the Citv?
b. Change in the population distribution by
age. income, religion, racial , or ethnic i
group, occupational class, household type? _ ✓ .•
4.
Yam. Maybe No
14. Emoloyment. Will the proposal result in 1
additionaT new long-term gobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed?
15. Houma. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by ty0e (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner-occupied Ynd rental ,
eta.) relative to demand or to number of - --
families in various income classes in the City? ✓
b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a �•
demand for additional housing? _ ✓ _
15. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a.' Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects an existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patternt of circulation
or mcvement of people andlor goods?
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, -
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
17. Public Sertices. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areAs:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? ✓
c. Schools? ✓
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services? ✓ ,_
• Yes Maybe No
Public Ffscal Balance. Will the proposal
resu t. n a net change in government fiscal
flaw (revenues less operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
19. Utilities. will the proposal result in a
needfoor new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. C=Mnications system? o
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? —
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: '
a. The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of coemunity health ✓
care provided?
21. Social Sertices. will the proposal result in
an increased demand for provision of general
social .services?
22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista•or view
open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? -
c. lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, Y
and uniqueness?
23. Light and G1ar+. Will the proposal produce
new 11ght or glare? 1�
24. Archeological/Mitorical . Wily the proposal
result in in a teracion of A significant
archeological or historical site. structure,
obJect, or building? i —
6.
Yet maybe Na
25. Mandatory Findings of Signiiicance.
a. Oces the project have the potential to degrade .
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment:
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-terra,
environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time '
while long-term impacts will endure well into /
the future. )
C. Ooes the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact an two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource
is relatively small , but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
d. Oces the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ ci
Initial Study Prepared By: ILA
'"�
PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
a-
p' PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING
Prepared by:
Commercial Core Project Area Committee, Richard Sparks, Chairman
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency, Carlos Ortega, Executive
Director
Department of Community Development/Planning, Ramon Diaz ,
Director
Philip Drell, Project Manager
David Yrigoyen, Administrative Assistant
Maria Hunt, Secretary
Edna Cochrane, Secretary
Adopted by City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board
July 23, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 2
GENERAL POLICIES 5
Area A North Highway 111/Alessandro 6
Area B South Highway 111 - Desert Sun Building
to E1 Paseo 14
Area C South Highway 111/E1 Paseo to Monterey
Avenue 15
Area D Gateways 24
EXHIBITS
A BOUNDARY MAP
B CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
C PROGRAM PRIORITIES
D EL PASEO PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE
PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In February of 1986, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board
appointed a 30-member citizens ' advisory committee to make
recommendations concerning land use policies and redevelopment
priorities for the City ' s commercial core . The project area
generally included properties fronting on Highway 111, E1 Paseo
and Alessandro Drive . Staff support for the committee was
provided by the Department of Community Development/Planning, the
Redevelopment Agency and the Department of Public Works.
Consisting of business owners, property owners and residents, the
Committee met on a weekly basis between March and December 1986
identifying and discussing critical issues and formulating
policies and implementation recommendations.
The general policy and implementation strategies contained in the
Plan are designed to maximize the Project Area' s potential for
high quality economic development compatible with Palm Desert ' s
overall community goals and self image. The Plan is primarily a
policy guide although it also contains conceptual descriptions
and illustrations as to how specific programs could be
implemented. Actual program design and implementation will be
subject to a continuing process of analysis and review tailoring
each program and project to the unique circumstances and
requirements of property owners, residents, developers and the
Redevelopment Agency with a particular sub-area.
1
%W
BACKGROUND
Development in what would become Palm Desert Commercial Core
first occurred on the north side of Highway 111 during the 1940 ' s
and 1950 ' s . Slowly, development emphasis shifted south across
Highway 111 to E1 Paseo during the 1960 ' s and early 1970 ' s .
Highway 111 became increasingly dominated by offices, service,
automotive and con3truction related commercial . E1 Paseo
developed a high-end specialty retail orientation.
When the City of Palm Desert incorporated in 1973, the upgrading
and redesign of the commercial core was one of the first prior-
ities. The initial emphasis was placed on improving safety of
access to and from Highway 111 businesses . As originally
designed, two-way frontage roads with unrestricted cross-street
access served both sides of Highway 111 . Safety concerns
generated by traffic conflicts between frontage road, Highway 111
and cross-street traffic eventually led to an extensive redesign
in 1979. The two-way system was changed to one-way with slip
ramps from Highway 111 and limited movements at intersections.
Although addressing safety problems, the one-way solution created
significant access problems for Highway 111 businesses.
An important component of the original frontage road redesign
plan included the improvement of rear circulation and access
through improved rear parking areas. In 1980, the Redevelopment
Agency participated in the reorganization and reconstruction of
the rear lots on the south side of Highway 111 between Portola
Avenue and Larkspur Lane creating the President' s Plaza. On the
2
fir+ .rr
north side of Highway 111 , complications and conflicts with
adjacent residential areas prevented implementation of similar
projects. General dissatisfaction with the redesigned frontage
road system has been a continuing subject of controversy in the
community.
In 1983, a reexaminacion of the frontage roads by JEF Engineering
introduced the "superblock concept" , where two-way circulation
would be re-established. Wherever possible, the frontage road
would be merged into adjacent parking areas . Access at cross
streets would be pulled as far away from the Highway 111 inter-
section as was practical . In 1985, the superblock concept was
first successfully implemented on the south side between Larkspur
Lane and Lupine Lane.
In addition to the older commercial area located between Deep
Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue, the study area includes vacant
or recently developed areas at the City' s eastern and western
gateways. Beginning with the City' s first general plan, these
areas have been designated either for planned regional commercial
or hotel/restaurant resort development. The construction of the
Palm Desert Town Center in 1983 at the northwest corner of
Highway 111 and Monterey established Palm Desert as the regional
retail growth center of the Coachella Valley. The development of
the hotel/restaurant parcels has been slower. Embassy Suites,
Continental Inn and Vacation Inn have been built at City ' s
eastern gateway.
3
%W ...
As a result of Palm Desert ' s emergence as the commercial resort
growth center, intense development interest is being generated
throughout the study area. These growth pressures present the
City and Redevelopment Agency with considerable opportunities, as
well as potential problems. To properly channel these growth
forces and promote new development and redevelopment consistent
with the community' s goals and self-image, the need for clearly
enunciated land use policies and redevelopment priorities has
become evident.
In examining the area' s development trends, the Committee raised
the following area-wide policy questions:
1. What role should the City/Redevelopment (RDA) play in
implementing the Plan and promoting or assisting
positive development in the area? What will the
private sector' s responsibility be?
2. How should the regulatory process balance economic
development goals against the potential negative
impacts which accompany growth?
3. The study area contains several distinct subareas whose
specific geography offers varying constraints and
potentials for development. What type of uses should
be promoted in each of the subareas via the planning
process or redevelopment programs? Should some uses be
discouraged?
4
..r►
GENERAL POLICIES
I . Economic Growth/Impacts Balance
The overall goal of the City' s planning and redevelopment
policies in the study area shall be the promotion of high
quality compat_.ble economic growth. Emphasis should be
placed on solving potential parking or traffic problems in a
positive manner rather than through restrictions on the
level of economic activity.
II . The Role of the City/RDA
The City/RDA shall take an active role in the promotion
and assistance wherever it is clearly demonstrable that
a particular development will result in substantial
economic benefits for the RDA, general business
community or will otherwise implement community goals.
A. The RDA shall specifically participate in Plan imple-
mentation through the following activities and actions:
1 . Relocation or construction of off-site public
improvements including but not limited to curbs,
gutters, public right-of-way paving, drainage
structures , utilities , parking lots and
lands aping.
2. Use of the power of Eminent Domain to acquire and
consolidate parcels specifically required for the
logical and orderly implementation of the Plan.
3. In projects involving RDA participation, all
reasonable efforts shall be pursued by the RDA to
5
maintain the economic viability of existing
tenants at their present locations or relocation
to equally desirable areas in the vicinity.
B. Private project developers shall be responsible for all
property acquisition and on-site development costs
directly attributable to their project.
III . Plan Consistency
All development proposals within the Project Area shall be
consistent with the policies of this Core Commercial Area
Specific Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan" ) .
IV. Subarea Development Policies
To formulate specific policies, the study area was divided
into four subareas.
A. North Highway 111/Alessandro
B. South Highway 111 - Desert Sun Building to El Paseo
C. South Highway 111/E1 Paseo east to Monterey
D. Gateways - Monterey West and Deep Canyon East
Area A. North Highway 111/Alessandro
This area contains a diverse mixture of new and old
buildings and vacant lots. The Highway 111 buildings are
served by a frontage road, which currently allows two-way
traffic between Deep Canyon Road and Cabrillo Avenue, the
one-way from Cabrillo to Las Palmas, then returns to two-way
west to Monterey. Highway 111 lots vary in depth from 125
ft. to 140 ft. These lots back onto Alessandro Drive which
extends from Deep Canyon to San Pablo. West of San Pablo,
6
ter+' *RAW
only a narrow alley separates the commercial from a sparsely
developed older; single-family subdivision.
The Committee identified four specific issues impacting this
area:
1 . Frontage road access
2. Shallowness and fragmented commercial lots limiting
substantiaL high quality development
3. Replacement or remodeling of obsolete or nonconforming
buildings
4. Land use conflicts between expanding commercial uses
and residential area to the north
Issue 1. Frontage Road Access
The current frontage road system continues to be a
source of conflict and controversy in the business
community. While the two-way circulation east of
Cabrillo Avenue and west of Las Palmas represents an
improvement over the one-way system, significant
inefficiencies continue to exist . Access to rear
parking areas is still difficult. Frontage road/cross
street intersections continue to be a source of traffic
safety conflict.
Issue 2. Limited Depth of Commercial Zone
The lot depth in this area varies between 125 ft. and
140 ft . To meet parking requirements, buildings are
usually limited to the front 50 feet leaving little
room for future expansion. More ambitious projects are
7
*00
either required to devote several Highway 111 frontage
lots to parking or develop parking on the north side of
Alessandro Drive. It is not particularly efficient to
use high visibility highway frontage lots for parking.
It is also poor planning to require pedestrians to
cross a 6G ' right-of-way to get from a parking lot to
their destination.
The north side of Alessandro Drive, presently zoned
multi-family residential is a patchwork of aging
apartments, abandoned single family homes, converted
offices, commercial parking lots and vacant lots. The
unsightly rear entrances and storage yards of Highway
111 businesses have discouraged new Alessandro
residential development. Limited lot depth and design
restrictions associated with developing adjacent to
single family has stifled commercial development other
than parking lots.
West of San Pablo where Alessandro is replaced by a
20- foot alley , similar conflicts have placed
constraints on commercial development as well as
negatively impacting the adjacent single family zone .
A new bank built on the northeast corner of Highway 111
and Monterey was forced to devote two-thirds of their
Highway 111 frontage to parking. The lack of an
adequate buffer between the growing commercial area and
the single family zone to the north has inhibited new
8
tiro+
residential development on numerous vacant lots and
contributed to the deterioration of many of the
existing residences.
Issue 3 . Replacement or Remodeling of Obsolete or
Nonconforming Buildings
In various blocks there are sections dominated by older
buildings which due to their original design or lack of
maintenance no longer conform to present standards .
Existing policies provide little incentive for owners
to improve these properties. The inability to comply
with current parking requirements actually acts as a
disincentive for new investment. This creates a cycle
of decline which causes the properties to deteriorate
further as well as depreciating adjacent buildings.
Issue 4. Commercial/Residential Conflicts
Residential areas adjacent to the study area will be
increasingly subject to negative impacts as the
intensity of commercial activity increases . This
situation is aggravated by the present lack of a
distinct boundary between the two uses. Insensitivity
to these negative impacts of traffic, noise, invasion
of privacy and sight line view obstructions will cause
the deter,lorating situation on Alessandro to spread
further back into the single-family zone. Ideally, the
transition from commercial to residential should be
designed so both uses can co-exist and prosper.
9
1 . GENERAL POLICY
The entire Highway 111/Alessandro area, Deep
Canyon to Monterey, shall be redeveloped according
to the superblock concept with improved access and
safety, increased parking with an adequate
landscaped buffer zone between commercial and
residential zones.
2. SPECIFIC POLICIES
a. Frontage roads shall be converted to two-way
superblock access isles.
b. Existing Highway 111/Frontage road slip ramps
shall be replaced with midblock right turn
in/out superblock entrances.
C. Where feasible , exiting frontage road
cross-street intersections shall be closed or
restricted with circulation directed north
toward superblock.
d. Alessandro Drive shall be narrowed and
redesigned to better integrate properties on
the north side of the street into the
superblock concept and allow for a wider
buffer zone adjacent to residential uses.
e. the Palma Village Plan recommendation to
axpand the commercial zone north of the alley
between Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas one
lot for the purpose of creation of off-street
10
parking and a landscaped buffer shall be
implemented.
f. Between San Carlos Avenue and Cabrillo
Avenue, the commercial zone shall be expanded
:o include lots on the north side of
Alessandro to an average depth of 120 feet .
These lots shall become part of the super-
block and shall be used primarily for parking
and a landscaped greenbelt adjacent to the
single family zone. East of Cabrillo Avenue
high density garden apartments shall be
encouraged to infill the remaining lots. The
vacant parcel on Deep Canyon may be
incorporated into a larger commercial
development in conjunction with a project on
Highway 111 .
g. Local residential streets may be cul-de-sac 'd
north of the superblock, if deemed desirable
by affected property owners and residents.
h. Incentives shall be created to encourage the
remodeling or replacement of obsolete older
buildings and uses.
3. IMPLEMENTATION
The City/RDA shall facilitate the creation of
superblocks through the following actions:
11
a. Rezone north side of Alessandro consistent
with the above-described policies.
b. Assist in the acquisition and consolidation
of small parcels necessary for logical and
orderly Plan implementation.
C. Conduct engineering and traffic studies
necessary for the conversion of the frontage
roads.
d. Establish program for frontage road/access
isle conversion. Priority shall be placed in
areas where there is also strong interest in
privately financed redevelopment activity.
e. Develop an owner participation program
linking private improvements to public
improvements.
f. Alessandro shall be redesigned to be more
compatible with the superblock concept . To
facilitate the orderly implementation of the
rear superblock parking concept, the RDA may
have to acquire and develop parking facilit-
ies not directly associated with any specific
private development. RDA shall be reimbursed
for these costs through the payment of in
Lieu parking fees assessed on future constr-
uction, expansion or increased commercial
activity in the area.
12
g. Area will be maintained through parking
maintenance assessment district.
h. Area-wide public directional signage program
shall be developed, clearly identifying block
addresses and parking lot locations.
4. SPECIAL IMPLEMENTATION POLICY AND PROGRAM FOR
TRANSITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY USES
Ultimate implementation of the Plan will involve
the conversion of some single-family residential
properties to commercial uses, the timing of which
will depend upon the initiative and market demands
of commercial development . Full plan
implementation could occur over a ten-year period.
This transitional period between plan adoption and
implementation can itself produce significant
negative impacts for this residential properties
contrary to the intent of the Plan.
While these properties may not yet be marketable
for commercial use, the uncertain timetable also
limits their residential marketability. Since the
quality of the existing residential improvements
will bear little relationship to the properties '
future commercial value, maintenance is likely to
suffer leading to deterioration and associated
negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
To relieve the burden of uncertainty from these
single-family owners and residents and to promote
13
an orderly and humane transition , the
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) shall offer to purchase
impacted single-family homes prior to future
commercial conversion.
Fifteen homes have been identified as potentially
impac-ced. They would continue to be maintained as
housing until conversion and would be managed by
the Piverside County Housing Authority. Through
lease back arrangements, the existing residents
could continue to occupy the dwellings .
Reimbursement for holding costs would come from
rental income . Eventually, the RDA would be
compensated by the ultimate commercial developer.
