HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD Town Center Project DP 12-79 Amendment CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and
amendment to a Development Plan for a 183,094 square foot
expansion to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single
level parking deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200
seat theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care
facility. Project located on property generally bounded by
Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho
Grande Drive. , y 0
,l ''b H
VI f41:-. L7.; ,.0 C) IV 1-3
III. APPLICANT: TrizecHahn/Palm Desert, Inc. H CrJ r.? ^3,, " VI 74
y, z .. ,-341 H O
4.350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 400 c ; z .11 g o
San Diego, CA 92122-1233 �.,•� i
rco Rn H A-1
Li
IV. CASE NO: DP 12-79 Amendment : r r
en '. •• n
V. DATE: August 27, 1998 H
H. Q
VI. CONTENTS: O Ivhi tii
A. Staff Recommendation v
B. Discussion .•
n .
C. Draft Resolution No. 98-102 '
D. Planning Commission Minutes involving DP 12-79 Amendment
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1890
F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated August 18 and July 7, 1 : ' 8
G. Related maps and/or exhibits I
.
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 98-102 aPProvin9 DP 12-79 Amendment, subject
ct to conditions
and resolution of architectural concerns.
B. DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND:
The Palm Desert Town Center constructed in 1 982-83 presently contains 850,944
square feet of leasable area. Other than the completion of the original Robinson's
store and some theater additions, the facility is substantially unchanged from its
original design. Due to retail industry consolidations the original five major
department stores have shrunk to three. The current financial structure of the mall
put into place when Ernie Hahn was bought out by TrizecHahn created financial
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
JULY 7, 1998
disincentives to any significant new investments in the facility designed to increase
sales volume. Lack of new investment coupled with competition and changing retail
shopper attitudes have led to substantially lower constant dollar sales values for both
the majors and mall shops. The current situation could lead to severe financial
consequences for the mall and ultimately the City.
TrizecHahn has succeeded in negotiating a solution to the financial problem which
will justifya major remodel of the mall including the complete reconstruction and
expansion of the theaters to a state of the art stadium seating facility, consolidation
of Robinson's May with a 55,375 expansion, approximately 47,000 square feet of
additional new interior retail through elimination of the skating rink and child care
facility and potential expansion of Penney's (50,000 square feet) and Macy's
(20,000 square feet). A new major will occupy the vacated Robinson's May space.
The overall goal will be to create an entertainment oriented spline bisecting the mall
extending from the south parking lot to the theaters.
To service the expansion, a 956 space parking deck will be constructed to maintain
the current 4.63 spaces/1 ,000 square feet ratio. The close proximity of the new
spaces will increase the overall efficiency of the lot. A parking management plan will
be developed for the parking structure and carports constructed in the north lot
adjacent to the fire station creating additional incentives for maximum utilization of
the parking facilities.
1 . IMPACTS:
A. TRAFFIC
Since the project involves only minor alterations of the original building
foot print, potential impacts are confined to increased traffic resulting
from the expansion. The goal of the project is to increase sales through
the attraction of additional retail traffic. A comprehensive traffic
analysis has been conducted which indicates increased weekend ADT
of 5950 trips and 4700 weekdays. (See Executive Summary.)
Without mitigation, the study identified potentially significant impacts
on the two intersections: Highway 1 1 1/Town Center Way and
Monterey/San Gorgonio. With proposed improvements to these
intersections, impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigations include: 1 ) Highway ill/Town Center Way, widening the
eastbound approach of Highway 111 to provide a second left turn
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
AUGUST 18, 1998
eastbound turn lane to northbound Town Center Way; 2) Monterey
Avenue/San Gorgonio Way, one of the following two alternatives: a) the
installation of a new traffic signal at the shopping center's northern
driveway to attract some of the traffic away from Hahn Way, opposite
San Gorgonio Way, and to provide for traffic that will be leaving the
new parking structure and the expanded theater, both of which will be
on the northern side of the regional center, near the northern driveway;
or b) the widening of Hahn Way, opposite San Gorgonio Way, to
provide a third lane for exiting traffic.
The initial drafts of the traffic study had identified impacts to the
Highway 1 1 1/Plaza Way intersection. With optimized signal timing and
city initiated improvements to Plaza Way south of Highway 1 1 1 , service
levels at this intersection will be acceptable and may slightly improve.
The study identified numerous other potential traffic problems in the
vicinity of the project which will result from generalized growth in traffic
volumes caused by other planned developments in Palm Desert and
Rancho Mirage. The city traffic engineer will be available at the meeting
to discuss traffic improvements within our capital improvement program
designed to address these future problems.
B. AESTHETICS/ARCHITECTURE
The project will involve addition of major architectural features at each
end of the entertainment spline, the complete reconstruction and
expansion of the theaters on two levels and the construction of a single
level parking deck extending along the entire north side of the mall.
While no additional designs have been submitted for the major
department store expansions, it is assumed that they will be consistent
with the existing elevations.
The applicant has made significant advances toward refining their
design for remodeling and expansion of the mall. Plans were presented
to the Architectural Review Commission August 1 1 . In general the ARC
was pleased with the general direction of the project with one notable
exception. The new 18 screen stadium seating theater complex
constructed at grade would be 70 feet in height and extend to within
125 feet of the northerly property line. The current theater height is 44
feet. The structure dimensions are simply the result of the physical
internal space requirements of theaters on two levels and were
presented essentially as a box with a minimum of architectural detail.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
AUGUST 18, 1998
The ARC questioned the appropriateness and practical necessity of this
approach suggesting a combination of lowering the structure below
tiering the elevations, and installation of tallpalms to mitigate the
grade, t gg
building's height and mass. The applicant will be addressing these
concerns and will be presenting a photographic study illustrating the
visual impact of the structure.
The height of the parking structure will be 18'8" as measured from the
northern lot line to the top of the railing. It will be setback 50 feet from
Monterey, 37 feet from Town Center Way and 75 feet from Rancho
Grande. The Architectural Commission suggested architectural
enhancements to the Monterey and Town Center elevations. The
success of the existing landscaping on Rancho Grande will effectively
screen the northern elevation. Decorative trellises are proposed on the
deck to provide shade and aesthetic relief.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION
This matter was before the Planning Commission at numerous public
hearings and on August 18, 1998 recommended to City Council
approval of DP 12-79 Amendment by adopting Planning Commission
Resolution No. . The vote was 4-0 (Commissioner Fernandez
was absent).
3. CONCLUSION:
Without question the renovations and expansion are vital to the future financial
well being of the mall and the City. The overall magnitude and scope of the
project should not generate significant adverse impacts on the surrounding
area assuming traffic mitigations are implemented and the theater height issue
is resolved. Of greater concern to the City is that the project design create a
revitalized dynamic retail environment capable of ensuring the long term
financial success of the center.
