Loading...
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? ,/