Area B. South Highway 111 - Desert Sun Building to E1
Paseo
1. Issues
The issues confronting this area are not as
complex or substantial as in other sections of the
study area. With the exception of three vacant
parcels most of the area has been built out with
acceptable site planning and parking. A majority
of the buildings have been constructed .since
incorporation and meet current standards. The
area is served by a two-way frontage road. As it
has become more developed, increasing traffic
conflicts have developed at the cross-street
14
intersections of E1 Paseo and at Deep Canyon.
Frontage road traffic attempting to cross or turn
must contend with at least five other conflicting
movements.
2. Policies
a. Existing land use policies shall be
maintained.
b. Intersection conflicts shall be reduced
through superblock redesign. Frontage road
access shall be limited at cross-street
intersections and increased through midblock
two-way entrances. Frontage road shall be
merged with front parking areas whenever
feasible.
3. Implementation
a. Conduct detailed engineering studies to
construction of superblock program.
b. Construct specified improvements.
Area C. South Highway 111/E1 Paseo to Monterey Avenue
1. Issues
The Highway 111/E1 Paseo area is the City' s most
intensively developed specialty retail/general
commercial district. It is made up of three
subareas, the Highway 111 frontage, President ' s
Plaza and E1 Paseo.
15
*4w NOW
Highway 111
As is case on the north side frontage road,
convenient access and safety are major issues .
How can the free access of a two-way system be
achieved without the traffic conflicts associated
with the old system. The south side does benefit
from improved rear access resulting from
President ' s Plaza. Where larger parking areas are
adjacant to the frontage road, as is the case with
the Lucky' s and Jensen' s supermarkets, the merging
of the road and parking lot into a superblock
provides a convenient solution. The problems are
more complex in areas where only buildings front
on the road. A combination of restricted access
or closure at intersections, construction of
midblock two-way entrances and through circulation
into the rear parking areas will provide an
acceptable balance of convenience and safety.
The conversion to two-way circulation, even if all
safety problems are solved will have a significant
negative impact on parking supplies in certain
blocks since the existing angle parking would be
replaced by parallel parking at an approximate 50%
loss . In the President ' s Plaza blocks ,
approximately 70 parking spaces would be lost
through conversion to two-way.
16
Also of concern is the general appearance of the
area from Highway 111 . For many visitors, the
impression created by the Highway 111 frontage
will define their image of Palm Desert . It is
therefore important to upgrade the buildings and
landscaping in this area to be equal to the new
development planned for the City' s gateways and E1
Paseo.
President ' s Plaza and other Parking Issues
From its inception, development within the blocks
between Highway 111, El Paseo, Portola Avenue and
Larkspur included provisions for mutual access
rear parking . This arrangement was enforced
through mutual access easements.
In 1980, the RDA participated in a major recon-
struction and reorganization of the area creating
President ' s Plazas East and West. It was hoped
that the access problems created by the one-way
frontage roads would be mitigated by convenient
and attractive rear access. Businesses would be
encouraged to improve their rear elevations
creating an inviting plaza atmosphere. Although
the lots have functioned very well as a parking
facility, they have not become the attractive and
inviting plazas originally envisioned. Much of
the landscaping has died and has not been
17
replaced. Only a few of the area' s businesses
have made an effort to improve their rear eleva-
tions. While the original expectations concerning
the compatibility of a parking lot and a
pedestrian environment may have been overly
Optimistic , there is still considerable
opportunity for improvements . Developments in
other blocks have also included varying degrees of
mutually designed rear parking arrangements. Some
lots remain distinctly associated with individual
buildings . Complete gaps occur where there are
vacant lots. Many of these less organized parking
arrangements experience varying levels of main-
tenance which over time might constitute a
problem.
Parking studies conducted are over the past 3
years have indicated that in most areas there is
ample parking to meet present and future needs.
Overall peak season demand is only 55% of total
capacity. New projects built to current standards
should not experience any problems for the
foreseeable future . President ' s Plaza East
receives the highest usage at 76% of capacity. At
85%, finding a space becomes difficult and the lot
begins to appear full . The loss of parking
through two-way frontage road redesign could push
18
demand over the 85% level in this area.
E1 Paseo
Prior to the construction of the Palm Desert Town
Center, E1 Paseo was the City' s only major retail
district . It remains unique throughout the
Coachella Valley as an outdoor urban specialty
retail/restaurant boulevard designed on a scale
appropriate for the pedestrian . El Paseo ' s
ability to successfully compete with new planned
commercial developments west of Monterey will be
dependent on continued enhancement of the area' s
uniqueness . The pedestrian environment must
receive the same attention and be managed with the
same degree of skill and expertise as is employed
by the Town Center and other new competing retail
developments.
Essential to a successful pedestrian environment
are the following:
a. Creation of attractive shaded walkways and
rest areas;
b. Elimination of "dead zones" created by vacant
lots, large parking lots and street fronting
businesses which do not attract pedestrian
traffic;
C. Safe and convenient cross-street pedestrian
movement;
19
d. Strategic location of "anchor attractions" to
draw and sustain pedestrian interest along
the entire length of the street.
E1 Paseo is in need of improvement in many of
these areas. Although some of the newer projects
are well landscaped, other sidewalk areas are
rather stark and virtually shadeless. There are
few areas for pedestrians to sit and rest or
simply enjoy the outdoor amenities of the desert
climate.
While most of the small vacant parcels are being
filled in, an entire residential block between
Larkspur and San Pablo Avenue presently functions
as an absolute barrier to pedestrian traffic. The
owner of this ten acre parcel is attempting to
attract major commercial tenants to this site .
This project has the potential for providing the
anchor attractions , pedestrian plazas and
additional off-street public parking to benefit
the entire area.
The most significant landscaping on E1 Paseo is
contained within an 18-foot wide median. While
this median provides desirable relief from what
would otherwise be continuous 4 lanes of traffic,
it does act as a physical and visual pedestrian
barrier. Pedestrians attempting to cross the
20
street must first contend with two lanes of
traffic often traveling in excess of 35 miles per
hour, wade through 18 feet of ground cover and
shrubs, then through another two lanes of traffic.
1 . GENERAL POLICY
All planning and redevelopment programs shall
emphasize the development of E1 Paseo and
President ' s Plaza as a pedestrian-oriented
specialty retail district.
2. SPECIFIC POLICIES
a. Pedestrian oriented business shall be
encouraged to located in street fronting
first floor spaces.
b. The RDA shall pursue a streetscape enhance-
ment program improving the pedestrian
environment through use of shade trees and
other landscaping, street furniture and
creation of rest areas.
C. Steps should be taken to slow traffic on E1
Paseo and design appropriate facilities for
safe midblock pedestrian cross traffic.
d. The RDA shall assist in the development of
the Sun Lodge Colony site project consistent
with the project' s potential benefits for the
RDA and E1 Paseo in general . Emphasis should
be placed on creating a project which will
21
act as an "anchor attraction" and provide a
source of convenient off-street multi-level
public parking.
e. Incentives should be created for the
*nclusion of public plazas of various sizes
within private commercial development.
f. Along Highway 111, access and safety shall be
improved through implementation of the
superblock concept including:
( 1 ) Reinstatement of two-way circulation
where practical .
( 2) Create two-way midblock entrance exits.
(3 ) Traffic movements at frontage
road/cross-street intersections shall be
limited to right turn only or closed
completely. Where possible, traffic
connections shall be created between
frontage road and rear parking areas to
eliminate dead-end isles.
(4 ) New and existing rear parking areas
shall be redesigned to allow unified
intercirculation.
( 5 ) The City/RDA shall create a program to
fill in vacant gaps in parking lots and
sidewalks resulting from vacant parcels.
22
rrr+'
3. IMPLEMENTATION
a. Create special pedestrian commercial zone for
E1 Paseo/President ' s Plaza, which limits uses
to those conducive to sustaining pedestrian
interest.
b. Conduct an urban commercial landscape study
of the E1 Paseo/President ' s Plaza area
leading to the redesign and enhancement of
the pedestrian environment.
C. Maximum speed limit on E1 Paseo shall be
limited to 25 miles per hour.
d. On blocks greater than 500 feet in length,
midblock crosswalks shall be created. In
these areas, the sidewalk shall be widened,
landscaped and decorative paving employed to
emphasize the right-of-way for pedestrian
traffic. Median design shall be modified to
allow pedestrian crossing.
e. City/RDA shall work closely with potential
developer of Sun Lodge Colony site to
successfully implement plan which maximizes
area-wide benefits.
f. The zoning ordinance shall be amended to
provide incentives in the form of off-street
parking requirement reductions in exchange
for the inclusion of public plazas or "pocket
23
parks " in their design. To offset this
reduced private parking development, the RDA
shall purchase and develop additional parking
when necessary on less desirable commercial
property located off E1 Paseo.
g. retailed engineering studies shall be
conducted leading to implementation of the
frontage road superblock system. See Exhibit
B (Conceptual Design Plan) .
h. Signage Program - Area - wide public
directional signage program shall be
developed clearly identifying block addresses
and parking lot locations.
Area D. Gateways
1. Issues
Gateways, visitor' s first exposure to Palm Desert,
play a critical role in defining the City ' s
character and identity . In addition to
communicating an overall impression of quality, it
is important for gateways to emphasize that one is
entering a unique and distinctive community.
At the City ' s western gateway, the Las Sombras
Restaurant Park built in 1980 was constructed with
a fundamental site planning flaw which detracts
from the developments appearance, as well as being
detrimental to the success of many of the tenants.
24
The project was built backward with inferior rear
elevations facing Highway 111 . On the east side
of Highway 111 , an ambitious Raffles Hotel
restaurant/resort commercial project is planned.
Directly south of the Las Sombras project is a
large 32-acre vacant site for which numerous
unsuccessful development proposals have been
submitted. Planning on this site is complicated
by a 1 . 8 acre pie-shaped (the Hoams Pool site) ,
separately owned, nonconforming developed parcel
piercing the parcel ' s lower quarter.
Further south, across the Palm Valley Storm
Channel, a 12-acre vacant parcel also has had a
controversial development history which included
denial of two major commercial developments due to
conflicts with the adjacent Sandpiper residential
development.
The principal issues in this area concern how
these remaining vacant, unplanned parcels can be
developed to best reinforce Palm Desert ' s unique
character.
GENERAL POLICY
The City shall develop a more flexible zoning
designation on the remaining vacant parcels to
permit consideration of creative mixed use
residential/commercial developments. A portion of
25
this area may be appropriate for City' s affordable
high-density designation ( AHDPR ) or Senior
Overlay.
SPECIFIC POLICY
1 . To mitigate traffic congestion and conflicts
associated with isolated development, the RDA
shall consider construction of vehicular and
pedes-�:rian bridges linking the 12-acre Ahmanson
property with the 32-acre Karma property. This
commercial/residential development could be served
by one signalized Highway 111 access located
directly northwest of the Palm Valley Storm
Channel .
2. The RDA shall assist if necessary in the
acquisition of the Hoams Pool property, allowing
it to be incorporated into the surrounding
property as part of an overall plan.
26
'
R
a
\/ rn !MlNMw • ;��.14,•4 y!•r•+ Y i ` \ \rI•�*
0
ram, 3 C =
Z �
;0 a —
: 1
D r.r . . ::::.ti: . ::•:::• �'
. ■ . ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ • • • • • . ■ • ■ • ,r
-p � D .. . . . . . .s
a m D GH ANNEL . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .. . . . . ■
- ti • . .�•••• .•••••
Z =J C • • . • • • 6,00000 •••• ••• i L`� 1 •• • • •• j •• ••••
m cn _
as
00
m wZ'_r'r •.••• •• 0••i0•••••• ••••••'••••• ••�•�•
•••• j
'A r• � = •••��: •• • • •••••• •••• • •• • ,
V/ • • • •
r ••••• • •. •• • •••• i
67 ••• • • • •• •• •
rW • ••• ••••• a •••••• —.
DZ %1Y • •••, 1•••••i••i•••• I
D •••�• AV ENU E aEY 1 Ay
M<
O
m r• `}'
C •i ; J p ei." I ' 1
>.:
30
Z ��
o �Z _ lz
l7 -i Z
,m > NO I -�
ox
Ico
CS
Names a
.. .•:' ::: I Val
STAFF REPORT
TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE
CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS
FROM : EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT : COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ADDITIONS AND
ALTERNATIVES
DATE : JULY 9 , 1987
As result of the joint City Council /Project Area Committee Study
Session on June 25 , 1987 , the following additions , alternative
policies and implementation strategies have been developed :
1 . Page 1 , addition to Introduction -
The general policy and implementation strategies contained
in the Plan are designed to maximize the Project Area ' s
potential for high quality economic development compatible
with Palm Desert ' s overall community goals and self image.
The Plan is primarily a policy guide although it also
contains conceptual descriptions and illustrations as to
how specific programs could be implemented . Actual program
design and implementation will be subject to a continuing
process of analysis and review tailoring each program and
project to the unique circumstances and requirments of
property owners , residents , developers and the Redevelopment
Agency with a particular sub-area .
2 . Page 10 , Specific_ Pol icy d__ -
Alessandro Drive shall be narrowed and redesigned to better
integrate properties on the north side of the street into
the superb I ock concept and a ] low for a wider buffer zone
adjacent to residentiai uses .
3 . Page 10 , Specific Policy f . -
Between San Carlos Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue , the -commerci -
al zone shall be expanded to include lots on the north
side of Alessandro to an average depth of 120 feet . These
lots shall become part of the superblock and shall be used
primarily for parking and a landscaped greenbelt adjacent
to the single family zone . East of Cabrillo Avenue high
density garden apartments shall be encouraged to infiil
the remaining lots . The vacant parcel on Deep Canyon may
be incorporated into a iarger commercial development in
conjunction with a project on Highway 111 .
STAFF REPORT
8/31 /87
Page 2
4 . Page 10 , Specific Policy g . -
Local residential streets may be cul -de-sac ' d north of the
superblock , if deemed desirable by affected property owners
and residents .
5. Page 11 , Implementation f. -
Alessandro shall be redesigned to be more compatible with
the superblock concept . To facilitate the orderly implemen-
tation of the rear superblock parking concept , the RDA may
have to acquire and develop parking facilities not directly
associated with any specific private development . RDA
shall be reimbursed for these costs through the payment of
in lieu parking fees assessed on future construction ,
expansion or increased commercial activity in the area .
6. Page 20 , Specific Policy a . -
Pedestrian oriented business shall be encouraged to locate
in street fronting first floor spaces .
7 . Page 25 General Policy 1 . add to paragraph -
. . . . or Senior Overlay.
CARLOS L . ORTEGA
CLO: ec
staffrep/7/ l /87
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
I . TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS
1I . REQUEST: APPROVAL OF COMMERCIAL CORE AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AND ASSOCIATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
III . APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT
IV. CASE NO. : GPA 87-2
V. DATE : JULY 9, 1987
VI . CONTENTS :
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Resolution No.
D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No.
GPA 87-2
E . Planning Commission Resolution No. 1214
F . Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 17,
1987
G. Related maps and/or exhibits
---------------------------------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION :
Adopt Resolution No. approving Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact and Commercial Core Area Specific
Plan.
B. DISCUSS-ION :
The attached specific plan proposes detailed planning and
Redevelopment Agency policies for the City ' s El Paseo ,
GHighway Ill and Alessandro Drive commercial corridor . it
is the result of 18 months of discussions and debated by
the Commercial Core Project Area Committee , a group of
property owners , business owners and residents .
Although the plan is primarily a policy document , it
contains conceptual descriptions and illustrations as to
how specific programs could be implemented. These programs
are designed to maximize the area ' s potential for high
ccaspin .mem/rev/7/ 1 /87
CORE COM. TRANSMITTAL LETTER
7/ 1 /87
Page 2
quality economic development compatible with the City' s
overall goals and self- image.