Prepared by:
Philip Drell
/tm
4
RESOLUTION NO. 98-102
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND
AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 183,094
SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE PALM DESERT TOWN
CENTER AND 956 SPACE SINGLE LEVEL PARKING DECK.
PROJECT INVOLVES ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPACE, 2,200 SEAT
THEATER EXPANSION AND ELIMINATION OF ICE RINK AND
CHILD CARE FACILITY. PROJECT LOCATED ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 1 1 1 , MONTEREY
AVENUE, TOWN CENTER WAY AND RANCHO GRANDE DRIVE.
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 27th
day of August, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
TrizecHahn/Palm Desert, Inc., for the above mentioned project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert on August 18, 1998,
has recommended approval of said project; and
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. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
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 approval of said amendment:
1 . The project is consistent with goals and objectives of the Commercial Core
Area Specific Plan, General Plan and the intent and purpose of the Regional
Commercial District section of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The design of the project will not substantially depreciate property values, nor
be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The project will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
4. The project will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-102
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That approval of DP 12-79 Amendment and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby approved.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO. 98-102
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
3
RESOLUTION NO.98-102
8. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10.
9. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan.
10. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns.
11 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape
plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters
appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for
the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and
the approved landscape plan.
12. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees.
13. That pursuant to Resolution No. 90-130 this development shall pay the appropriate
commercial development low income housing mitigation fee ($1 .00 per square foot)?
Department of Public Works:
1 . Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Construction of all private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the
Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
3. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of the grading permit.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 98-102
4. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the
Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the
Department of Public Works and/or Caltrans.
5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
6. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a
grading permit. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director
of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City.
7. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
8. Those mitigation measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Study as approved
by the Department of Public Works shall be considered as project conditions of
approval.
9. Applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
Control as well as Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
Applicant/developer shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Riverside County Fire
Marshal.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 98-102
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: DP 12-79
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: TrizecHahn/Palm Desert, Inc.
4350 La Jolla Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92122-1233
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Amendment to a development plan for a 183,094 square foot expansion to the Palm Desert
Town Center and 956 space single level parking deck. Project involves additional retail
space, 2,200 seat theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility.
Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey Avenue, Town
Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive.
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 copy 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 potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
6
• CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PHILIP DRELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: AUGUST 18, 1998 CONTINUED FROM JUNE 2, JULY 7, AND AUGUST
4, 1998
APPLICANT: TRIZECHAHN/PALM DESERT, INC.
4350 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE 400
SAN DIEGO, CA 92122-1233
CASE NO: DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
•
DISCUSSION:
A. ARCHITECTURE
The applicant has made significant advances toward refining their design for
remodeling and expansion of the mall. Plans were presented to the
Architectural Review Commission August 11 . In general the ARC was pleased
with the general direction of the project with one notable exception. The new
18 screen stadium seating theater complex constructed at grade would be 70
feet in height and extend to within 125 feet of the northerly property line. The
structure dimensions are simply the result of the physical internal space
requirements of theaters on two levels and were presented essentially as a box
with a minimum of architectural detail. The ARC questioned the
appropriateness and practical necessity of this approach suggesting a
combination of lowering the structure below grade, tiering the elevations, and
installation of tall palms to mitigate the building's height and mass. The
applicant will be addressing these concerns and will be presenting a
photographic study illustrating the visual impact of the structure.
B. TRAFFIC
The final draft of the traffic study has been completed (see attached executive
summary). It originally identified potentially significant impacts on the three
intersections: Highway 1 1 1/Town Center Way, Highway 1 1 1 /Plaza Way and
Monterey/San Gorgonio. With proposed improvements to these intersections,
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
AUGUST 18, 1998
impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. The study identified
numerous other potential traffic problems in the vicinity of the project which
will result from generalized growth in traffic volumes caused by other planned
developments in Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. The city traffic engineer will
be available at the meeting to discuss traffic improvements within our capital
improvement program designed to address these future problems.
II. CONCLUSION:
The overall scope of the project has now been sufficiently defined to warrant action
on the application. It is clear that the project is necessary to insure the long term
success of the Town Center and is vital to the economic well being of the city. While
significant architectural issues remain regarding the theaters, the overall plan can be
recommended for approval to the City Council with the provision that the commission
have the opportunity to review and comment on architectural design and landscaping
solutions. While this procedure is unusual, certain significant economic issues
involving the construction schedule dictate a phased review process.
III. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending
approval to City Council DP 12-79 Amendment, subject to conditions.
PHILIP DRELL
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A
183,094 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE PALM DESERT
TOWN CENTER AND 956 SPACE SINGLE LEVEL PARKING
DECK. PROJECT INVOLVES ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPACE,
2,200 SEAT THEATER EXPANSION AND ELIMINATION OF ICE
RINK AND CHILD CARE FACILITY. PROJECT LOCATED ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 1 1 1 ,
MONTEREY AVENUE, TOWN CENTER WAY AND RANCHO
GRANDE DRIVE.
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 2nd day of June, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued public hearings
on July 7, August 4 and August 18, 1998, to consider the request of HAHN/PALM DESERT
INC., for the above mentioned project; and
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. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
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 recommending to City Council
approval of said amendment:
1 . The project is consistent with goals and objectives of the Commercial Core
Area Specific Plan, General Plan and the intent and purpose of the Regional
Commercial District section of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The design of the project will not substantially depreciate property values, nor
be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The project will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
4. The project will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That approval of DP 12-79 Amendment and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby recommended to
City Council, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 18th day of August, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
--- approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
•
8. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10.
9. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan.
10. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns.
11 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape
plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters
appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for
the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and
— the approved landscape plan.
12. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees.
13. That pursuant to Resolution No. 90-130 this development shall pay the appropriate
commercial development low income housing mitigation fee ($1 .00 per square foot)?
Department of Public Works:
1 . Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Construction of all private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the
Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
3. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of the grading permit.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
4. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the
Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the
Department of Public Works and/or Caltrans.
5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
6. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a
grading permit. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by; the Director
of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City.
7. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
8. Those mitigation measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Study as approved
by the Department of Public Works shall be considered as project conditions of
approval.
9. Applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
Control as well as Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
Applicant/developer shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Riverside County Fire
Marshal.
5
' • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: DP 12-79
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: TrizecHahn/Palm Desert, Inc.
4350 La Jolla Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92122-1233
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Amendment to a development plan for a 183,094 square foot expansion to the Palm Desert
Town Center and 956 space single level parking deck. Project involves additional retail
space, 2,200 seat theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility.
Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey Avenue, Town
Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive.
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 copy 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 potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
•
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Phil Drell
FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director
SUBJECT: DP 12-79 AMENDMENT; PALM DESERT TOWN CENTER
DATE: August 13, 1998
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced
project:
(1) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
(2) Construction of all private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the
Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
(3) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
(4) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the
Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the
Department of Public Works and/or Caltrans.
(5) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated
with this project.
(6) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance
with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of
a grading permit. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City.
(7) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
(8) Those mitigation measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Study as approved
by the Department of Public Works shall be considered as project conditions of
approval.
(9) Applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control as well as Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge
Control. g g
' ../i--
ICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E.
(jsg\dp12-79pd.cnd)
DP 12-79 AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY
DISCUSSION ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION
MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
The project involves the remodel and 21 % expansion of a 16 year old 850,944 square foot
regional mall. The original project was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report
certified October 25, 1979. Project was completed in 1983 and all mitigation measures
identified in the EIR were implemented. During the 16 year operation of the facility there
has not been any significant adverse impacts.
Since the subject proposed project will be of the same nature and will occur totally within
the existing development envelope, the only significant impacts identified in this initial study
involve the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the expansion and the
aesthetic impacts resulting from the building expansion and parking deck construction. In
all other respects the project will remain consistent with the original project analyzed by the
EIR and as constructed in 1983.
IV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The project will potentially result in increased vehicular trips which may result in
significant adverse impacts on streets and intersections adjacent and in the vicinity
of the project. A traffic study was conducted which analyzed project impact on 16
intersections (see attached). Project traffic was determined to have a significant
adverse impact on three of these intersections. Mitigation measures have been
proposed which will reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance. These
mitigation measures will be included as project conditions of approval to be
implemented prior to completion.
The expansion will result in increased demand for parking. The construction of a 959
space parking deck will maintain the existing parking ratio approved for the original
project. In addition, the overall efficiency of the parking supply will be increased by
the improved proximity of the additional parking to the retail buildings. A parking
management plan will also be developed creating incentives for better utilization of
currently underutilized remote parking areas.
XII. AESTHETICS
The construction of the parking deck and two story theater will potentially impact
views to the south for homes on Rancho Grande. While these impacts are
unavoidable, they will be mitigated to a level of insignificance through enhancement
of the existing landscaping screen on the south side of Rancho Grade installed with
the original development and architectural design of the parking structure and theater.
DP 12-79 AMENDMENT INITIAL STUDY
DISCUSSION ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The parking lot lighting to be installed on the parking deck could potentially create
glare impacts on the adjacent residents on Rancho Grande. The structure will be
setback 110 feet from nearest residential property. Stringent conformance to the
City lighting ordinance which limits light trespass from commercial parking lots into
residential areas to a maximum .25 foot candle will mitigate potential lighting impacts
to a level of insignificance.
2
w
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
present location. She felt that everyone in the long run would be very happy
and she was strongly in favor of the project. She asked for a motion.
Commissioner Jonathan clarified that the Lucky store hours would be from
6:00 a.m. to midnight. He also stated that he respected Commissioner
Finerty's statements and he was actually in agreement with them. The only
reason he was voting in favor of the project was because it isn't a perfect
world and if it were he would certainly want something that would guarantee
no vacancy, that Sagewood residents would be happy with it, that there
wouldn't be additional traffic, and so forth. Those were all very valid concerns
and he was in agreement with them. The only reason he was voting in favor
of the project was because he thought it was the best alternative for that
particular site given the other alternatives they have considered in the past.
He appreciated her comments. He stated that he would move for approval as
presented and amended by staff relative to the potential time extension.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Finerty voted no).
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1873, recommending to City
Council approval of GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-12, subject to conditions
as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no).
CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:09 P.M. THE MEETING
WAS RECONVENED AT 9:13 P.M.
B. Continued Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment - HAHN/PALM DESERT,
INC., Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and amendment to a Development Plan for a 172,562 square foot
expansion to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single level
parking deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200 seat
theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility.
Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 ,
Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive.
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
Mr. Drell explained that the Palm Desert Town Center was built in 1 982-1983
and for various reasons there were changes in the structure of the retail
shopping center market for the current financing of the center and very little
improvements have occurred since the original construction. As a result the
project has lost a market share in an otherwise expanding retail market. It has
gotten to the point where the original developer (TrizecHahn) was proposing
a major redesign to try and regain its preeminent position as the prime retail
shopping center in the Coachella Valley. They were slowly developing their
concept and the key to the expansion would be the creation of an
entertainment component within the construction/redesign of the theaters and
they would discuss that. The main purpose of this meeting would be to get
exposed to the project and then they would be recommending a continuance
to have the design go through the Architectural Commission and come back
in August. The major impact of any expansion is, hopefully in this case,
increased traffic. The purpose for the investment is to generate more traffic
and more sales. The goal of the traffic study was not to decide whether or
not the project should proceed, but to decide how best to accommodate the
traffic that results. The financial well being of the center and the financial well
being of the City of Palm Desert was dependent upon the continued future
success and to succeed in the retailing business they had to grow and
constantly compete with developments happening around them. A traffic
study has been conducted and they were still in the process of review and
hoped by the next meeting when this comes back there would be a resolution
addressing all of the traffic issues. The second issue was aesthetics.
Concerns included the height and mass of the building impact and the typical
concerns of views and how the city is perceived. In this particular case staff
has a greater concern. They wanted the design to be as effective as possible
to accomplish its primary goal which is to make the center successful. Staff
would be looking at both those issues, environmental impact issues and
economic impacts, and they would hopefully be convinced that what they are
proposing to do will accomplish the goal of being successful. At this time that
was all he had to say and indicated that the developer and the team of
architects were present to introduce the commission to the project.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. SKIP KUHN, the Project Manager for the expansion and remodel of
the Palm Desert Town Center, stated that he was with TrizecHahn
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
Centers and his address is 4350 La Jolla Village Drive in San Diego,
California. He stated that they were at the meeting to give the
commission an overview of the expansion of the project. The design
team was present and would expand upon the overview provided by Mr.