The Plan' s principal recommendations involve :
1 . The redesign of the Highway III frontage roads in
conjunction with the creation of "Superblocks" .
2 . Reorganization and expansion of the north Highway
III /Alessandro Drive commercial zone and creation of a
district buffer area separating commercial and single
family residential uses .
3 . An El Paseo streetscape enhancement program designed
to make the area more attractive for pedestrian
shoppers .
As part of the El Paseo pedestrian improvement program, the
plan proposes an El Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay
Zone (Exhibit "D" of the Plan) which would restrict street
level fronting businesses in new buildings to those retail
and personal service uses that attract or sustain pedestrian
interest .
The Plan has been presented at two town hall public meetings
and a Planning Commission public hearing attended by over
150 residents , business and property owners . The mailing
list for those meetings and this hearing , included all
property owners in the study area and within 300 feet and
all holder of business licenses .
At the hearing and public meetings , the main issue of
controversy involved the future land use of the north side
of Alessandro Drive east of Cabrillo Avenue . The Plan
proposed this area as a continuation of the commercial
superblock rear parking buffer program.
In a petition presented by Jack Dayton , an owner of a 12
unit apartment project on Alessandro in this area , a
request was made to preserve the area as multi -family and
suggested rezoning of the remaining 7 vacant parcels from
R-3 ( 4 , 000 ) to R-3 ( 3 , 000) to encourage completion of the
street with more apartments . The Project Area Committee' s
response was that although the existence of 58 multi -family
units might complicate and delay implementation of the
commercial program in this area, the long-range goals of
the City would best be served by discouragement of further
multi - family residential development . They felt the
commercial transition plan could be designed to both
CORE COM. TRANSMITTAL LETTER
7/ 1 /87
Page 3
promote new commercial development and enhance the area' s
overall attractiveness for the existing multi -family
residential uses . The Planning Commission concurred with
this view by recommending approval of the plan as submitted.
C. COST ESTIMATES :
Since many of the policies and programs described in the
Plan rely on extensive private developer initiative and
financing , it is difficult to precisely predict direct
public implementation costs . In instances where the RDA
will provide initial financing as in the construction of
some of the north side superblock parking facilities , a
substantial portion of the public expenditures would be
repaid through future private developer in- lieu fees . When
public/private joint ventures occur , the degree of RDA
financial participation will be individually approved and
will depend upon the overall desirability and specific
requirements of the project . The following are estimates
of program components which will rely primarily on RDA
financing.
1 . North Side Superblock
Special Implementation Program for transitional
single-family uses . This program proposes that the RDA
offer to purchase single - family homes in the
commercial /parking transition area . A maximum of 15
homes could be purchased at an average cost of $80 , 000
for a total of $ 1 . 2 million.
These units would continue to be managed as residential
property with the generated income going to cover
holding costs until the area is ready for development .
The RDA would be substantially reimbursed by commercial
developers when the parking plan is implemented. Total
public/private costs for the full commercial /parking
transition program over the projected 10-year implemen-
tation period would be $6 million , 90% ultimately from
private development .
2 . Highway III Frontage Road Superblock Redesign and
Landscape
Superblock III ( South side Highway III to Lupine Lane )
is presently being designed with an estimated cost of
$ 350 , 000 . Completion of the remaining section is
estimated to be $ 1 . 4 mi 1 1 i on phased over a five-year
period.
CORE COM. TRANSMITTAL LETTER
7/ 1/87
Page 4
3 . El Paseo/President ' s Plaza
Enhancements to these areas are by study by the
landscape/urban design firm of POD, Inc . As part of
their study , design alternatives and cost estimates
will be prepared.
Prepared by
REVIEWED & CONCUR:
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOV CITY MANAGER
ec
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. 207
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA ,
APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO. GPA 87-2
WHEREAS , the Redevelopment Agency Board of the City of Palm
Desert , California , did on the 14th day of May , 1987 , hold a duly
noticed public meeting to consider the Commercial Core Area
Specific Plan and associated Negative Declaration of Environ-
mental Impact establishing Planning and Redevelopment Agency
policies for the City ' s EI Paseo/Highway III /Alessandro Drive
commercial corridor.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements
of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act , Resolution No. 80-89" , in
that the Director of Community Development / Planning has
determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on
the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. _
WHEREAS , at said public hearing , upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments , if any , of all
interested persons desiring to be heard , said Redevelopment
Agency Board did find the following facts and reasons to exist to
justify their approval :
1 . The proposed land uses and policies promote a more
logical and compatible pattern of commercial develop-
ment than existing conditions .
2 . The proposed policies are designed to increase the
economic potential of existing commercial areas while
protecting adjacent residential areas from the
potential negative impacts of increased commercial
activity.
3 . The proposed land uses and policies are consistent
with the goals of the Palm Desert General Plan and
will promote the health . safety and general welfare .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency
Board of the City of Palm Desert , as follows :
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the Redevelopment Agency
Board in this case .
2 . That a negative declaration of environmental impact ,
"Exhibit All , is hereby approved .
1*■r
` I
RESOLUTION NO.
MAY 14. 1987
3 . That the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan . GPA 87-2
Exhi.titt "B" ► is hereby approved .
PASSED , APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert City Council , held on this 14th day of May 1987 , by
the following vote, to wit :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheila R. Gilligan
City Clerk
err"
EXPLANATION FOR RESPONSES IN
INITIAL STUDY GPA 87-2
PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
1. EARTH
The proposal involves Projects In an already-highly urbanized area. There
will be no significant impacts.
2. AiR EMISSIONS
The Proposals involve changes to traffic circulation
i c areas ion and ernspro t i one rove
access and safety for existing commercial
additional off-street parking. No significant increase in air emissions
are*anticloated.
3. WATER
No significant impacts.
495 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE
Area is an existing highly urbanized commercial district with no
significant plant or animal resources.
6b7 NATURAL RESOURCES 3 ENERGY
The Proposal represents a reorganization f c i of There will existing not beand resources
p s i an 1 f 1 cant
to achieve greater land use efficiency.
increase in the consumption of natural resources.
8. RISK OF UPSET
The city's zoning. fire. health and safety ordinances strictly regulate
use of hazardous substances to Protect public safety. The existing
commercial zoning does not permit industrial type uses.
y. The area is not subject to unusual flooding or geologic hazards.
to. NOISE
The Proposal recommends creation of substantial buffer area between
commercial and residential uses diminishing potential noise impacts.
It . LAND USE
The Proposal will result in a 12 foot expansion of the commercial zone
along the northern boundary of the study area. Presently this area Is
composed of a mixture of vacant lots* apartments. professional offices,
parking lots and single family homes. The plan is designed to create a
more compatible mix of commercial land uses with a substantial buffer
zone adjacent to the single family residential zone.
(PA 87-2 CONTINUED
12. OPEN SPACE
There is no designated existing ooen space in the area.
13. POPULATION
The area does not oresently contain a significant resident 000ulation.
14. EMPLOYMENT
The Proposal will allow for increased economic activity and employment
within the existing commercial core area.
IS. HOUSING
The plan will initially slightly decrease the number of housing units in
the plan area. Efforts will be made to 'replace this housing on land
oresently owned by the redevelopment agency in the neighborhood to the
north. The Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element and the Paler
Village Specific Plan contains ooil -- es and Programs which have
significantly Promoted the construction affordable housing to replace
those eliminated as pert of this Plan.
16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Along Hiahway Ill . the clan or000ses redesign to increase business
accessibility while reducing existing traffic conflicts at cross streetP
frontage road intersections. These changes will have a positive impact
on circulation patterns. The 120 foot expansion of the commercial zone
on the north side of Alessandro Drive and north of the alley between
Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas Avenue will add approximately I8 acres of
land for Professional offices and retail /service -use. Under the existing
combination of multi family and single family land uses, the area would
accommodate 180 residential units generating 1260 AOT. Under the proposed
plan the 18 acre commercial expansion would Permit 313.632 square feet of
additional office/retail/service development generating 6586 ADT (assuming
21 ADT oar 1000 square feet based upon 2/3 office at 12 ADT and 1/3
specialty retail at 40 ADT from institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook) .
The net increase over the existina land use will be an additional 5326
trios spaced over the 1 .5 mile commercial strio. Since clan Implemen-
tation will occur over a 10 year Period the annual increase will be
approximately 532 trios Per year. The Plan or000ses that a major portion
of the expanded area be used for off-street parking to accommodate the
Increased commercial develooment.
2
GPA 87-2 CONTINUED
i
MITIGATION
To - orevent this additional traffic from adversely effecting adjacent
residential zones. local residential streets which Presently intersect
Alessandro Drive will be cul-de-saced. The redesign of the frontage
road/Hlghway III/cross street circulation system will result in safer
more convenient access this mitigating the increase level of traffic.
17. PUBLIC SERVICES
The Project will involve Participation by the Palm Desert Redevelopment
Agency in the areas of public road reconstruction, oarking lot
development* landscaping and maintenance. These Programs will be funded
through redevelopment tax increment and assessment districts.
18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE
Public exoenditures will correspond to increased revenued generated by
the redevelopment area.
19. UTILITIES
No significant utility modifications are Proposed.
20. HUMAN HEALTH
The Proposed circulation changes will improve Public safety.
21. SOCIAL SERVICES
No impact.
22. AESTHETICS
The Proposed landscaping Programs for the frontage road and El Paseo will
greatly enhance the aesthetic duality of the area.
23. LIGHT AND GLARE
All commercial lighting must meet stringent standards which Prevent light
spillover into residential areas.
24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
There are no significant archeological/historical resources in the area.
3
^ �( CASE NO. -.
low *00
E1M1RON.IEIVTA, S=V I CES D EPT.
IVITIAL STUDY
EYVIRO`t�i0TAL EVALUATI011 CEECXLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS '
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets).
Y_ Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Oisruptions, displacements , compaction, or ✓
overcovering of the soil? '—
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief ✓
features?
d. The destruction; covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? ✓
e. Any increase in wind- or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? /
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? , __
Z
r
- Y,e_s_ Maybe No
3. Water. 'Will the proposal result in:
4- Ch4119e3. in currents, 'Op the course or
V 'direction of water' movements?
b. Changes in—absorptfnn rate!, drafnage
• patterns, or the rate and' amount of
surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow-of
flood waters? f
d. Alteratian af.the direction or rats of
flow of ground waters?
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, I
either through direct additions or with.
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ,f
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water su;plies?
4. Plant life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of plants
(including tress , shrubs, grass , and
crops)? .
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants? �-
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
.'
5. Animal. life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles , or
Insects)? _.+C
b: Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? _
�� i.
d. Oeterioration to existing wildlife habitat? i,� •
3.
Yes M�be fro
4. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in:.the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Oepietion Of any non-renewable natural
resource?
7. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the.deselopment of new sources of
energy? v
8. Risk of U set.• • Oces the proposal involve a
risk o an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides, oil , chemi cal s, or radiation) in •
the event of an accident or upset conditions? ..�
9. Eonnomic Loss. Will the proposal result. in:
a. A change in 'the value of property and '
improvements endangered by flooding?
b. A change in the value of property and
improvements exposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted .corn:uni ty risk standards?
10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels to -the point at which accepted
co.�munity noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
li. Land Use. Will .the proposal result in the
a tTsr Zion of the present developed or
planned land use of an area?
12. 0 en SOace. Will the proposal lead to a
decrease in the :emount of designated open
space?
13. Population. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration or the location, distribution.
density, or growth rate of the human
population of the City?
b. Change in the population distribution by
aye. income, religion, racial , or ethnic
group, occupational class , household type?
4.
Yes Maybe No i
14. Emolovment, Will the -proposal result in
ad it ono new long-term gobs provided, or a 1
change in the number and per cent employed, '
unemployed, and underemployed? .✓ _ _
A
15. Houma. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner-occupied And rental ,
etc. ) relative to demand or to number of - - -
families in various income classes in the City?
b, Impacts an existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing?
/
16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in: .
a.' Generation of additional vehicular movement? f
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or mcvement of people and/or goods?
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , -
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
17. * Public Ser•tices. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection? ,
. c. Schools? ✓
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓
e. Maintenance of public facilities , including
roads? _
f. Other governmental services? ✓
c
Y_ maybeNa
18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal
resu t. in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
. 19. utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need or new systems , or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications system? .�
C. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? .�
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or
Potential health hazard? i
b. A change in the level of comnunity health
care provided?
21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased demand for provision of general
social .services?
22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista• or view
open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? .
c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area attractiveness, pleasantness,
and uniqueness? v
23. Li ht and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or Fare? /
24. Archealocicai/4istorical . Will' the proposal
result in an a teration of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building?
t �.r ten,,►
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
THECOMMERCliALL CORE
OF E , AREAISPECIFICAPLANVING
THE
CASE NO. GPA 87-2
WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of Palm
dDaserl ,
California , did on the 14th day of May , Core duy noticed pub 1 i c meeting consider Negative Dec l arat ion Commercial
of Environ-
mental a
Specific Plan and associated
impact establishing Planning
ghway and Redevelopment
III /Alessandro essandroADrive
ncy
policies for the C y
commercial corridor .
WHEREAS, said application exert Procedure
ifo r with the Implementation requirements
r e of the
of the ,City of Palm D
In
California Environmental Quality
ommunityAct ,
Devesolution No.lopment / Planning„ ,has
that the Director of C
determined that the Project
ill not declaration e an adverse has been preparedct on
negative the environment and a 9at i ve
WHEREAS , at said public hearing , upon Baring ny , f aldl
considering all testimony and arguments ,
Interested persons desiring ndt�easons be ato, sid exast tot ,�ustifyi their
find the following lac
approval :
and
1 . The a ll and Proposed
land compat i ble spatt Pattern policies of commerc a l e
logical
develop-
ment than existing conditions .
2 . The proposed policies are designed to increase the
economic potential of existing commercial areas while
protecting at i ve ni mpactsOf residential f Increased from commercial e
potential
e9g
activity.
3 . The proposed land uses and policies are consistent
sert
with the romoteals of the Palm the health , safetyDeand general wi Pla elfare and
.
will p
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert , as follows :
1 . That the above findingsoof the City Councns are true and �lrintthis
and
constitute the
case.
2 . That a negative declaration of environmental impact ,
"Exhibit All , is hereby approved.
•
I
f
RESOLUTION NO. i
MAY 14, 1987
3 . That the Commercial Core Area Specific Plan . GPA 87-2
Exhib-lt "B" , is hereby approved .
PASSED , APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Palm Desert City Council , held on this 14th day of May 1987 , by
the following vote, to wit :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN :
Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheila R. Gilligan
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to Title 14. Division 6. Article 7. Section 15083
of the California Administrative Code.
CASE NOt GPA 87-2 PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A svecl'flc plan establishing planning and redevelopment policies for the Palm
Desert Highway Ill . El Paseo and Alessandro Drive Commercial Core (see attached
map) .
The Director of the Department of Community Development. City of Palm Desert,
California. has found that the described project will not have a significant
effect' on the environment. A coov of the Initial study has been attached to
document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigatlon measures, if any.
Included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects may also be
found attached.
RAMON A. DIAZ. DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/dig
EXPLANATION FOR RESPONSES IN
INITIAL STUDY GPA 87-2
PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
1 . EARTH -
The proposal involves Projects in .an already.highly urbanized area. There
will be no significant impacts.
2. AiR EMISSIONS
The proposals involve changes to traffic circulation patterns to improve
access and safety
f street parking existing
No significant cant IncrreasendinP provisions
airemi emissions
additional of
are anticipated.
3. WATER
No significant impacts.
4&5 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE
Area is an existing highly urbanized commercial district with no
significant plant or animal resources.
6a7 NATURAL RESOURCES 3 ENERGY
The proposal represents a reorganization of the existing land resources
to achieve greater land use efficiency. There will not be a significant
increase in the consumption of natural resources.