Kuhn with a lot of the design thrust they were using currently for the
exterior of the shopping center and moving forward. The intent was to
create a vibrant retail environment that would take them into the next
millennium. He said there were several components involved in the
expansion of the shopping center. They focused around the fact that
they have five department store buildings with three department stores
occupying them. Largely as a result of consolidations within the
department store business they now have three department stores
occupying all five stores. Part of the issue was to consolidate the
existing Robinson's May store into one full line fashion presentation into
180,000 feet. That would require the expansion of the western store
by approximately 55,000 feet and the sale of their other facility to a
department store to be named later. That was in negotiations and since
they didn't have anything in writing, he couldn't talk about it. Along
with this expansion the Macy's Mens and Home Store was looking to
expand by some 22,000 square feet to the north, and the J.C. Penney's
store had in their original entitlements to expand by some 50,000 feet
on two levels on the eastern side of the project. As part and parcel of
the expansion, not only would the entire interior of the shopping center
be remodeled, but the intent was to create an entertainment spline that
would connect the front parking lot to the south of the project through
the shopping center and go all the way through, past the food court and
connect it with the parking structure that would be produced on the
back side of the project to support all of this expansion. Anchoring the
entertainment spline on the south side of the project actually in the
depressed area that currently exists on the south side between the
Macy's and Robinson's May stores was going to be a pavilion store. It
would be a big statement store and would probably include a fine
restaurant as well. As they moved through the leasing space within the
shopping center, those would be entertainment ancillary uses. At the
northern side they would be anchored by a two level stadium seating 18
screen metropolitan theater presentation. It was a state of the art
theater presentation using the finest materials that are out in the market
today. Stadium seating by its nature required a very tall building. As
pointed out by Mr. Drell earlier, this was roughly 70 feet tall owing to
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
the stadium seating itself which allowed seats to step up so that when
looking at the screen you aren't looking past someone's head, but over
it. It required 34 feet more or less between each floor of the building
and that was what accounted for the great height involved. Largely
that was the basic overview of the expansion itself. The last piece of
the puzzle was the parking structure and it would run from one end of
the project to the other and was connected several places. It was a
single level deck and would actually be kind of tall in that it would meet
the second level of the shopping center which is 17 feet floor to floor
approximately. He felt it would provide a lot of close-in parking which
was more desirable than the "north 40" that is there today. He said he
would introduce the project architect, Mr. Millard Archuleta, a principal
in the firm of Feola, Carli & Archuleta and Mr. Archuleta would
introduce the rest of the design team.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the design of the parking lot changed since
Mr. Kuhn said it would go end to end.
Mr. Kuhn explained that the design of the parking structure was in the
architect's purview and he would address that aspect. He noted the
parking structures were originally separated but based on input from a
variety of different departments in the city they suggested they try and
connect them. He felt this worked pretty well with the theater layout
and allowed them to make that connection so that free flow on the
second- level would work. Mr. Kuhn introduced Mr. Archuleta and
explained that he was the original architect on the project.
MR. MILLARD ARCHULETA, 116 East Broadway in Glendale, California,
stated that it has been 20 years now since they first started the initial
concept for the Palm Desert Town Center with Ernest W. Hahn and
Company. At the time the center was initially conceived this was a
state of the art center. After 20 years evolution has now dictated that
the center needed to be brought up to date and revitalized and they
have been honored and privileged to serve the TrizecHahn Company to
implement the revitalization of the Palm Desert Town Center. He
wanted to introduce their director of design, Bill Diehl, another project
designer Kevin Kanes, the project manager David Bircher, and this was
a team that has worked very hard and would continue to work hard to
satisfy the requirements of the City of Palm Desert.
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
MR. BILL DEIEL, Feola Carli Archuleta, 8090 Balkan Canyon Road in
Somas, California, stated that as suggested by Skip Kuhn they were
creating an entertainment spline. Basically they were trying to bring one
entry closer to the other one and the way it was planned was by
providing an entry off the parking lot that is closer to Highway 1 1 1 . He
showed some conceptual plans to the commission. The first showed a
section cut through the project and it was cut through the porte
coucher that would be off the parking and the area that is now empty
would be filled in and they would have a set of escalators and stairs
that would take people down and a bridge that would take people
across all the way through. At that point was where the two branches
really met. The main spline of the shopping center and the
entertainment spline was where they would meet and it would cross
over into the food court and go out to the outside which would be the
entrance from the garage into the cinemas. The next sketch was of the
main entry from the parking lot and right now it falls between one of
the department stores and May department stores. They were
introducing porte couchers that would change the look of the project
and with the concept they were trying to get some ideas and they
would carry that idea throughout the project. Next was the view of the
back part where the theaters would be and the parking garage which
was one level. He said it would have a bridge crossing over through
another porte coucher to also be used as a marquee for the cinemas and
as they were looking at the existing center the background was the two
level theater. They showed the lower entry and upper entry with stairs
that would lead up into the upper level which was the entrance to the
theater. He showed the elevation of the parking that he was talking
about. It was one deck and they were thinking about giving it a better
look than just plain columns and beams so that it would have a
residential feeling. He hoped there would be some trellises on the top
for growth and lighting. He said they would try and keep it as low as
possible in height, whatever was necessary, and at some point it had
to come up to a certain height in order to meet with the existing second
level. At one point it would probably be 14 or 15 feet high and where
it came toward the residential area they would drop it as low as 12 feet
so that it would not be seen by the residents on the other side of the
wall.
40
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
Commissioner Beaty asked for them to outline the parking deck on the site
plan. They did so.
MR. KEVIN KANES, 3855 Riverton Avenue in Studio City, California,
addressed the commission and stated that he worked with Mr. Deiel.
He said the object of the drawing was to indicate the impact the cinema
structure would have on the adjoining street, Rancho Grande Drive. He
explained that he constructed a computer model which is based on the
view of a person standing in the middle of Rancho Grande Drive and he
chose that because it is a fixed position. He said it was approximately
50 feet to the north of the existing wall on top of a four-foot berm.
Right now there was a four-foot berm, six foot wall and varying degrees
of density of growth that exists along that wall. He also showed
photographs. He indicated that when he constructed this he didn't
show the full height of the trees, but a height of growth that would
cover the cinema building from that position on the street. In reality the
trees would be much higher but he thought it might appear that they
were trying to push something on them. When looking at the
photographs they could see the existing building sticking over the wall
and he took the photographs from the road at various positions and the
building was just sticking up over the wall from some of the view points
and they could see the height of the trees almost off of the photograph.
They were looking at increasing the height of the building some 23 or
24 feet higher than the existing center and the intention was to increase
the intensity of the growth where it would have the most severe impact
visually and once the density was increased they would have it virtually
obliterated from the residential area across the road. He said that if
they went very far back from the project they would see the top of that
building. He stated that he spent considerable time thinking about this
structure and his thoughts were that with the height of the existing
building, he was attempting to layer the look of the building
architecturally so that it looked like it was stepping back and to also
treat a large portion of the upper area in a very negative manner so that
it would almost disappear when looking at the structure. He said they
would be working with the designer of this portion of the center to
make sure the impact is minimized to the largest degree. He thought
the effect was largely reduced. He pointed out that the structure would
be diagonal to the residential wall to the north instead of being parallel
so that just the end of the theater was what they would be looking at.
41
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
That made the perspective disappear. He asked if there were any
questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if on the second level of the parking lot if he was
planning to put in any type of trellises.
Mr. Kanes replied absolutely.
Chairperson Campbell asked if they would see that detail in the drawings at a
later date.
Mr. Kanes concurred.
Commissioner Jonathan noted that the staff report indicated that the City was
being asked to contribute some money for the parking structure. He asked if
there was an analysis provided on the cost and whether it was even potentially
feasiblq to add on a second level to part of or all of the parking structure. He
noted that this was brought up at the Economic Development Advisory
Committee meeting.
Mr. Kuhn replied that literally all that would have to be done by virtue
of the way it is constructed is to "beef up" the footings to allow
something to be added at a later date. He said it wasn't currently in the
plans for the center in a large measure because the additional parking
wasn't warranted based on the size of the expansion.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were certain about that because he
thought part of the analysis looked at the expansion only rather than the
deficiency that may currently exist.
Mr. Kuhn said that was what the traffic study addressed and both
Public Works and Mr. Drell were reviewing that now. He said they just
received the traffic study last week.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a determination made that
additional parking is required to meet not only the expansion, but also any
potential current deficiency if any exists, if a second level might be a feasible
option or would at least be looked at.
42
•
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
Mr. Kuhn agreed.
Mr. Drell said there was also another area identified for an additional structure.
He noted that structured parking was extremely expensive and they couldn't
just build a little of it, they had to build a lot of it and so the big question was
whether it was cost effective to do that "beefing up" up front, which was
probably easier to do it when pouring the footings initially than coming back
later.
Mr. Kuhn said there was obviously a premium to doing that, but he
didn't think it was out the realm of possibility.
Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't have a predisposition on that, but if
they find there is a deficiency even after this structure, then he didn't want to
wait another 20 years to cure a deficiency. Mr. Drell said they hoped there
was a deficiency. Commissioner Jonathan said that would be a good problem
and noted that an additional investment would then be warranted. Again, he
didn't have a predisposition, but it has crossed his mind and he brought it up
for that reason.
Commissioner Finerty stated that she has spoken with some adults and
teenagers regarding the current theater design and she was told by many that
they preferred going to Indio rather than the mall and she asked why. Part of
it had to do with the number of kids/teenagers that kind of hang out in the
ticket purchasing area. They were often smoking and often hit up other
teenagers for money. She was wondering what changes they might be
making in the design that would help to address those problems.
Mr. Kuhn indicated that currently the ticketing was on the outside of the
building and that promoted certain loitering. He said they were
relocating the ticket booth to the inside of the shopping center right off
of the center court and that would do two things. One, it would
promote traffic coming through the shopping center and give the
customer more opportunities to impulse shop and cross shop based on
their trip of going to the theaters, but it would also cut down (because
of their security force) the loitering teens. He said he would pass this
information on to Molly Doyle because they have full time security there
and they would try and do something about it.
43
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was very happy to see this take place.
He was sure the city would be happy to see continued increased revenues, but
from both a planning commissioner's standpoint and just purely a resident's
standpoint, the mall has always been a wonderful thing to have, a wonderful
resource and place to go and do things, buy things, etc. But it has had its
attendant problems and he could see prospectively those problems being
solved. It was a real improvement to our quality of life so he was happy to
see that hopefully it was finally coming about.
Chairperson Campbell felt that the Commission was behind them 100% to
support this project, but they needed a lot more information, drawings and so
forth. Chairperson Campbell asked if there were any other questions. There
were none.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell
indicated that the public hearing would remain open and would entertain a
motion of continuance to August 4, 1998. Mr. Drell asked if the Commission
wanted to go on record in a formal way by minute motion that they are
generally in support of the direction the applicant's going. The applicants
might wish a formal action of support. Chairperson Campbell asked for a
motion.
Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would present a motion indicating
conceptual support for the proposed project pending submission of the
architectural design and he noted there were other issues that may or may not
arise, but conceptually he felt they were in support of the proposed project.
Chairperson Campbell stated that she would second that motion.
Commissioner Finerty requested that the motion be amended to include the
traffic impact study, the memo from Dick Folkers. Her concern had to do with
the recent Walgreens issue with the amount of parking and traffic that would
be generated and there were people who enter the mall from San Gorgonio and
the Palma Village Specific Plan references the possibility that San Gorgonio
might close. She asked if the motion could be amended to include the issues
raised in Mr. Folkers' July 7 memo. Mr. Drell stated that it went without
saying that the resolution of the traffic issue would be part of the final
approval action. Commissioner Jonathan felt there would be a number of
significant issues and certainly traffic would be one of them, the parking would
be one, the height, and he was sure some people would be objecting and they
44
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 7, 1998
would be looking at the aesthetics, etc. They could add all of the above. He
said the motion was for conceptual support and certainly in a conceptual sense
they were in support but it would be subject to resolution of all issues that
may arise in the approval process. He said the motion could be that they
indicate conceptual approval subject to resolution of all issues that may come
up in the approval process. Commissioner Finerty said she would second that
motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
indicating conceptual support for the proposed project subject to resolution of
all issues, and continuing the public hearing to August 4, 1998. Motion
carried 5-0.
C. Case No. TT 28861 - SUNRISE COMPANY, Applicant
Request for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 28861 to
subdivide six (6) existing lots into seven (7) single family lots on
the east side of Mesa Grande Drive, south of Tomahawk Drive in
Indian Ridge Country Club.
Mr. Drell noted that the commission had the report and indicated that basically
the request was in response by Sunrise to the market conditions there and
staff recommended approval.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. PHILLIP SMITH, President of Sunrise Company's Coachella Valley
Division, stated that he was present to answer any questions.
There were none. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public
hearing was closed. Chairperson Campbell asked for commission comments.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Beaty,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
45
r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 2, 1998
Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Bartlett would like a continuance to July 7,
1998. Mr. Bartlett concurred.
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Beaty,
amending the motion to continue Case Nos. GPA 97-6, C/Z 97-1 and PP 97-
12 to July 7, 1998 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0.
D. Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment - HAHN/PALM DESERT, INC.,
Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and amendment to a Development Plan for a 172,562 square foot
expansion to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single level
parking deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200 seat
theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility.
Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 ,
Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive.
Chairperson Campbell noted that the applicant requested a continuance to
June 16, 1998. She asked if anyone wished to address the Commission
regarding this item. There was no one. Mr. Drell said that basically the
project involved construction of a single deck parking structure on the back of
the center. One thing staff didn't have was the engineering or elevations to
show the Commission what it would look like. If residents wanted to leave
their names or phone numbers, as soon as the information was received he
would give them a call so they could come down and look at them. He felt
that residents on Rancho Grande would be most affected by the parking
structure. He said there were time constraints on the process conveyed to
staff by the applicant and continuance to July would be a problem. He said
they would try and make due with three commissioners on June 1 6.
Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that was up to the Commission. The
applicant wasn't present to express that desire and he would like the project
continued to July 7. They have waited 12 years to address the parking
problem and in his opinion he felt they could wait another two weeks.