8. R I SK OF UPSET
The citv's zoning. fire. health and safety ordinances strictly regulate
use of hazardous substances to protect public safety. The existing
commercial zoning does not permit industrial type uses.
y. The area is not subject to unusual flooding or geologic hazards.
10. NOISE
The Proposal recommends creation of substantial buffer area between
commercial and residential uses diminishing potential noise impacts.
II . LAND USE
The Proposal will result in a 12 foot expansion of the commercial zone
along the northern boundary of the study area. Presently this area is
composed of a mixture of vacant lots. apartments. Professional offices,
parking lots and single family homes. The Plan is designed to create a
more compatible mix of commercial land uses with a substantial buffer
zone adjacent to the single family residential zone.
R
14
GPA 87-2 CONTINUEO
12. OPEN SPACE
There is no designated existing open space in the area.
13. POPULATION
The area does not presently contain a significant resident 000ulation.
14. EMPLOYMENT
The or000sal will allow for increased economic activity and employment
within the existing commercial core area.
15. HOUSING
The plan will initially slightly decrease the number of housing units in
the plan area. Efforts will be made to 'replace this housing on land
oresently owned by the redevelooment agency in the neighborhood to the
north. The Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element and the Palms
Village Soecific Plan contains ooli -,' es and orograms which have
significantly promoted the construction affordable housing to replace
those eliminated as cart of this olan.
16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Along Highway Ill . the olan or000ses redesign to increase business
accessibility while reducing existing traffic conflicts at cross street?
frontage road intersections. These changes will have a positive impact
on circulation patterns. The 120 foot expansion of the commercial zone
on the north side of Alessandro Drive and north of the alley between
Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas Avenue will add approximately 18 acres of
land for professional offices and retail /service use. Under the existing
combination of multi family and single family land uses. the area would
accommodate 180 residential units generating 1260 AOT. Under the proposed
plan the 18 acre commercial expansion would permit 313.632 square feet of
additional office/retail/service development generating 6586 ADT (assuming
21 AOT per 1000 square feet based upon 2/3 office at 12 ADT and 1/3
specialty retail at 40 ADT from Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook) .
The net increase over the existing land use will be an additional 5326
trips soared over the 1 .5 mile commercial strip. Since plan Implemen-
tation will occur over a 10 year period the annual increase will be
approximately 532 trios oer year. The plan or000ses that a major oortion
of the expanded area be used for off-street oarkina to accommodate odate the
Increased commercial develooment.
2
GPA 87-2 CONTINUED
MITIGATION
To Prevent thjs additional traffic from adversely effecting adjacent
residential zones. local residential streets which Presently intersect
Alessandro Orive will be cui-de-laced. The redesign of the frontage
road/Highway III/cross street circulation system will result in safer
more convenient access this mitigating the increase level of traffic.
17. PUBLIC SERVICES
The oroject will involve Participation by the Palm Desert Redevelopment
Agency in the areas of public road reconstruction, parking lot
development. landscaping and maintenance. These Programs will be funded
through redevelopment tax increment and assessment districts.
18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE
Public expenditures will correspond to increased revenued generated by
the redevelopment area.
19. UTILITIES
No significant utility modifications are proposed.
20. HUMAN HEALTH
The proposed circulation changes will improve public safety.
21. SOCIAL SERVICES
No impact.
22. AESTHETICS
The or000sed landscaping Programs for the frontage road and Ei Paseo will
greatly enhance the aesthetic quality of the area.
23. LIGHT AND GLARE
All commercial lighting must meet stringent standards which Prevent light
spillover Into residential areas.
24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
There are no significant archeological/historical resources in the area.
3
CASE Y0.
-_00 '1 dln C Rc.i A L.
=M'Z 0N.1=rrAL S=V I CES DEPT.
INITIAL STUDY
EYVIRO.TL ZW AL EVALUATI021 CHECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS '
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets).
Yes Mamie No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in ..
geologic substructures?
b. Oisruptions, displacements , compaction, or ✓
overcoveri ng of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? ✓
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
. Zr
Yes Maybe No
3. Water. "Will the proposal result in:
4._. .C.hanges. in currents, 'or the coursa or
1 .*di recta on of water' movements?
b. Changes in-absarpVon rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and- amount of
surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or floiw-of
flood waters?
d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, 1
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? ,�•
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
. wise available for public water su;plies?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of plants
(including trees , shrubs , grass , and
crops )?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area , or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
.'
5. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds ,
land animals including reptiles , or
insects)?
b: Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. Oeterioration to existing wildlife habitat?
L
3.
Yes Na
4. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Depletion of' any non-renewable natural
resource?
1• End. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the.deselopment of new sources of
energy?
8. Risk of U set.• • Does the proposal involve a
risk Of an explosion or the release of •
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides, oil , •chemi cal s, or radiation) in •
the event of an accident or upset conditions?
9. E-ononic Loss. Will the proposal result. in:
a. A change in -the value of property and -
improvements endangered by flooding?
b. A change in the value of property and
improverlen:s exposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted .co=unity risk standards?
10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels to -the point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
ii. Land Use. Will .the proposal result in the
a tTeration of the present developed or
planned land usa of an area?
12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a
decrease in the amount of designated open
space?
13. Population. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteratien or the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
Population of the City?
b. Change in the population distribution by
age, income, religion, racial , or ethnic
group, occupational class , household type?
4.
Yes, Maybe No i
14. E=l oyment. Will the proposal result in I
additions new long-tam gobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed?
ti
15. Housing. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner-occupied and rental ,
etc. ) relative to demand or to number of - - - -
families in various income classes in the City?
b. Impacts an existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing?
16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in: .
a.' Generation of additional vehicular movement? f
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods? f
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
Upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areas:
a. Fire protection?
' b. Police protection? ,
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities , including
roads?
f. Other governmental services? ✓
1rr� sow10 C
Y._ Maybe Na
18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal
resu t- in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures
and annual-ized capital expenditures)?
, 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need or new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? �
b. Certmunications system?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ./
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or '
potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of community health
care provided?
21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased demand for provision of general
social .services?
22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista• ar view
open to the public? - _ _ ✓
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? .
c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area) attractiveness, pleasantness,
and uniqueness? ` v
23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
ne:v i ght or
24. Archealcoical/4istorical . Will' the proposal
result in an a terac- on of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building?
err+
t
Y„_ Maybe Na
25. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Oces the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment-7
b. Oces the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time '
while long-term impacts will endure well into f
the future. ) _ —
c. Oces the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource
is relatively small , but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
d. Ooes the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings , either directly or indirectly? _
Y
Initial Study Prepared 8
r-
n D o W m =:
Z C = ••'••• '.' "sue^--�`
m ,..�;.;
rn
cn nImo-
. � m (' � I •��^ �:.:'.:Y:��:•►� ':•:
D m mco
a 9� G Q�➢: •:�• .
J
m z7.
I— z "'sty: ••��• ,��•�,;•• ••
�j -AV F NU _Ig`• Op TEREAVE I-.
-•O m � 1,iJr
Z I
1 m a m r = C = I
i G> SS+�k�N.. P..A' 0 A V E N U
m M. m I B
j
co > m 1 1 fi w : i
-4 A Z 0
a� •> 9f
A V E
I w 0
ca
m > >
A r �
ROA
< A
F A
`•:: q
mI m
m c I
_ _. � I :• I I I I n I�
r
r
(K:9f:aTr OO :ff o Ill u�i 11Dc&=@nD,0v
• 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
July 2, 1987
Robert Lawman, President
Palm Desert Water & Services District
44-500 Portola Avenue
Box 161
Palm Desert, CA 92261
Re: GPA 87-2
Palm Desert Commercial Core Area
Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Lawman:
Thank you for your comments. In reference to Comment No. 1 , you can be
assured that plan implementation will not result in significant adverse
Impacts to your district. The proposed improvements are unlikely to require
significant modification of your district's facilities since the alignment of
Alessandro and the frontage roads will remain unchanged.
If any relocation is required, the Plan specifically states (as you note in
Comment No. 4) that the Redevelopment Agency will bear the financial
responsibility.
Sincerely,
LJL3>—�
PHIL DRELL, Project Manager
Commercial Core Area Specific Plan
PD:hs
CC� err+
Pal .4ertm A Water & Service.4 2i4trict
44-500 PORTOLA AVENUE
BOX 161
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Phone:(619)346-6338
ROBERT C. H. LAWMAN, President
R.CLAIR McDONOUGH
SHARON K. EPPS
PHYLLIS GRIGGS, District Secretary June 9 , 1987
Mr. Philip Drell
City of Palm Desert
Post Office Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92261
Re : GPA 87-2
Palm Desert Commercial Core Area Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Drell :
In response to your Request for Comments, we would like
to make the following comments :
1 . We disagree strongly with the "No" indication in the
Initial Study, for Item 19 .c.
2 . Our existing water mains exist throughout the entire
area as shown on the enclosed System Map.
3 . Our facilities would have to be relocated.
4 . We concur with the General Policies of the Plan which
state that the Redevelopment Agency shall specifically
participate in Plan implementation through the relocation
of existing utilities .
If you have any questions in regard to the above, or if you
would care to meet to discuss our comments further, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
fi
Robert C.H. Lawman
President
RCHL.,
cc : Sharon Epps
Clair McDonough
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1214
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN.
CASE NO. GPA 87-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California,
did on the 7th day of April , 1987 hold a duly noticed public meeting to
consider and make recommendations concerning the Commercial Core Area Specific
Plan and associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact establishing
planning and redevelopment agency policies for the city's El Paseo/Highway
III/Alessandro Drive commercial corridor.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City
of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the director of environmental
services has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on
the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be
heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to
exist to justify a recommendation of approval .
1 . The proposed land uses and policies promote a more logical and
compatible pattern of commercial development then existing
conditions.
2. The proposed policies are designed to increase the economic potential
of existing commercial areas while protecting adjacent residential
areas from the potential negative impacts of increased commercial
activity.
3. The proposed land uses and policies are consistent with the goals of
the Palm Desert General Plan and will promote the health, safety and
general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission in this case.
2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact Exhibit "A" is
hereby recommended for approval .
3. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to city council
and redevelopment agency board approval of the Commercial Core Area
Specific Plan GPA 87-2 Exhibit "B".
lone
PLANNING COHM I SS I OU RESOLUTION NO. 1214
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of April , 1987, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: DOWNS, LADLOW, RICHARDS, WHITLOCK & ERWOOD
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman
ATTEST:
,.,._�? -,.,;tom►
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secrete
/dlg
2
EXHIBIT "A"
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to Title 14. Division 6. Article 7. Section 15083
of the Callfornla Administrative Code.
CASE ND: GPA 87-2 PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
APPLICJINT/PA0JECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION&OCATION:
A specific plan establishing planning and redeve1OOmOnt 001icies for the Palm
Desert Mighwav Ill . El Paseo and Alessandro Drive Commercial Core (see attached
moo).
The Director of the Department of Community Development. City of Palm Desert.
California. has found that the described pro s ect will not have a s i gn i f i cant
effect' on the environment. A coot/ of the initial study has been attached to
document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any,
Included in the project to avoid ootentially significant effects, may also be
found attached.
e
RAMON A. DIAZ. DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/dig
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 7, 1987
Commissioner Ladlow expressed concern regarding the granny flat
being built and occupied prior to the main residence. Mr. Smith
explained that it would be required prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
Commissioner Richards noted that this is the first request of this
nature that the city has seen. Commissioner Ladlow asked if the
city would keep a file to show that the requirements of age and
relationship were being adhered to. Mr. Diaz replied yes.
Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the
applicant wished to address the commission.
MRS: YAMAGUCHI , 73-391 Catalina, addressed the commission and
outlined the history of her property and her plans for
developing it.
Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposed. There being no one, Chairman Erwood
closed the public testimony.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1213, approving CUP 87-4
subject to conditions. Carried 5-0.
A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:55 P.M.
F. Case No. GPA 87-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for consideration and recommendation
concerning the Commercial Core Area Specific
Plan and associated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact. This plan establishes
planning and redevelopment agency policies for i
Palm Desert's Highway 111/E1 Paseo commercial
corridor.
Mr. Drell reviewed the staff report and indicated that each
individual project would go through the public hearing review
process.
8
M!NUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRiL 7. 1987
i
.Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone
present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
MR. TED BEATON, owner of 11 units and one house, stated that he
was not against progress but would like to see it accomplished
in an orderly manner. He indicated that he . petitioned five
business, three residential , and four apartment owners and no
one knew what was going to happen. He noted that the northeast
corner is basically apartments and felt that the city needed
more low income housing for working people and young people.
He expressed concern regarding development of Cabrillo and felt
that Alessandro in his section should be left alone.
MS. ELEANOR SEAGALL, 73-758 De Anza, owner of J & J Automotive
and home on De Anza. She felt there was no need to rezone
Alessandro. She also felt that it would cause traffic problems
and discussed access to Highway Ill . Ms. Seaga) ] stated that
if Portola were six lanes it would be impossible to cross and
questioned what people would do if they wanted to sell their
property.
Mr. Drell addressed her concerns and explained that the redevelopment
agency would buy those houses for a fair market value and would work
on a relocation program.
MR. EDWARDS, 73-385 Grapevine, expressed concern for the 24
foot wide street onto which his 12 carport directly back onto -
the Alessandro Alley. He indicated there was only one exit to
the east out of a 158 space parking lot and people would be
backing out onto a major ingress and egress route. He indicated
that he had written to the city in favor of commercial
development.
Mr. Drell stated that the intent was for a safe area and discussed
some solutions and the possible relocation of the carports.
MR. JIM FOXX, expressed concern regarding the El Paseo area
and supported the - plan to restrict uses to retail-type uses.
He urged the commission to speed this plan along and felt that
E1 Paseo was an important to the city and should be helped and
protected.
MR. ROY BARLETT, 73-960 Highway 111 , indicated it was his goal
to development professional office buildings and asked about
working with the redevelopment agency to obtain property to
develop.
9
M4 NUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 7, 1987
Mr . Drell stated that the proposed plan does not preclude
professional office development, but felt that maybe a better
location would be fronting onto Portola.
MR. HENRY HOYLE, 73-440 Broken Arrow, endorsed the comments of
Jim Foxx and expressed concern regarding parking and the
parking lots of Security Bank and Bank of America.
MS. DAPHNE TRIPHON, 1713 Painters Path in the Sandpiper
development, expressed concern for the welfare and safety of the
neighborhood and the bridge over the wash. She stated that the
area was being used as a race track, especially on weekends.
Mr. Drell responded by saying that suggestions were being accepted
for a way to get access from some other way than Painters Path or El
Paseo and suggested no access on Painters path. He felt most
traffic would be on El Paseo and indicated that options were limited
for that site. He also indicated staff would like to hear some
creative solutions that might combine residential and commercial
development.
MR. MEL GERARD, owner of Harvest Health Food Store, requested
clarification for his property and inquired about incentive to
demolish and rebuild.
Mr. Drell stated that if a property owner wished to take advantage
of the plan, they would pay for additional parking. If not, then
the city would be in no position to exact anything from the property
owner, noting that an in-lieu fee program would require no additional
charge until the building had a need for it. He stated that Mr.
Gerard's building has no parking and has been utilizing the Frontage
Road, but if adjacent property develops, parking would become a
problem.
MR. CHARLIE MILLER, Little Bend Trail-owner of property next to
1st Bank of Palm Desert, asked about development of that area.
Mr. Drell indicated that property in the area had been purchased but
no plans had been submitted as of yet.
MS. JEAN SWALLOW JOHNSON, owner of property between Houston
Lumber and Maple Leaf Plumbing, asked about meeting notification
procedures, supported a superblock concept and expressed
Interest in developing her property.