Chairperson Campbell asked if he would like to make that a motion. Mr. Drell
said that if the applicants were at they meeting they would stand up and say
36
,
r
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 2, 1998
they had financial constraints. Commissioner Jonathan felt that if those
constraints were serious enough they should have been at the meeting. He
didn't feel this project would hinge on two weeks. Speaking for himself, he
would like to participate and beyond that he felt they would be better serving
the community with all five commissioners present to give input. He asked if
the public hearing needed to be opened before he made a motion to continue
the public hearing. Chairperson Campbell noted that no one wanted to address
the Commission at this time.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty,
continuing DP 12-79 Amendment to July 7, 1998, by minute motion. Motion
carried 5-0.
E. Case No. TT 28846 - WINMAR PALM DESERT, LLC, AND GL LAND
,HOLDINGS, Applicants
Request for approval of reconfiguration and expansion of 12 lots
to create 15 lots north and east of Wikil Place within "Mountains
at Bighorn".
Mr. Joy noted that this was probably one of the most subdivided pieces of
property within the city and now they were getting ready to build. He said
this appeared to be the final lot configuration for this area and as he mentioned
in the staff report, with the creation of 15 lots they would still be well within
the limit of the number of lots that could be developed within Bighorn Golf
Club, which was now being referred to as the Mountains at Bighorn. A similar
subdivision occurred across the fairway approximately one year ago and there
was some opposition. This time some of the opposition were actually
applicants in the case. Staff hadn't heard any complaints and the project still
met all the minimum lot standards and setback requirements. Staff
recommended approval and asked for questions. There were none.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the Commission.
MR. BOB ROSS, RBF Engineering, 74-410 Highway 1 1 1 in Palm Desert,
stated that he is the engineer for the Bighorn development. He felt this
37
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1890
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AND AMENDMENT TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A
183,094 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE PALM DESERT
TOWN CENTER AND 956 SPACE SINGLE LEVEL PARKING
DECK. PROJECT INVOLVES ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPACE,
2,200 SEAT THEATER EXPANSION AND ELIMINATION OF ICE
RINK AND CHILD CARE FACILITY. PROJECT LOCATED ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 1 1 1 ,
MONTEREY AVENUE, TOWN CENTER WAY AND RANCHO
GRANDE DRIVE.
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 2nd day of June, 1998, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued public hearings
on July 7, August 4 and August 18, 1998, to consider the request of HAHN/PALM DESERT
INC., for the above mentioned project; and
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. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been prepared; and
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 recommending to City Council
approval of said amendment:
1 . The project is consistent with goals and objectives of the Commercial Core
Area Specific Plan, General Plan and the intent and purpose of the Regional
Commercial District section of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The design of the project will not substantially depreciate property values, nor
be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The project will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
4. The project will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general
welfare.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1890
f
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm I
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That approval of DP 12-79 Amendment and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby recommended to
City Council, subject to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 18th day of August, 1998, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BEATY, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: FERNANDEZ
ABSTAIN: NONE )1C
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, cretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
f
L-.,
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1890
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the department of community develo ment/plannin g, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the
zoning ordinance.
7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1890
r ,
ti
8. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4.10.
9. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan.
10. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns.
11 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape
plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters
appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for
the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and
the approved landscape plan.
12. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits
including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees.
13. That pursuant to Resolution No. 90-130 this development shall pay the appropriate
commercial development low income housing mitigation fee ($1 .00 per square foot)?
Department of Public Works:
1 . Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit.
2. Construction of all private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the
Department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
3. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of the grading permit.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1890
4. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans by the
Director of Public Works and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the
Department of Public Works and/or Caltrans.
5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
6. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of all required offsite improvements prior to issuance of a
grading permit. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director
of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City.
7. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance.
8. Those mitigation measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Study as approved
by the Department of Public Works shall be considered as project conditions of
approval.
9. Applicant shall comply with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
Control as well as Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
Applicant/developer shall comply with all conditions imposed by the Riverside County Fire
Marshal.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1890
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: DP 12-79
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: TrizecHahn/Palm Desert, Inc.
4350 La Jolla Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92122-1233
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Amendment to a development plan for a 183,094 square foot expansion to the Palm Desert
Town Center and 956 space single level parking deck. Project involves additional retail it
space, 2,200 seat theater expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility.
Project located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey Avenue, Town
Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive.
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 copy 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 potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
•
71-444-143, 1998
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
6
—..'IRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORivi
1 . Project Title:
DP 12-79 Amendment
2. Lead Agency and Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
3. Contact person and Phone Number:
Philip Drell
Director of Community Development
(760) 346-061 1 ext. 481
4. Project Location:
Property bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Monterey Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho
Grande Avenue.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
TrizecHahn/Palm Desert Inc.
4350 La Jolla Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92122-1233
6. General Plan Designation:
Regional Commercial
7. -- Zoning:
PC-3
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
Amendment to a development plan for an existing 850,631 square foot
enclosed regional retail mall adding 183,094 square feet of net leasable area
and construction of a 950 ± space parking deck. Project involves additional
retail space, 2200 seat theater expansion and elimination of an ice rink and
child care facility.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
EAST: GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
Caltrans. While the project itself will not require other agency approvals, required
traffic mitigation measures on State Highway 111 will require Caltrans approval.
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J"
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that
is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use and Planning /Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services
❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources 0 U ' ities and Service Systems
0 Geological Problems 0 Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
O Water ❑ Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
O Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance L
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find thataithough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment, but at least one effect
1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
• including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑
• —'---*TL):OiLt.-
Signature ate
) rtc-_--t_L
Printed Name For
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 2 of 12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.
the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and'briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts
(e.g:-general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be
attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
SOURCE(S):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Q/
SouRCE(s):
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑
SOURCE(S):
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 3 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? sOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority
community)? sOURCE(s): ❑ ❑ ❑ Q/
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? SOURCE(S): [17
❑ ❑ ❑
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
extension of major infrastructure)? SOURCE(S): r ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 0 ❑ ❑ [�
--SOURCE(S):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? sOURCE(s): 0 ❑ 0
b) Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(s): 0 ❑ 0 Li"
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? SOURCE(S): 0 0 0 [ "
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(S): 0 0 ❑ (/
e) Landslides or mudflows? souRCE(s): ❑ ❑ ❑ 12(
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading, or fill? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S):
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 4 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
g) Subsidence of the land? sOURCE(s): ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Expansive soils? SOURCE(S): D D D D/
•
i) Unique geologic or physical features? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, dzainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff? LsoURCE(s): ❑ ❑ ❑ D,
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? SOURCE(s): 0"
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? SOURCE(S): D D ❑
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? SOURCE(s): ❑ D D D�
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? SOURCE(S):
❑ ❑ D d "
f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability? SOURCE(S):
❑ ❑ 0
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 11(
❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(s):
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 5 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? soURCE(s):
❑ ❑ O
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? SOURCE(S): D ❑ D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air qualitystandard or contribute to an existing
g
or projected air quality violation?SOURCE(S): D ❑ D
11(
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ D
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? SOURCE(s): D D ❑
• d) Create objectionable odors? SOURCE(S): D D D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the Po ro sal
P
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? SOUR p CES :
g ( ) D � 0 ❑
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)? soURCE(s): ❑ D ❑ ,u,(
li c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
LJ
SOURCES)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ D D
SOURCE(S):
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? D D D
SOURCE(S):
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 6 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ E(
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑ 13/'
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rat(species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals,
and birds)? SOURCE(s): ❑ ❑ • ❑
E77
b) Locally designated species(e.g. heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑
soURCE(S): �.