10
1 � k
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 7, 1987
Mr. Drell indicated that comments had been submitted by Camille Todd
expressing approval of extra parking for the north side of Highway
. 111 from San Pablo to Monterey fronting on the back alley and from
Mary Stoltzman expressing concern for the block south of Highway III
between El Paseo and Portola. She indicated that the slip ramp onto
the Frontage Road there totally deletes parking
in front of her
ch
rou
for
building and that cars Shespeed on r eq.uest d the
thatp ramp ingresshiand i egress be Smade
the restaurant.
better by possibly a super block.
MR. KIGER BARTON, 44-519 San Anseimo, stated that the looks of
Highway III needed improvement and suggested green space to
provide more eye appeal to building fronts. He felt that one
particular building on Monterey and Fred Waring looked like it
was built right up to the curb.
Mr. Drell stated that as part of the redesign process complete
landscaping of parking medians would be included.
Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Richards stated that staff had done a great Job. He
felt that everyone the city,
u
development forespecially effected citizens participating
on committees and attending group meetings.
Commissioner Richards is to een our ages would existing st nglike the businesses redevelopment
estaye i n
agency to adopt a go .
the city by providing some type of incentives.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1214, recommending to
City CounSlecificePllanent Agency Board GPA 87 2 and associatl of ed Negative Commercial
Declaration
Core Arearea p
of Environmental Impact. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards,
initiating a zoning ordinance amendment establishing the El Paseo
Pedestrian Commercial Overlay by minute motion. Carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
it
MEETING DATE: .
SPEAKERS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU . ARE ATTENDING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ADDRESS
THE CITY COUNCIL, WHETHER IT 1S A SCHEDULED AGENDA ITEM OR
COMMENTS ON UNDER GIVE" I T TO CITY TYASE CLERK PINTE THE ADVANCE OF FOLLOWING
THE
INFORMATION _
MEETING. THANK YOU.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UN E ( fil
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT
Aakz
AGENDA ITEM f
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
I N FAVOR OF ,_Z OPPOSED TO (CHECK ONE)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY AND COOPERATION
MEETING '0AT --
MEET �l
SPEAKERS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR PUBLIC HEARINGS
SS
IF YOU ARE ATTENDING THE CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULEDETING TO AGENDA ITEM FOR
THE CITY COUNCIL. WHETHER IT IS ATHE
COMMENTS UNDER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS THE ,CITYPLEACLEROK PINT ADVANCE OFLOWING
INFORMATION AND GIVE IT TO
MEETING. THA Y U.
NAME: _
ADDRESSS
I MOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER:
ORAL COMMUNICATi0N5 ABOUT
AGENDA ITEM
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
IN FAVOR Of OPPOSED TO _/,(CHECK ONE)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY AND COOPERATION
MEETING DATE:
SPEAKERS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR PUBLIC HEARINGS
IF YOU ARE ATTENDING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ADDRESS
THE CITY COUNCIL, WHETHER IT IS A SCHEDULED AGENDA ITEM OR
COMMENTS AND
COMMUNICATIONS, ASE MPTADVH FOLLOWING
FWTHE
INFORMATIONION AD GIVE IT TO THE CITY CLERK IN ADVANCE
MEETING. HANK YOU.
NAMES
ADDRESS: 3 -7 i
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK 7�ABOUT
C"eL=- ' C
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS _..._.•
AGENDA ITEM
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
IN FAVOR OF OPPOSED TO CHECK ONE)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY AND COOPERATION
r
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMM DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO= Planning Commission
DATE: April 7. 1987
i
CASE NOs GPA 87-2
SUBJECT: Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and associated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact.
I. BACKGROUND: ••
The attached specific plan proposes detailed planning and redevelopment
agency policies for the city's El Paseo, Highway III and Alessandro• Orive
commercial corridor. It is the result of 12 months of discussions and
debate by the Commercial Core Project Area Committee, a group of property
owners, business owners and residents.
Although the plan Is primarily a policy document, it contains conceptual
descriptions and illustrations as to how specific programs could be
Implemented. These programs are designed to maximize the area's potential
for high quality economic development compatIbI@- with the cIty's overall
goals and self-image.
The plan's principal recommendations involve:
1 . The redesign of the Highway ill frontage roads in conjunction with
the creation of "Superblocks".
2. Reorganization and expansion of the north Highway III/Alessandro
Drive commercial zone and creation of a district buffer area-
separating commercial and single family residential uses.
3. An El Paseo streetscape enhancement program designed to make the
area more attractive for pedestrian shoppers.
As part of the El Paseo pedestrian improvement program, the plan proposes
an El Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay Zone (Exhibit "D" of the plan)
which would restrict street level fronting businesses to those retail
and personal service uses that attract or sustain pedestrian Interest.
The Project Area Committee felt that it was Important to begin
Implementation of this pedestrian commercial program as soon as possible
and has requested that a zoning ordinance amendment be Initiated at this
time.
The plan has been presented at two town hall public meetings attended by
over 150 residents, business and property owners. The mailing list for
those meetings and this hearing, included ail property owners in the
study area and within 300 feet and all holder of business licenses.
1
CjPA 87-2 STAFF REPORT
t. pECOlNElOAT10
I. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to City
Council/Redevelopment Agency Board approval of the Commercial Core
Area Specific Plan GPA 87-2 and associated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact with amendments if desired.
2. By minute motion initiate zoning ordinance amendment establishing the
E1 Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay.
Ill. ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Commercial. Core Area Specific Plan
�4�� Q-- :7
Prepared by A j -A—
Reviewed and Approved by
/dlg
2
L
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO- —
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT
T AREA N SPAGEY ECIFIC
APPROVAL OF THE COMMERCIAL
PLAN
Ion of
California,
mmm
WHEREAS, the Planning Coisi987 hold a Cduly ity onota lm Diced public meeting to
did on the 7th day of April , Secific
consider and make recommendations concerninof Environmentathe aili C mpactA establishing
Plan and associated Negative Declaration of
for the city's E1 Paseo/Highway
planning and redevelopment agency Po
III/ Alessandro Drive commercial corridor.
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the
requirements
ealiree eatsofthe "City
Environmental
of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementationh the
Q
uality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the not have an adverse director of iimpactton
services has determined that the protect wil
the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon sty persons and co slid Tinto all
be
testimony and arguments, if any, of all inters
heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to
exist to Justify a recommendation of approval .
1. The proposed land uses and policies d promote
a t ore then an nd
compatible pattern of comet
ercial conditions.
2. The proposed policies are designed to
protecting adjacenrease t residential
tential
of existing commercial areas while
areas from the potential negative impacts of increased commercial
activity.
3. The Proposed land uses andPoandies wllarprcomotesthe healthth safety goals
of
the Palm Desert General Plan
general welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, as follows$
1. That the above recitations are t e and correct and constitute the
findings of the commission In
e.
2. That a negative declaation ofenvironmental impact Exhibit "A" is
hereby recommended for approval .
nci
3. That the p 1 ann 1 ng commission dOa�rova approval of the Commercial recommend
1 a 1 t Core Area
and redevelopment agency board
Specific Plan GPA 87-2 Exhibit "B".
i
• 1
pLANNING C"ISSION RESOLUTION NO. ,
PASSED. APPROVED and ADOPTED �h �regoul regular meet i 1987. by theg o the Palm
fo 1 Desert
i ow 1 ng
Planning Commission, held on this — Y f
vote. to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICHARD ERWOOO, Chairman
ATTEST: '
RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary
/dig
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No .
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND 2
GENERAL POLICIES 5
Area A . North Highway III /Alessandro 6
Area B. South Highway III - Desert Sun Building
to E1 Paseo 14
Area C . South Highway III /El Paseo to Monterey
Avenue 15
Area D . Gateways 24
EXHIBITS
A - BOUNDARY MAP
B - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
C - PROGRAM PRIORITIES
D - EL PASEO PEDESTRIAN COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE
BACKGROUND
Development in what would become Palm Desert Commercial Core
first occurred on the north side of Highway III during the
1940 ' s and 1950 ' s . Slowly, development emphasis shifted south
across Highway III to El Paseo during the 1960 ' s and early
1970 ' s . Highway III became increasingly dominated by offices ,
service , automotive and construction related commercial . El
Paseo developed a high-end specialty retail orientation .
When the City of Palm Desert incorporated in 1973 , the upgrading
and redesign of the commercial core was one of the first prior-
ities . The initial emphasis was placed on improving safety of
access to and from Highway III businesses . As originally
designed, two-way frontage roads with unrestricted cross-street
access served both sides of Highway 111 . Safety concerns
generated by traffic conflicts between frontage road, Highway
III and cross- street traffic eventually led to an extensive
redesign in 1979 . The two-way system was changed to one-way
with slip ramps from Highway III and limited movements at
intersections . Although addressing safety problems , the one-way
solution created significant access problems for Highway III
businesses .
An important component of the original frontage road redesign
plan included the improvement of rear circulation and access
through improved rear parking areas . In 1980 , the Redevelopment
Agency participated in the reorganization and reconstruction of
the rear lots on the south side of Highway ill between Portola
L
PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
INTRODUCTION
In February of 1986 , the City Council /Redevelopment Agency Board
appointed .a 30-member citizens ' advisory committee to make
recommendations concerning land use policies and redevelopment
priorities for the City ' s commercial core . The project area
generally included properties fronting on Highway ill , El Paseo
and Alessandro Drive . Staff support for the committee was
provided by the Department of Community Development/Planning , the
Redevelopment Agency and the Department of Public Works .
Consisting of business owners , property owners and residents ,
the Committee met on a weekly basis between March and December
1986 identifying and discussing critical issues and formulating
policies and implementation recommendations .
The general policy and implementation strategies contained in
the Plan are designed to maximize the Project Area ' s potential
for high quality economic development compatible with Palm
Desert ' s overall community goals and self image . The Plan is
primarily a policy guide although it also contains conceptual
descriptions and illustrations as to how specific programs could
be implemented . Actual program design and implementation will
be subject to a continuing process of analysis and review
tailoring each program and project to the unique circumstances
and requirements of property owners , residents , developers and
the Redevelopment Aqencv with a particular sub-area .
1
Avenue and Larkspur Lane creating the President ' s Plaza . On the
north side of Highway 111 , complications and conflicts with
adjacent residential areas prevented implementation of similar
projects . General dissatisfaction with the redesigned frontage
road system has been a continuing subject of controversy in the
community.
In 1983 , a reexamination of the frontage roads by JEF Engineering
introduced the " superblock concept" , where two-way circulation
would be re- established . Wherever possible , the frontage road
would be merged into adjacent parking areas . Access at cross
streets would be pulled as far away from the Highway III inter-
section as was practical . In 1985 , the superblock concept was
first successfully implemented on the south side between, Larkspur
Lane and Lupine Lane .
In addition to the older commercial area located between Deep
Canyon Road and Monterey Avenue , the study area includes vacant
or recently developed areas at the City ' s eastern and western
gateways . Beginning with the City ' s first general plan , these
areas have been designated either for planned regional commercial
or hotel /restaurant resort development . The construction of the
Palm Desert Town Center in 1983 at the northwest corner of
Highway III and Monterey established Palm Desert as the regional
retail growth center of the Coachella Valiev . The development
of the hotel / restaurant parcels has been slower . Embassy
Suites , Continental Inn and Vacation Inn have been built at
City ' s eastern gateway .
3
i
As a result of Palm Desert ' s emergence as the commercial resort j
growth center , intense development interest is being generated
throughout the study area . These growth pressures present the
City and Redevelopment Agency with considerable opportunities ,
as well as potential problems . To properly channel these growth
forces and promote new development and redevelopment consistent
with the community' s goals and self- image , the need for clearly
enunciated land use policies and redevelopment priorities has
become evident .
In examining the area ' s development trends , the Committee raised
the following area-wide policy questions :
1 . What role should the City/Redevelopment ( RDA ) play in
implementing the Plan and promoting or assisting
positive development in the area ? What will the
private sector ' s responsibility be?
2 . How should the regulatory process balance economic
development goals against the potential negative
impacts which accompany growth?
3 . The study area contains several distinct subareas
whose specific geography offers varying constraints
and potentials for development . What type of uses
should be promoted in each of the subareas via the
planning process or redevelopment --rograms ? Should
some uses be discouraged?
4
GENERAL POLICIES
I . Economic Growth/ Impacts Balance
The overall goal of the C1ty ' s planning and redevelop-
ment policies in the study area shall be the promotion
of high quality compatible economic growth . Emphasis should
be placed on solving potential parking or traffic problems
in a positive manner rather than through restrictions on the
level of economic activity.
II . The Role of the City/RDA
The City/RDA shall take an active role in the promotion
and assistance wherever it is clearly demonstrable that
a particular development will result in substantial
economic benefits for the RDA , general business
community or will otherwise implement community goals .
A . The RDA shall specifically participate 1n Plan imple-
mentation through the following activities and actions :
1 . Relocation or construction of off- site public
improvements including but not Iimited to curbs ,
gutters , public right -of-way paving , drainage
structures , utilities , parking lots and
landscaping .
2 . Use of the power of Eminent Domain to acquire and
consolidate parcels specifically required for the
logical and orderly implementation of the Plan .
3 . In projects involving RDA participation , all
reasonable efforts shall be pursued by the RDA to
5
maintain the economic viability of existing
tenants at their present locations or relocation
to equally desirable areas in the vicinity .
B . Private project developers shall be responsible for
all property acquisition and on-site development costs
directly attributable to their project .
III . Plan Consistency
All development proposals within the Project Area shall be
consistent with the policies of this Core Commercial Area
Specific Plan ( hereinafter referred to as the "Plan" ) .
IV . Subarea Development Policies
To formulate specific policies , the study area was divided
into four subareas .
A . North Highway III /Alessandro
B . South Highway 111 - Desert Sun Building to El Paseo
C . South Highway III /El Paseo east to Monterey
D . Gateways - Monterey West and Deep Canyon East
Area A . North Highway III /Alessandro
This area contains a diverse mixture of new and old
buildings and vacant lots . The Highway III buildings are
served by a frontage road , which currently allows two-way
traffic between Deep Canyon Road and Cabrillo Avenue , the
one- way from Cabr i 1 1 o to Las Palmas , then returns to
two-way west to Monterey . Highway III lots vary in depth
from 125 ft . to 140 Ft . These lots back onto Alessandro
Drive which extends From Deep Canyon to San Pablo . West of
6
San Pablo , only a narrow alley separates the commercial
from a sparsely developed older , single-family subdivision .
The Committee identified four specific issues impacting
this area :
1 . Frontage road access
2 . Shallowness and fragmented commercial lots limiting
substantial high quality development
3 . Replacement or remodeling of obsolete or nonconforming
buildings
4 . Land use conflicts between expanding commercial uses
and residential area to the north
Issue 1 . Frontage Road Access
The current frontage road system continues to be a
source of conflict and controversy in the business
community . While the two-way circulation east of
Cabrillo Avenue and west of Las Palmas represents an
improvement over the one- way system , significant
inefficiencies continue to exist . Access to rear
parking areas is still difficult . Frontage road/cross
street intersections continue to be a source of
traffic safety conflict .
Issue 2 . Limited Depth of Commercial Zone
The lot depth in this area varies between 125 ft . and
140 ft . To meet parking requirements , buildings are
usually limited to the front 50 Feet leaving little
room for future expansion . More ambitious projects
7
are either required to devote several Highway III
frontage lots to parking or develop parking on the
north side of Alessandro Drive . It is not particularly
efficient to use high visibility highway frontage lots
for parking . It is also poor planning to require
pedestrians to cross a 60 ' right-of-way to get from a
parking lot to their destination .
The north side of Alessandro Drive , presently zoned
multi - family residential is a patchwork of aging
apartments , abandoned single family homes , converted
offices , commercial parking lots and vacant lots . The
unsightly rear entrances and storage yards of Highway
III businesses have discouraged new Alessandro
residential development . Limited lot depth and design
restrictions associated with developing adjacent to
single family has stifled commercial development other
than parking lots .