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑
E77
SOURCE(S):
e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. •
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑
soURCE(s):
• b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 7 of 12
•
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and /
the residents of the State? soURCE(s): D D 0
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? SOURCE(S): D D D
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? soURCE(S): D
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 7: _,//
hazard? sOURCE(s): D D D LId
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? SOURCE(S): D D D
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? SOURCE(s): D D D ^L(
•
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(S): D 0 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? sOURCE(s): D D D
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? SOURCE(s): D D D
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 8 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Police protection? sOURCE(s):
0 0 0 d
c) Schools? SOURCE(S): ❑ 0 0 II
• d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 0 ri
SOURCE(S):
e) Other governmental services? OURCE(S): D ❑ ❑
12(
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
I proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
i a) Power or natural gas? SOURCE(S): .: 0 0 0 T(
f.
W.. Communications systems? SOURCE(s): D D ❑
' c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? SOURCE(S): D D ❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks? SOURCE(s): ❑ ❑ ❑
12
e) Storm water drainage? soURCE(s): ❑ ❑ 0
!V
f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S): D D ❑
11(
g) Local or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S): D(
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S): D If 0 0
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 9 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
SOURCE(S): 0 0 0
c) Create light or glare? SOURCE(S): 0 CI 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(S): 0 0 p [
b) Disturb archaeological resources? SOURCE(s): 0 O ❑
c) Affect historical resources? soURCE(s): 0 0 0
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which '
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
0 0 0 li
SOURCE(S):
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? soURCE(S):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? 0 0 ❑
12(
SOURCE(s):
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 0 0 0
G7
• SOURCE(s):
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 10 of 12
XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES.
• Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this case a discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Palm Desert Regional Shopping Center Environmental Impact Report certified
10/25/79.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
See attached discussion of potential impacts.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe, on attached sheets, the mitigation measures which were
incorpo,rated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions for the project.
See attached discussion of ultimate impacts.
CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 11 OF 12 FORM "J"
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
proceeds of California history or prehistory?
❑ ❑ ❑ El
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, /
environmental goals? ' ❑ ❑ ❑ Zr/
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
• beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ Cl
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 12 of 12
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
'
TO: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: TOWN CENTER MALL EXPANSION TRAFFIC STUDY
DATE: August 14, 1998
The revised executive summary for the Town Center Mall Expansion Traffic Study
(attached) has been reviewed. The executive summary identifies the concerns and issues
which have been noted to date, and the mitigation measures which have been proposed.
The Public Works Department will be available to answer questions regarding the study
at the August 18 Planning Commission meeting.
If there are any questions regarding the traffic study, please contact Mark Greenwood,
Transportation Engineer.
/ RICHARD J. FOLK , P.E.
cc: Joseph S. Gaugush, Engineering Manager
Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer
File
r -
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
EXPANSION OF PALM DESERT TOWN CENTER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hahn/Palm Desert, Inc., developer of Palm Desert Town Center, has proposed the
expansion of the existing regional center to add 166,375 square feet of retail floor area
and 2,200 movie theater seats (approximately eight new screens), and to eliminate the
ice rink. The expansion would occur over a period of three years from 1999 to 2002.
A parking structure of approximately 960 spaces would be added along the entire length
of the north side of the shopping center main building with the following goals:
1) significantly increasing the parking supply within a short walking distance of the
expanded movie theaters; and 2) providing shaded spaces for a large number of
parkers. In addition, the parking lot northwest of the new parking structure will be
enhanced with shade devices to make that area more attractive and convenient to
employees parking at the center.
To evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed expansion, the City of Palm Desert staff
requested analysis of future traffic operations at 16 intersections during the weekday
afternoon peak hours and at eight intersections during the Saturday afternoon peak
hours. All but one of the 16 intersections are controlled by traffic signals. The exception
is the Plaza Way/EI Paseo intersection, which is controlled by STOP signs on all three
approaches.
Currently, weekday peak operations are at Level of Service (LOS) B or C at 13 of the 16
study intersections. The operations at the other three intersections are currently at LOS
D - Monterey Avenue/Fred Waring Drive; Monterey Avenue/Country Club Drive; and
Fred Waring Drive/Portola Street.
Saturday peak operations are currently at LOS C at four intersections and at LOS D at
the following four intersections - Monterey Avenue/Fred Waring Drive; Highway 111/
Monterey Avenue/Highway 74; Highway 111/Fred Waring Drive; and Fred Waring Drive/
Town Center Way/driveway.
The trips that would be generated by each component of the regional center expansion
(retail and theater) and the deletion (ice rink) were estimated separately.
• The increases in retail component trips were estimated by calculating the 24-hour
trips that would be associated with the total future retail area after expansion and,
then, subtracting the 24-hour trips associated with the current retail area. The hourly
patterns of the increases in retail trips were based on the actual hourly traffic flow
experience counted at the two major driveways that serve the center.
• The theater and ice rink trips were estimated on the bases of information about the
trip characteristics experienced at similar existing, facilities, as published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
ARTHUR L. KASSAN, P.E.
Consulting Traffic Engineer
The gross trips estimates were adjusted to account for internal trips, such as those
between the theater and the retail, which would be made on foot with no effect on street
traffic flow.
The estimates of the net increases in Palm Desert Town Center trips are applicable to
"worst-case" conditions during the normal (that is, all but the pre-Christmas) shopping
seasons of the year.
The directional distribution of regional center traffic was estimated on the basis of the
development patterns in the Coachella Valley. The estimated distribution would be as
follows:
To and from the northwest - 30%
To and from the east - 30%
To and from the north - 20%
To and from the south - 10%
To and from the immediate vicinity
of the shopping center - 10%
100%
The net increases in trips were assigned to the study intersections on the bases of the
street network pattern, the locations of the regional center driveways, and the locations
of the on-site facilities, such as the expanded theater and the proposed parking
structure, both of which would be on the northern side of the regional center.
Information about other proposed or approved developments ("related projects") in the
vicinity of Palm Desert Town Center was obtained from the cities of Palm Desert and
Rancho Mirage. The traffic that would be generated by those developments was
estimated and assigned to the study intersections to form part of the foundation of future
traffic volumes upon which the "future without regional center expansion"analyses were
based.
In addition to the traffic that would be generated by the identified related projects, an
annual growth factor was added to all current traffic as part of the foundation for the
'future without regional center expansion" analyses. The growth rate recommended by
the City staff was 2.5% per year.