West of San Pablo where Alessandro is replaced by a
2 0 - f o o t alley , similar conflicts have placed
constraints on commercial deve l o�,rr,ent as we ) l as
negatively impacting the adjacent single family zone .
A new bank built on the northeast c)-, ner of Highway
III and Monterey was forced to devr)te two-thirds of
their Highway ill frontage to parking . 1-he iack of an
adequate buffer between the growinq commercial area
and the s i ng 1 e fam i 1 y zone to the nor t i has i nh i b ; teul
8
new residential development on numerous vacant lots
and contr i buted to the deter i orat ion of many of the
existing residences .
Issue 3 . Replacement or Remode11nq of Obsolete or
Nonconforming_ Buildings
In various blocks there are sections dominated by
older buildings which due to their original design or
lack of maintenance no longer conform to present
standards . Existing policies provide little incentive
for owners to improve these properties . The inability
to comply with current parking requirements actually
acts as a disincentive for new investment . This
creates a cycle of decline which causes the properties
to deteriorate further as well as depreciating adjacent
buildings .
Issue 4 . Commercial /Residential Conflicts
Residential areas adjacent to the study area will be
increasingly subject to negative impacts as the
intensity of commercial activity increases . This
situation is aggravated by the present lack of a
distinct boundary between the two uses . Insensitivity
to these negative impacts of traffic , noise , invasion
of privacy and sight line view obstructions will cause
the deteriorating situation on Alessandro to spread
further back into the single- family zone . ideally ,
the transition from commercial to residential should
9
be designed so both uses can co-exist and prosper .
1 . GENERAL POLICY
The entire Highway III /Alessandro area , Deep
Canyon to Monterey, shall be redeveloped according
to the superblock concept with improved access
and safety , increased parking with an adequate
landscaped buffer zone between commercial and
residential zones .
2 . SPECIFIC POLICIES
a . Frontage roads shall be converted to two-way
superblock access isles .
b. Existing Highway III / Frontage road slip
ramps shall be replaced with midblock right
turn in/out superblock entrances .
C . Where feasible , exiting frontage road
cross- street intersections shall be closed
or restricted with circulation directed
north toward superblock .
d . Alessandro Drive shall be narrowed and
redesigned to better integrate properties
on the north s i de of the street i nto the
superblock concept and allow for a wider
buffer zone adjacent to residential uses .
e . The Palma Village Plan recommendation to
expand the commercial zone north of the alley
between Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas one
10
lot for the purpose of creation of off-street
i
parking and a landscaped buffer shall be
implemented.
f. Between San Carlos Avenue and Cabrillo
Avenue , the commercial zone shall be expanded
to include lots on the north side of
Alessandro to an average depth of 120 feet .
These lots shall become part of the super-
block and shall be used primarily for
parking and a landscaped greenbelt adjacent
to the single family zone . East of Cabrillo
Avenue high density garden apartments shall
be encouraged to infiII the remaining lots..
The vacant parcel on Deep Canyon may be
incorporated into a larger commercial
development in conjunction with a project on
Highway Ill .
g. Local residential streets may be cul -de-sac'd
north of the superblock , if deemed desirable
by affected property owners and residents .
h . Incentives shall be created to encourage the
remodeling or replacement of obsolete older
buildings and uses .
3 . IMPLEMENTATION
The City/RDA shall facilitate the creation of
superblocks through the following actions :
11
a . Rezone north side of Alessandro consistent
with the above-described policies .
b. Assist in the acquisition and consolidation
of small parcels necessary for logical and
orderly Plan implementation .
C . Conduct engineering and traffic studies
necessary for the conversion of the frontage
roads .
d . Establish program for frontage road/access
isle conversion . Priority shall be placed
in areas where there is also strong interest
in privately financed redevelopment activity.
e . Develop an owner participation program
linking private improvements to public
improvements .
f. Alessandro shall be redesigned to be more
compatible with the superblock concept . To
facilitate the orderly implementation of the
rear superblock parking concept , the RDA may
have to acquire and develop parking facilit-
ies not directly associated with any specific
private development . RDA shall be reimbursed
for these costs through the payment of in
lieu parking fees assessed on future constr-
uction . expansion or increased commercial
activity in the area .
12
g . Area will be maintained through parking
maintenance assessment district .
h . Area-wide public directional signage program
shall be developed , clearly identifying
block addresses and parking lot locations .
4. SPECIAL IMPLEMENTATION POLICY AND PROGRAM FOR
TRANSITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY USES
Ultimate implementation of the Plan will involve
the conversion of some single-family residential
properties to commercial uses , the timing of
which will depend upon the initiative and market
demands of commercial development . Full plan
implementation could occur over a ten - year
period . This transitional period between plan
adoption and implementation can itself produce
significant negative impacts for this residential
properties contrary to the intent of the Plan .
While these properties may not yet be marketable
for commercial use , the uncertain timetable also
limits their residential marketability. Since
the quality of the existing residential improve-
ments will bear little relationship to the
properties ' future commercial value , maintenance
is likely to suffer leading to deterioration and
associated neqative impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood .
To relieve the burden of uncert:3inty from these
13
single-family owners and residents and to promote
an orderly and humane transition , the
Redevelopment Agency ( RDA) shall offer to purchase
impacted single - family homes prior to future
commercial conversion .
Fifteen homes have been identified as potentially
impacted . They would continue to be maintained
as housing until conversion and would be managed
by the Riverside County Housing Authority .
Through lease back arrangements , the existing
residents could continue to occupy the dwellings .
Reimbursement for holding costs would come from
rental income . Eventually , the RDA would be
compensated by the ultimate commercial developer .
Area B . South Highway III - Desert Sun Building to El
Paseo
1 . Issues
The issues confronting this area are not as
complex or substantial as in other sections of
the study area . With the exception of three
vacant parcels most of the area has been built
out with acceptable site planning and parking . A
majority of the buildings have b-en constructed
since incorporation and meet rurrent standards .
The area is served by a two - wav frontage road .
As it r) as become more deve ; uG d , increasing
i4
traffic conflicts have developed at the
cross- street intersections of El Paseo and at
Deep Canyon . Frontage road traffic attempting to
cross or turn must contend with at least five
other conflicting movements .
2 . Policies
a . Existing land use policies shall be
maintained.
b. Intersection conflicts shall be reduced
through superblock redesign . Frontage road
access shall be limited at cross- street
intersections and increased through midblock
two-way entrances . Frontage road shall be
merged with front parking areas whenever
feasible .
3 . Implementation
a . Conduct detailed engineering studies to
construction of superblock program.
b. Construct specified improvements .
Area C . South Highway III /El Paseo to Monterey Avenue
1 . Issues
The Highway 111 /E1 Paseo area is the City ' s most
intensively developed specialty retail /general
commercial district . It is made up of three
subareas , the Highway III frontage , President ' s
Plaza and El Paseo .
15
Highway III
As is case on the north side frontage road ,
convenient access and safety are major issues .
How can the free access of a two-way .system be
achieved without the traffic conflicts associated
with the old system. The south side does benefit
from improved rear access resulting from
President ' s Plaza . Where larger parking areas
are adjacent to the frontage road, as is the case
with the Lucky ' s and Jensen ' s supermarkets , the
merging of the road and parking lot into a
superblock provides a convenient solution . The
problems are more complex in areas where only
buildings front on the road . A combination of
restricted access or closure at intersections ,
construction of midblock two-way entrances and
through circulation into the rear parking areas
will provide an acceptable balance of convenience
and safety .
The conversion to two-way circulation , even if
all safety problems are solved wi l l have a
significant negative impact on parking supplies
in certain blocks since the existing angle
parking would be replaced by parallel parking at
an approximate 507. loss . In the President ' s
Plaza blocks , approximately 70 parking spaces
16
would be lost through conversion to two-way.
Also of concern is the general appearance of the
area from Highway 111 . For many visitors , the
impression created by the Highway III frontage
will define their image of Palm Desert . It is
therefore important to upgrade the buildings and
landscaping in this area to be equal to the new
development planned for the City' s gateways and
El Paseo .
President ' s Plaza and other Parking Issues
From its inception , development within the blocks
between Highway III , El Paseo , Portola Avenue and
Larkspur included provisions for mutual access
rear parking . This arrangement was enforced
through mutual access easements .
In 1980 , the RDA participated in a major recon-
struction and reorganization of the area creating
President ' s Plazas East and West . It was hoped
that the access problems created by the one-way
frontage roads would be mitigated by convenient
and attractive rear access . Businesses would be
encouraged to improve their rear elevations
creating an inviting plaza atmosphere . Although
the lots have functioned very we i l as a parking
facility , they have not become the attractive and
inviting plazas originally envisioned . Much of
17
+ram
the landscaping has died and has not been
replaced . Only a few of the area ' s businesses
have made an effort to Improve the i r rear eleva-
tions . While the original expectations concerning
the compatibility of a parking lot and a
pedestrian environment may have been overly
optimistic , there is still considerable
opportunity for improvements . Developments in
other blocks have also included varying degrees of
mutually designed rear parking arrangements . Some
lots remain distinctly associated with individual
buildings . Complete gaps occur where there are
vacant lots . Many of these less organized parking
arrangements experience varying levels of main-
tenance which over time might constitute a
problem.
Parking studies conducted are over the past 3
years have indicated that in most areas there is
ample parking to meet present -jnd future needs .
Overall peak season demand is unly 55% of total
capacity . New projects buiit r,� ._urrent standards
should not experience any pros I erns for the
foreseeable future . President ' s Plaza East
receives the highest usage cr 7 �)7 of capacicv .
At 85%, finding a space becorne c; i + f i c u t ar+d the
lot begins to appear full . Tre iess of Parkino
i3
through two-way frontage road redesign could push
demand over the 85% level in this area .
El Paseo
Prior to the construction of the Palm Desert Town
Center , El Paseo was the City' s only major retail
district . It remains unique throughout the
Coachella Valley as an outdoor urban specialty
retail / restaurant boulevard designed on a scale
appropriate for the pedestrian . El P a s e o ' s
ability to successfully compete with new planned
commercial developments west of Monterey will be
dependent on continued enhancement of the area ' s
uniqueness . The pedestrian environment must
receive the same attention and be managed with the
same degree of skill and expertise as is employed
by the Town Center and other new competing retail
developments .
Essential to a successful pedestrian environment
are the following :
a . Creation of attractive shaded walkways and
rest areas ;
b. Elimination of " dead zones " created by
vacant lots , large parking lots and street
fronting businesses which do not attract
pedestrian traffic ;
C . Safe and convenient cross - street Pedestrian
I ,)
i
movement ;
d. Strategic location of "anchor attractions"
to draw and sustain pedestrian interest I
along the entire length of the street .
E1 Paseo is in need of improvement in many of
these areas . Although some of the newer projects
are well landscaped , other sidewalk areas are
rather stark and virtually shade Iess . There are
few areas for pedestrians to sit and rest or
simply enjoy the outdoor amenities of the desert
climate .
While most of the small vacant parcels are being
filled in , an entire residential block between
Larkspur and San Pablo Avenue presently functions
as an absolute barrier to pedestrian traffic .
The owner of this ten acre parcel is attempting
to attract major commercial tenants to this site .
This project has the potential for providing the
anchor attractions , pedestrian plazas and
additional off- street public_ parking to benefit
the entire area .
The most significant landscaping on El Paseo is
contained within an 18-foot wide median . While
this median provides desirable relief from what
would otherwise be continuous 4 lanes of traffic ,
it does act as a physical and visual pedestrian
20
err
should be placed on creating a project which
will act as an " anchor attraction " and
provide a source of convenient off- street
multi - level public parking .
e . Incentives should be created for the
inclusion of public plazas of various sizes
within private commercial development .
f . Along Highway 111 , access and safety shall
be improved through implementation of the
superblock concept including :
( 1 ) Reinstatement of two-way circulation
where practical .
( 2 ) Create two-way midblock entrance exits .
( 3 ) T r a f f i c movements at frontage
road/cross- street intersections shall
be limited to right turn only or closed
completely . Where possible , traffic
connections shall be created between
frontage road and rear parking areas to
eliminate dead-end isles .
( 4 ) New and existing rear parking areas
shall be redesigned to allow unified
intercirculation .
( 5 ) the City/RDA shall create a program to
Fill in vacant gaps in parking lots and
sidewalks resulting from vacant parcels .
22
rrr
3 . IMPLEMENTATION
a. Create special pedestrian commercial zone
for El Paseo/President ' s Plaza , which limits
uses to those conducive to sustaining
Pedestrian interest .
b. Conduct an urban commercial landscape study
of the El Paseo / President ' s Plaza area
leading to the redesign and enhancement of
the pedestrian environment .
C . Maximum speed limit on EI Paseo shall be
limited to 25 miles per hour .
d. On blocks greater than 500 feet in length ,
midblock crosswalks shall be created . In
these areas , the sidewalk shall be widened ,
landscaped and decorative paving employed to
emphasize the right-of-way for pedestrian
traffic . Median design shall be modified to
allow pedestrian crossing .
e . City/RDA shall work closely with potential
developer of Sun Lodge Co I onv s i to to
successfully implement elan which maxirnizes
area-wide benefits .
f. The zoning ordinance shall be amended to
provide incentives in the form of off- street
parking requirement refjuctions in exchange
For the inclusion of ouc, lic plazas
23
"pocket parks " in their design . To offset
this reduced private parking development ,
the RDA shall purchase and develop additional
parking when necessary on less desirable
commercial property located off El Paseo .
g. Detailed engineering studies shall be
conducted leading to implementation of the
frontage road superblock system . See
Exhibit B (Conceptual Design Plan ) .
h . S 1 g n a g e Program - Area - wide public
directional signage program shall be
developed clearly identifying block addresses
and parking lot locations .
Area D . Gateways_
I . ' Issues
Gateways , visitor ' s first exposure to Palm
Desert . p lay a critical ro l e in defining the
City ' s character and identity . In addition to
communicating an overall impression of quality,
it is important for gateways to emphasize that
one is entering a unique and distinctive
community .
At tine City ' s western gatewav , the Las 5ombra5
Restaurant Park built in rani) was constructed
with a fundamental site Manning Flaw which
detracts from the development_, --jppearance , as
24
fir+ i
well as being detrimental to the success of many
of the tenants . The project was built backward
with inferior rear elevations facing Highway 111 .
On the east side of Highway Ill , an ambitious
Raffles Hotel restaurant / resort commercial
project is planned.
Directly south of the Las Sombras project is a
large 32 - acre vacant site for which numerous
unsuccessful development proposals have been
submitted. Planning on this site is complicated
by a 1 . 8 acre pie-shaped ( the Hoams Pool site) ,
separately owned , nonconforming developed parcel
piercing the parcel ' s lower quarter .
Further south , across the Palm Valley Storm
Channel , a 12 -acre vacant parcel also has had a
controversial development history which included
denial of two major commercial developments due
to conflicts with the adjacent Sandpiper
residential development .
The principal issues in this area concern how
these remaining vacant , unplanned parcels can be
developed to best reinforce Palm Desert ' s unique
character .
GENERAL POLICY
The City shall develop a more flexible zoning
designation on the remaining vacant parcels to
25
*401
permit consideration of creative mixed use
residential / commercial developments . A portion
of this area may be appropriate for City ' s
affordable high-density designation ( AHDPR) or
Senior Overlay .
SPECIFIC POLICY
1 . To mitigate traffic congestion and conflicts
associated with isolated development , the RDA
shall consider construction of vehicular and
pedestrian bridges linking the 12-acre Ahmanson
property with the 32-acre Karma property. This
commercial / residential development could be
served by one signalized Highway III access
located directly northwest of the Palm Valley
Storm Channel .
2 . The RDA shall assist if necessary in the acquisit-
ion of the Hoams Pool property , allowing it to be
incorporated into the surrounding property as
part of an overall plan .
26
i
EXHIBIT B
i
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN
EXHIBIT C
PROGRAM'S PRIORITIES
The implementation tasks contained in the Core Commercial Area
Specific Plan are of two types :
1 . Active programs with extensive Redevelopment Agency
financial participation,
2 . Non-financial administrative/regulatory actions.
Within the Active Category , Programs were classified as
priorities A , 8 or C . Administrative programs were ranked
l the lis
numerically. Although it is assume d that aisndi atessted whiichrogra should
and policies are important, the ranking
be pursued first.
ACTIVE PROGRAM
A. Priorities
rs
are
1 . Provide assistance s to eimpeement eplan.ho This
making a substantial effort
program would Involve both
administrative
theand
useeof
re
necessary financial
eminent domain to accumulate necessary parcels.
2 . Completion of Plans and Implementation of Ei Paseo.
is
Pedestrian streetecthe biock enhancement
address andprogram .
ParkingT lot
program will includ
directional signage program.
9 . Installation o prope
rties .
l ks in front of vacant or
underdeveloped
es
4, RDA . program to acquii dere develope - 1 Monterey/Lup Rne superb l osck, to be
Included in no ths
5. Complete redesign
and
didlandscaping for frontage roads ,
beginning with s
e.
B. Priorities
1 . Parking lot redesign - southside Monterey/LuPine.
2 . President' s Plaza landscape enhancement .
C. Priorities
1 . RDA acquisition of Sun Lodge site to facilitate
development .
2 . Public Parking development on rear Z Sun Lodge site.
3 . RDA acquisition of Phil Harris site`
( Note : These program
s would
i c become _A private deveil oies If
pment
associated with a Pe
proposal . )
D"IMIcTRATiVE/REGULATORY_PROGRAMS
I .
Create and implement El Paseo pedestrian commercial
zoning.
2. Formulate policy of statementsite.
concerning City/RDA role In
development o Lodge
3 . Create parking authority
a. Feasibility studies for future parking development
b. In- lieu fee program
C. Parking credit for inclusion of public
- plaza/pocket parks
d. Establish parking maintenance districts
4. Nort re/resede tial transitionCzone9e R-3 to a new.
commecia
ma
5 . Land euse rt i es Policy( Southment Highway cerinlinwestr of aEdl Paseo ).
prop
Including acquisition of Hoams Pool site-
2
EXHIBIT D
I . INTENT AND PURPOSE
El Paseo is designed as a pedestrian specialty
retail /personal services district . The success of a
pedestrian commercial district is dependent upon the
creation and maintenance of a continuous succession of
diverse but compatible businesses which attract and
sustain pedestrian interest . To encourage this
continuous pattern of pedestrian-oriented uses , this
ordinance shall regulate the type of new uses which may
occupy El Paseo street level commercial frontage
constructed after July 1 , 1987 .
II . PERMITTED USES
The following retail /personal service uses shall be
liberally construed to be permitted uses within the E1
Paseo Pedestrian Commercial Overlay:
Art Galleries
Book and Card Shops
Clothing and Apparel
Furniture Stores and Home Furnishings
Gift and Accessories Boutiques ( including
small antiques )
Jewelry Shops
Liquor, Beverage and Food Item Shops
Luggage Shops
Personal Care/Products Shops and Services
( including barbering and cosmetology)
Restaurants
Sundries Shops (general merchandise )
III . CONDITIONAL USES
The Planning Commission may by conditional use , permit
approve commercial uses not listed above if they are
determined to be compatible with the intent and
purpose of this section .
Il �
staffrep
`fir►
James Cal/af�an
April 6, 1987
Mr. Carlos L. Ortega
Executive Director
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
73-210 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Dear Mr. Ortega:
First, let me tell you that I am not one of those people
who complains but does not have answers nor am I unwilling
to lend my expertise if I believe my opinions will be
respected and utilized.
I do object to the expenditure of funds to ask someone
outside the community for answers when thev are perhaps
right here on El Paseo. Questionaires waste everyones
time and if you ask fifty people the same question, you
probably will receive fifty different answers or at best
a few responses from people who took the time because
they have nothing else to do. I filled out your auestionaire
and then recalled how little power my opinion is to a
committee who will do what they see fit for a variety of
personal reasons if not personal motives.
Unfortunately for some, I am to the point, able to draw
dreams to conclusions and finally realities - It is my
occupation and a responsibility I willingly accept. For
such efforts, my corporation operates in a 62% profit
picture, generates medium nine digit revenue and a commen-
surate income.
I believe you must spend money to attract money, I believe
policies must be imposed for the overall welfare not a specific
few. I believe you eliminate competition, not compete. . . If
you want to be the "best" , then you must act and look the
part.
I volunteer to participate in your committee during a merchant
election but was defeated by two votes. Many of the merchants
complained of heavy politicing on behalf of the winners.
A DESIGN CORPORATION
73- 210 el paseo / palm desert / cal ifornia 92260 / (619) 568-1081
ANO
April 6, 1987
Mr. Carlos L. Orteaa
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 2
Obviously, therein lies special interest. Anyone logically
would prefer to have an internationally recognized designer
on an aesthetics committee as opposed to a retailer of bath
accessories (no innuendo intended) . However, my offer was
rejected by the will of the people who responded. I ask
you to consider who did not respond and possibly why? The
answer to your dilemma lies within this group, not a consulting
firm.
I am frank, often blunt, but I do not waste time on issues
that do not matter. I will not prolong the conclusion of
this letter but summarize its intent, unless you change your
approach and reach expeditious solutions for resolving your
problems, people like me will be gone. Some others will
retire, while others will be deceased. Restaurants nor
retailers are attracted to "polyester shopping districts"
with little social environment or unia_ue establishments.
Either we are special retailers or it becomes a commercial
center for real estate brokers escrow companies and lending
institutions. Someone has to "blaze the trail" , not mend
fences.
If the opportunity arises for my input, please feel free to
contact me. For the record and my sense of responsibility,
I have responded. I hope it is well received.
Sincerely offered,
"Dictated but not signed by"
James Callahan .
President
JC/dr
enc.
A DESIGN CORPORATION
73 - 210 el paseo / palm desert ; " alifornia 92260 I (619 )568-1081
jI
_._� it ]l�f��3.28_.l4$Z—_--_. - __._— ------•----- - - - _
-- IT i
_ CItY.. Qt -
i Redevelopment Agency Planning Dept• -- -
"Core Commercial lrea 3peciric Plans"
We the property owners and residents in the area of the prop04ed
o�msrc ial_ar�s_ �psal t1a_Plan•_..art_r AUjk&Ling.t het the.- area—__. _
"Carl
north of Highway ill and between Cabrillo and=DeeP Canyon be
y. .cLss. .
lritd_la.liauu�-th 1 . .
to be in the best laterest of the city or Pala Desert.
7y-/96
00
Cap R:iY 74•`tii -
�' V. al
-- Tu
Cif J ! v ✓ •. -- — - -
i
march 25, 1987
I
11r. Carlos Ortega:
Res "Core Commercial Area Specific Plane
We the property owners and resider,:.& on Alessandro Drive east Of
eati�na
Cabrillo to Deep Canyon, would like to offer the follbsing sugg
to the plan.
We
ea ofevd ItDwuuld be beazf
over theilong range"tims•ty and usefulness to this
ar
1. Turn the Core Area around at El Passso and Cabrillo. This
disi&A
existing natural cross over and turn around loop,
for trafficto go from the South side stores and shops to the north side businessss.
2: The majority of the commercial businesses tWarsid ar�bnotlo and
public
Deep Canyon along Highway Ill are &pacific typos with
shopping stores. They consist of most °as requireow dsbyb the tCity.
updated planning regulations and designs, `
wide with curbs and
3. Alessandro 13t.ivs s a good modern na with the frontage and the
gutters all ainngfacilities•providedlbyy private owners, provides ample
Meting Paoingfa in this section oft he City of pals Deserto
and orderly parking
1 In the norm aide of Alessandr000taf presently1lo to Of Real ntialyon for lncoms a
depth of approximately 11;2 •
Properties. least 58
at would
ave to be
5. Therecated aare re at placed should atnisble a property sbentaken for hCommercial
businesses.
6. Thea• apartments for the most part provide some of the mush needed
Low Income housing in this City.
41
this
s.
7. ThIt IS my sugeestionathat the lCity resoneoped lots nthese tosR3r3000gtol n �
totl give the
to
R313000srs rezoning onpthe South side uofdHighway Ill as few syears n e
the same back.
8. There are presently 3 new houses being bu11t along De Anza.
q. The building of apartments on thsas vacant lots whets t ssible
proposal
would eliminate the hodge podge appearance that the Pros
ea Proposal
could orwate. The residential (lots R. 1) are large in the Palma Village
area and give a distance buffer between aPartmsnta and single family houses.
10, Uur hope is tais area of the City be maintained and upgraded as a .
beautiful section of t hs City. This can be accomplished if this present
zoning is followed and assistance given by the City when needed to lmprovs
this area.
Respectfully,
Jack Dayton
March 18, 1987
Lr .
tr•r�,h,y -� 7.
fir.-Carlos Ortega:
Re: "Cars Commercial Area Specific Plan*
I .am Jack Dayton, one of themajor
consietsproperty
of Lo owners
an AlesPalmsandro
Drive
East of Cabrillo. Ply property
With a house and eleven (11) rental apartments.
1. I Would like'tb offer tns.following suggestion to the plan.
I believe it Would be oeneficial to the beauty and usefulness to this
area of Palm Desert over the long range time.
?. Turn the Coro Area aro or end turn around loop.und at El Pesseo and Cabrifor llo. Th:traffic
is an existing natural cross ov
nd snaps to the north
desiring to go from tha South side stores a
side businesses.
. The majority or the commercial businesses between Cabrillo
}
and Da. Canyon along orh ill are specific types and are not public ;
of mostly new buildings, built With
shopping stores. They consist
updated planning regulations and designs, as required by the City.
4. Alessandro Drive is a good modern street, Wide With curbs and
gutters all along this area. This along With the frontage and the existing
parking facilities provided by private owners, provides ample and orderly
parking in this section of the City of Palm Desert.
S. The north side of Alessandro from Cabrillo to Deep Canyon for
a depth of approximately 142' consists presently of Residential Income
Properties.
6. There are at least 58 livable apartments that Would have to
be relocatod and replaced should this property be taken for Commercial
businesses.
7. These apartments for the most part provide same of the much needs
Low Income housing in this City.
H. There are 7 total undeveloped lots in this Area facing Nlessaandra.
It is my suq;esti.:n that the City rezi,ne these tc R3-3000 to give the
builders the sama opportunity to build apartments as Was given to the
R3-3000 rezoning on the South side of Miyhrav Ill a few years back.
9. There are presently 3 new houses being built along De Anza.
10. The building of apartments on these vacant lots Where possiole
Would eliminate the dodge podge appearance that the present proposal
could crRate. The residential (lots R. 1) are larga in the Palma village
area and give a distance buffer between apartments And single family houses.
11. Ply hope is this area of the City be maintained and upgraded as
a osautiful section of the Ci,.y. This can be accomplished if the present
zoning is followed and assistance given by the City .ahan needed to improve
this area.
Respectfully,
Jack Dayton
ec: Phil Orgill
Jean Benson
R
MEETING DATES /�-�---
D �G SPEAKERS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AND/OR PUBLIC HEARINGS
If YOU ARE ATTENDING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ADDRESS
THE CITY COUNCIL. WHETHER 1T IS A SCHEDULED AGENDA ITEM OR
COMMENTS UNDER ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION AND GIVE IT TO THE CITY CLERK IN ADVANCE Of THE
MEETING. THANK YOU.
NAMES
4 Z
ADDRESS:
1 WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER: 4)l►e.4e�tJ��sl
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS __. ABOUT 7
AGENDA ITEM
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
IN FAVOR OF OPPOSED TO (CHECK ONE)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY AND COOPERATION
71
COMPLETION OF THIS CARD IS VOLUNTARY . Y U MAY N A
PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER R NOT YOU
COMPLETE THIS DOCUMENT. ITS PURPOSE IS TO AID STAFF IN COMPILING !
COMPLETE AND ACCURATE RECORDS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. '
&Wlj AJ
/,t
eCy
2 So 111.2_. AJGE�J a
�hP �9 GT 4- .� -ems uli��. o R.
Op4gA,%AAlc//t L C0�.� You 4ee- -TO 6e- YOPZ ALIZ�ed I
/
IAJ owl-OF
C a4AJ ?fig-- 5L/y4iP, motiC�-
141111110, yr ►
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
s
SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402
April 3, 1987
Mr. Philip Drell
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
We have reviewed the Negative Declaration for the Palm Desert
Commercial Core Area Specific Plan and it is adequate for our
purposes.
We urge early and continuous liaison with Caltrans on proposed
plans as they affect State highways .
If you have any questions, please contact Morgan Choate at
(714) 383-4233.
Very truly yours,
GUY G. VISBAL
Chief, Transportation Planning
Branch A
{ a
� 2b19
al
1vT�
JN gEVE e'er pFSER1ARiMENS
�tv
March 18, 1987
CORM Can �
Mr. Carlos Ortega :
Re: "Core Commercial Area Specific Plan"
I am Jack Dayton, one of the major property owners on Alessandro Drive
East of Cabrillo. Ply property consists of Lots 7-8-9 Palma Village,
with a house and eleven (11) rental apartments.
1. I would like to offer the following suggestion to the plan.
I believe it would be beneficial to the beauty and usefulness to this
area of Palm Desert over the long range time.
2. Turn the Core Area around at E1 Passeo and Cabrillo. Th; s
is an existing natural cross over and turn around loop, for traffic
desiring to go from the South side stores and shops to the north
side businesses.
3. The majority of the commercial businesses between Cabrillo
and Deep Canyon along Highway 111 are specific types and are not public
shopping stores. They consist of mostly new buildings, built with
updated planning regulations and designs, as required by the City.
4. Alessandro Drive is a good modern street, wide with curbs and
gutters all along this area. This along with the frontage and the existing
parking facilities provided by private owners, provides ample and orderly
parking in this section of the City of Palm Desert.
5. The north side of Alessandro from Cabrillo to Deep Canyon for
a depth of approximately 1421 consists presently of Residential Income
Properties.
6. There are at least 58 livable apartments that would have to
be relocated and replaced should this property be taken for Commercial
businesses.
7. These apartments for the most part provide some of the much needed
Low Income housing in this City.
8. There are 7 total undeveloped lots in this Area facing Alessaandro.
It is my sugq estiL)n that the City rezone these tc R3-3000 to give the
builders the same Opportunity to build apartments as was given to the
R3-3000 rezoning on the South side of Highway Ill a few years back.
9. There are presently 3 new houses being built along De Anza.
10. The building of apartments on these vacant lots where passible
would eliminate the hodge podge appearance that the present proposal
could create. The residential ( lots R. 1) are large in the Palma Village
area and give a distance buffer between apartments and single family houses.
11. ray hope is this area of the City be maintained and upgraded as
a beautiful section of the Ci;,y. This can be accomplished if the present
zoning is followed and assistance given by the City :jhen needed to improve
this area.
Respectfully,
Jack Dayton
cc: Phil Drell
Jean Benson
a�r,r
EXPLANATION FOR RESPONSES IN
INITIAL STUDY GPA 87-2
PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
1 . EARTH
The proposal involves projects in an already highly urbanized area. There
will be no significant impacts.
2. AIR EMISSIONS
The proposals involve changes to traffic circulation patterns to improve
access and safety for existing commercial areas and provisions for
additional off-street parking. No significant increase in air emissions
are anticipated.
3. WATER
No significant impacts.
4&5 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE
Area is an existing highly urbanized commercial district with no
significant plant or animal resources.
6&7 NATURAL RESOURCES & ENERGY
The proposal represents a reorganization of the existing land resources
to achieve greater land use efficiency. There will not be a significant
increase in the consumption of natural resources.
8. RISK OF UPSET
The city's zoning. fire. health and safety ordinances strictly regulate
use of hazardous substances 'to protect public safety. The existing_
commercial zoning does not permit industrial type uses.
9. The area is not subject to unusual flooding or geologic hazards.
10. NOISE
The proposal recommends creation of substantial buffer area between
commercial and residential uses diminishing potential noise impacts.
11 . LAND USE
The proposal will result in a 12 foot expansion of the commercial zone
along the northern boundary of the study area. Presently this area is
composed of a mixture of vacant lots, apartments. professional offices,
parking lots and single family homes. The plan is designed to create a
more compatible mix of commercial land uses with a substantial buffer
zone adjacent to the single family residential zone.
GPA 87-2 CONTINUED
12. OPEN SPACE
There is no designated existing oven space in the area.
13. POPULATION
The area does not presently contain a significant resident population.
14. EMPLOYMENT
The proposal will allow for increased economic activity and employment
within the existina commercial core area.
15. HOUSING
The plan will initially slightly decrease the number of housing units in
the plan area. Efforts will be made to replace this housina on land
presently owned by the redevelopment agency in the neighborhood to the
north. The Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element and the Palma
Village Specific Plan contains policies and programs which have
significantly promoted the construction of affordable housing to replace
those eliminated as part of this plan.
16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Along Highway 111 . the plan proposes redesign to increase business
accessibility while reducing existing traffic conflicts at cross street/
frontage road intersections. These changes will have a positive impact
on circulation patterns. The 120 foot expansion of the commercial zone
on the north side of Alessandro Drive and north of the alley between
Monterey Avenue and Las Palmas Avenue will add approximately 18 acres of
land for professional offices and retail/service use. Under the existing
combination of multi family and single family land uses. the area would
accommodate 180 residential units generating 1260 ADT. Under the proposed
plan the 18 acre commercial expansion would permit 313.632 square feet of
additional office/retail/service development generating 6586 ADT (assuming
21 ADT per 1000 square feet based upon 2/3 office at 12 ADT and 1/3
specialty retail at 40 ADT from Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook) .
The net increase over the existing land use will be an additional 5326
trips spaced over the 1 .5 mile commercial strip. Since plan implemen-
tation will occur over a 10 year period the annual increase will be
approximately 532 trips per .year. The plan proposes that a major portion
of the expanded area be used for off-street parking_ to accommodate -the
increased commercial development.
2
r
GPA 87-2 CONTINUED
MITIGATION
To prevent this additional traffic from adversely effecting adjacent
residential zones. local residential streets which presently intersect
Alessandro Drive will be cul-de-saced. The redesign of the frontage
road/Highway III/cross street circulation system will result in safer
more convenient access this mitigating the increase level of traffic.
17. PUBLIC SERVICES
The project will involve participation by the Palm Desert Redevelopment
Agency in the areas of public road reconstruction, parking lot
development, landscaping and maintenance. These programs will be funded
through redevelopment tax increment and assessment districts.
18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE
Public expenditures will correspond to increased revenued generated by
the redevelopment area.
19. UTILITIES
No significant utility modifications are proposed.
20. HUMAN HEALTH
The proposed circulation changes will improve Public safety.
21 . SOCIAL SERVICES
No impact.
22. AESTHETICS
The proposed landscaping programs for the frontage road and El Paseo will
greatly enhance the aesthetic auality of the area.
23. LIGHT AND GLARE
All commercial lighting must meet stringent standards which prevent light
spillover into residential areas.
24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
There are no significant archeological /historical resources in the area.
3
CASE `t0.
C�I�o
EX71110M, EYTAL SERVICES DEPT.
INITIAL STUDY
E`1VIROINIEL'VTAL EVALUATI011 CRECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , Possible - -
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . mitigation
Yes Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Oisruptions , displacements , compaction, or
overcovering of the soil? — —
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features? �--
d. The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind' or water erosion of .
soils , either on or off the site?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature , or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
i
til
.. -
3• Water. Will the proposal result In: Yes Maybe No
a.-. Changes . i n currents, 'or the course or
' direction of water' movements?
b. Changes in-abso•rpt-fnn rates , drainage
patterns, or the rate and- amount of
surface water runoff?
C. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of ✓ '
flow of
ground waters? ,
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
I
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies? _
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species , or
numbers of any species of plants
(including trees , shrubs , grass and
crops )?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area , or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
5. Animal. Life. Will the Proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds ,
land animals including reptiles , or
insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any •unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing Wildlife hab,t2t? ;;,�
3.
Yes Maybe No
6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: _
a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural
resource?
7. jaLra. — t''1.
Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existingsources of ene
quire the.develo met of new ' or re-
energy? p sources of
$. Risk of Upset, Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of ,
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides ,* oil , ,chemicals, or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions? •
9. E-ononic Loss. Will the proposal result in: ✓
a. A change in "the value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding?
b• A change in the value of property and
impro,werien,Cs exposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted .coMauni ty risk standards?
10. Noise. Will the --
proposal increase existing
noise levels to the point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
ii. Land Use. Will .the proposal result in the
as t�T FRTt n of the present developed or
Planned land use of an area?
12. Open Soace. Will the proposal
o a
decrease in the -amoun., ofdesignatedtopen
space? L.
13. Population. Will the proposal result in: r
a. Alteration or the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
Population of the Citv?
b. Change in the
population distribution by
aye, income, religion, racial , or ethnic
group, occupational class , household type?
(C
4.
Y..es. Maybe No
14. EmD10 ment. Will the proposal result in
addlMiona new long-term jobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed?
15. Hou—_usin - Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner-occupied dnd rental ,
etc. ) relative to demand or to number of - _
families in various income classes in the City?
b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing?
16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a.' Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or -
demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or mcvement of people and/or goods? f
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists , or pedestrians?
17 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon , or resu F in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areAs:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities , including
roads?
f. Other governmental services? �,/
1.
5.
Maybe No
18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal Yes Maybe'result in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems , or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications system?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
y/
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or
Potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of community health s care provided?
21 . Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased demand for provision of general
_ social .services?
22. Aesthetics . Wi11 the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista. or view
open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive 0 4i
site open to public view? .
C. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness ,
and uniqueness?
23.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
ne:v ,g tt or g are?
24. Archeolocical/Historical . Will the
resu t in an a teration of a significant
posal
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building?
1W
• 6.
Y_ Maybe No
25. Mandatory Findings of Signiiicance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental •goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time '
while long-term impacts will endure well into f
the future. )
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource
is relatively small , but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings , either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Pripared 8y:
January 5, 1987
Dixie Davis
Property Data Center
Riverside County Assessors Office
4020 Lemon 5th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Ms. Davis:
Please produce a property owners list and sets of mailing labels for the
following groups of parcels.
Group I - four label sets Group II - three label sets
627-19-all 625-11-all
627-20-all 625-12-all
627-21-all 625-13-all
627-22-all 625-16-all
627-23-all 625-43-62 to 66
627-24-all
627-25-all
627-26-all
627-27-all
627-301-all
627-311-all
Group III - three label sets Group IV - three label sets
627-06-all 640-02-all
627-07-all 640-08-all
627-08-all 640-09-all
627-09-all 640-10-all
627-14-all 640-11-all
627-15-all 640-14-all
627-165-all 640-15-all
627-166-all 640-17-all
627-167-all 640-20-all
627-17-all 640-22-1 thru 17, 35 thru 51
627-18-all 640-24-all
625-06-all
625-07-all
625-08-all
625-09-all
625-10-all
Thank you,
Phil Drell
Associate Planner
F
t
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELLPHONE (619) 346-0611
. I
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO: GPA 87-2
PROJECT: PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The attached draft specific plan and associated initial environmental study
and draft negative declaration of environmental impact relate to the establish-
ment of new planning policies and redevelopment agency programs for the City
of Palm Desert Highway III/El Paseo/Alessandro Drive Commercial Core. Although
the plan is primarily a policy document, it contains conceptual descriptions
and illustrations of how a specific program could be implemented. The plans
principal recommendations involve:
1 . The redesign of the Highway III frontage roads in conjunction with
the creation of "superblocks".
2. Reorganization and expansion of the north Highway III commercial
zone.
3. Streetscape beautification of El Paseo.
Specific implementation will involve subsequent consultation and cooperation
with various responsible public and private agencies and organizations.
Please study the attached materials and forward comments to:
Philip Drell
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Deadline for comments: April 22, 1987
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Pursuant to Title 14. Division 6. Article 7. Section 15083
of the California Administrative Code.
CASE NO: GPA 87-2 PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN j
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: j
A specific plan establishing planning and redevelopment policies for the Palm
Desert Highway 111 . El Paseo and Alessandro Drive Commercial Core (see attached
map) .
The Director of the Department of Community Development. City of Palm Desert,
California. has found that the described pro iect will not have a significant
effect' on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to
document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if anv.
included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be
found attached.
RAMON A. DIAL. DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/dlg
EXPLANATION FOR RESPONSES IN
INITIAL STUDY GPA 87-2
PALM DESERT COMMERCIAL CORE SPECIFIC PLAN
1 . EARTH
The proposal involves projects in an already highly urbanized area. There
will be no significant impacts.
2. AIR EMISSIONS
The proposals involve changes to traffic circulation Patterns to improve
access and safety for existing commercial areas and provisions for
additional off-street parking. No significant increase in air emissions
are anticipated.
3. WATER
No significant impacts.
4&5 PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE
Area is an existing highly urbanized commercial district with no
significant plant or animal resources.
6&7 NATURAL RESOURCES & ENERGY
The Proposal represents a reorganization of the existing land resources
to achieve greater land use efficiency. There will not be a significant
increase in the consumption of natural resources.
8. RISK OF UPSET
The city's zoning. fire. health and safety ordinances strictly regulate
use of hazardous substances 'to protect public safety. The existing_
commercial zoning does not Permit industrial type uses.
9. The area is not subject to unusual flooding or geologic hazards.
10. NOISE
The Proposal recommends creation of substantial buffer area between
commercial and residential uses diminishing potential noise impacts.
11 . LAND USE
The Proposal will result in a 12 foot expansion of the commercial zone
along the northern boundary of the study area. Presently this area is
composed of a mixture of vacant lots. apartments. professional offices,
parking lots and single family homes. The plan is designed to create a
more compatible mix of commercial land uses with a substantial buffer
zone adjacent to the single family residential zone.
i
t
GPA 87-2 CONTINUED
12. OPEN SPACE
There is no desianated existing oven space in the area.
13. POPULATION
The area does not presently contain a significant resident population.
14. EMPLOYMENT
The proposal will allow for increased economic activity and emplovment
within the existina commercial core area.
15. HOUSING
The Ulan will initially slightly decrease the number of housing units in
the plan area. Efforts will be made to replace this housina on land
oresently owned by the redevelopment agency in the neighborhood to the
north. The Palm Desert General Plan Housina Element and the Palma
Viliaae Specific Plan contains policies and oroarams which have
s i an i f i cant I v promoted the construction of affordable housina to replace
those eliminated as part of this plan.
16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Alonca Hiahwav Ill . the plan proposes redesign to increase business
accessibility while reducing existing traffic conflicts at cross street/
frontaae road intersections. These changes will have a positive impact
on circulation patterns. The 120 foot expansion of the commercial zone
on the north side of Alessandro Drive and north of the alley between
Monterev Avenue and Las Palmas Avenue will add approximately 18 acres of
land for professional offices and retail /service use. Under the existing
combination of multi family and sinale family land uses. the area would
accommodate 180 residential units aeneratina 1260 ADT. Under the proposed
plan the 18 acre commercial expansion would permit 313.632 sauare feet of
additional office/retail/service development generating 6586 ADT (assuming
21 ADT per 1000 square feet based upon 2/3 office at 12 ADT and 1/3
specialty retail at 40 ADT from Institute of Traffic Engineers Handbook) .
The net increase over the existing land use will be an additional 5326
trips spaced over the 1 .5 mile commercial strip. Since plan implemen-
tation will occur over a 10 year period the annual increase will be
approximately 532 trips Der year. The plan proposes that a major portion
of the expanded area be used for off-street parkina to accommodate the
increased commercial development.
2
err% �r✓'
(PA 87-2 CONTINUED
MITIGATION
To prevent this additional traffic from adversely effecting adiacent
residential zones. local residential streets which presently intersect
Alessandro Drive will be cut-de-saced. The redesign of the frontage
road/Highway III /cross street circulation system will result in safer
more convenient access this mitigating the increase level of traffic.
17. PUBLIC SERVICES
The project will involve participation by the Palm Desert Redevelopment
Agency in the areas of public road reconstruction, parking lot
development, landscaping and maintenance. These programs will be funded
through redevelopment tax increment and assessment districts.
18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE
Public expenditures will correspond to increased revenued generated by
the redevelopment area.
19. UTILITIES
No significant utility modifications are pr000sed.
20. HUMAN HEALTH
The pr000sed circulation changes will improve public safety.
21 . SOCIAL SERVICES
No impact.
22. AESTHETICS
The pr000sed landscaping programs for the frontage road and El Paseo will
greatly enhance the aesthetic quality of the area.
23. LIGHT AND GLARE
All commercial lighting must meet stringent standards which prevent light
spillover into residential areas.
24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
There are no significant archeological /historical resources in the area.
3
+� r CASE NO.
V *'
i
=M:[11OiY- TAL SERVICES DEPT.
INITIAL STUDY
MIVIR0INU- NTAL EVALUATIOIT CHECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) .
Yes Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures?
b. Oisruptions , displacements , compaction, or
overcovering of the soil ?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? ✓
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of .
soils, either on or off the site?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
, i
Y. es Maybe No
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a ChanRes . in currents , 'or the course or
1 `'direction of water movements?
b. Changes in-absorpt-Pdn rates , drainage
Patterns, or the rate and- amount of
surface water runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Alteration Of-the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species , or
numbers of any species of plants
(including trees , shrubs , grass , and
crops )?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare,
or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area , or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds ,
land animals including reptiles , or
insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? ✓
d. Deterioration to existing vildlife habit2t?
41% / 1
.► (
3.
Yes Mob a No
6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: _
a. Increase in :-the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural
resource?
7. 22.r=. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _
b. Demand upon existing sources of ene
quire the.development of new sources of or re-
energy?
8. Risk of U sett, the proposal involve a
risk o an explosion or the release of ,
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides , Oil , -chemicals , or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions?
9. E-ononic Loss. Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in -the value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding?
b. A change in the value of property and
impro�.erienis exposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted .community risk standards?
10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels to -the point at which accepted .
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
14. Land Use. Will .the proposal result in the
a t�tion of the present developed or
Planned land use of an area?
12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a
decrease in the -amount of designated open
space?
13. Population. Will the proposal result in: r
a. Alteration or the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
Population of the City?
b. Change in the population distribution by _
aye, income, religion, racial , or ethnic i
group, occupational class , household type?
l•
a 5.
10 Yes Maybe No
18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal
result in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications system?
C. Water? ;
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal .
i
20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or
Potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of community health
care provided?
L
21 . Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased demand for provision of general
social .services?
22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista. or view
open to the public? _
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? .
C. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness ,
and uniqueness? v
2.3. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
ne:v 1 ght or g are?
24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal
result in an a teration of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building?
i I
6.
Y_ Maybe No
25. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment? i
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
Short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into
the future. ) _
C. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource
is relatively small , but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings , either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Prepared By
l
Awe
4.
Y_ Maybe No
14. E�ulovment. Will the proposal result in
new long-term jobs provided, or a
change *in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed?
15. Housing. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner-occupied and rental ,
etc. ) relative to demand or to number of
families in various income classes in the City?
b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing?
/
16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
resu t in:
a.' Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or
demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles ,
bicyclists , or pedestrians?
17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon , or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities , including
roads?
f. Other governmental services? ,/