The impacts of regional center expansion traffic were evaluated by analyzing the future
(year 2002) weekday and Saturday peak-hour operations at each intersection without
and with the regional center expansion traffic included and, then, comparing the Levels
of Service under the two conditions.
During the weekday afternoon peak hours in the year 2002, assuming that all of the
related projects were in place and that the annual growth rate were maintained, seven
of the 16 study intersections would operate at Level of Service (LOS) C or better, and
nine of the intersections would operate at LOS D. Those levels would occur without or
with the expansion of Palm Desert Town Center.
During the Saturday afternoon peak hours in the year 2002, none of the intersections
would operate at LOS C or better. Six of the intersections would operate at LOS D, and
two would operate at LOS E. Those levels would occur without or with the expansion of
Palm Desert Town Center.
During both the weekday and Saturday peak hours, the Levels of Service at the study
intersections would not change as a result of adding the regional center expansion
traffic.
Following are the intersections that would operate at LOS D or worse during the peak
hours in the year 2002:
WEEK
DAY PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE LEVEL OF SERVICE
Highway 111/Monterey D D
Avenue/Highway 74
Highway 111/Plaza Way/ C E
center driveway
Highway 111/Town Center D E
Way/ El Paseo
Highway 111/ C D
Fred Waring Drive
Monterey Avenue/Hahn Way/ C D
San Gorgonio Way
Monterey
t ey Avenue/ D D
Fred Waring Drive
Monterey Avenue/ D
Country Club Drive
Fred Waring Drive/Town D D
Center Way/driveway
Fred Waring Drive/ D
San Pablo Avenue
Fred Waring Drive/ D
Portola Street
Fred Waring Drive/ D *
Deep Canyon Road
Highway 74/EI Paseo D D
* Not included in the Saturday peak hour study
Using the City's adopted criterion for identifying significant impacts, the comparisons of
estimated future conditions indicate the following impacts that would be directly
attributable
ab a to the expansion of Palm Desert Town Center:
• During the weekday peak hours, the net increase in regional center traffic would
result in a significant impact at one of the 16 study intersections — Monterey
Avenue/Hahn Way/San Gorgonio Way; and
• During the Saturday peak hours, the net increase in regional center traffic would
result in significant impacts at two of the eight study intersections — Monterey
Avenue/Hahn Way/San Gorgonio Way; and Highway 111/Town Center Way/EI
Paseo.
Improvement measures to mitigate the significant impacts at the two intersections are
discussed in detail in the report and are summarized as follows.
• The recommended measures at Monterey Avenue/Hahn Way/San Gorgonio Way
consist of implementing one of two alternative improvements:
a) the installation of a new traffic signal at the shopping center's northern driveway to
attract some of the traffic away from Hahn Way, opposite San Gorgonio Way, and to
provide for traffic that will be leaving the new parking structure and the expanded
theater, both of which will be on the northern side of the regional center, near the
northern driveway; or
b) the widening of Hahn Way, opposite San Gorgonio Way, to provide a third lane
for exiting traffic.
• The recommended measure at Highway 111/Town Center Way/El Paseo consists of
the widening of the eastbound approach of Highway 111 to provide a second left-
turn lane for eastbound traffic turning onto northbound Town Center Way.
San Gorgonio Way, east of Monterey Avenue, would attract an estimated 2% of the
regional center expansion traffic — approximately 95 additional vehicles per day on a
weekday, and 120 vehicles per day on a Saturday. Some of that traffic will be to and
from the adjacent neighborhood, attracted by the new and expanded facilities at the
center. Some will be drivers traveling through the neighborhood to bypass the arterial
streets that they should be using. It is not possible to estimate the proportions of
neighborhood traffic and through traffic that would use San Gorgonio Way, but efforts
should be made to minimize the through traffic. Improving the arterial street network to
the feasible optimum would reduce the desire to travel through the neighborhood to
save time. Traffic calming measures within the neighborhood would reduce the
attractiveness of the local streets as bypass routes. Reconsideration could be given to
closing San Gorgonio Way to all traffic at some point east of Monterey Avenue, if a
neighborhood consensus favored that and a through traffic problem was documented.
The potential long-range impacts of the regional center expansion were evaluated
based on estimates of the 24-hour traffic in the year 0 2 10, as provided bythe Coachella
Valley Association of Governments. However, it was shown that several sections of the
arterial street network in the vicinity of the regional center would operate at worse than
LOS C in the year 2010 without or with the center expansion in place, as shown in the
following tabulation.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
STREET SECTION YEAR 2010
Highway 111 Monterey Avenue to Fred Waring Drive E
Fred Waring Drive to Bob Hope Drive F
Monterey Avenue Highway 111 to Fred Waring Drive E
Fred Waring Drive Highway 111 to Monterey Avenue E
Monterey Avenue to Deep Canyon Road D
Highway 74 Highway 111 to south of El Paseo D
The Levels of Service in the year 2010 would be the same without or with the expansion
of Palm Desert Town Center. The new regional center traffic would not result in any
changes in the future Levels of Service along those arterial streets.
The long-term impacts of the regional center expansion traffic would not be significant.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: July 7, 1998
CASE NO: DP 12-79 Amendment
REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and
amendment to a Development Plan for a 172,562 square foot expansion
to the Palm Desert Town Center and 956 space single level parking
deck. Project involves additional retail space, 2,200 seat theater
expansion and elimination of ice rink and child care facility. Project
located on property generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1 , Monterey
Avenue, Town Center Way and Rancho Grande Drive.
APPLICANT: Hahn/Palm Desert Inc.
4350 La Jolla Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92122-1233
BACKGROUND:
The Palm Desert Town Center constructed in 1982-83, presently contains 850,944
square feet of leasable area. Other than the completion of the original Robinson's
store and some theater additions, the facility is substantially unchanged from its
original design. Due to retail industry consolidations the original five major
department stores have shrunk to three. The current financial structure of the mall
put into place when Ernie Hahn was bought out by TrizecHahn created financial
disincentives to any significant new investments in the facility designed to increase
sales volume. Lack of new investment coupled with competition and changing retail
shopper attitudes have led to substantially lower constant dollar sales values for both
the majors and mall shops. The current situation could lead to severe financial
consequences for the mall and ultimately the City.
TrizecHahn has succeeded in negotiating a solution to the financial problem which
will justify a major remodel of the mall including the complete reconstruction and
expansion of the theaters to a state of the art stadium seating facility, consolidation
of Robinson's May with a 55,375 expansion, approximately 47,000 square feet of
additional new interior retail through elimination of the skating rink and child care
facility and potential expansion of Penney's (50,000 square feet) and Macy's
(20,000 square feet). A new major will occupy the vacated Robinson's May space.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
JULY 7, 1998
The overall goal will be to create an entertainment oriented spline bisecting the mall
extending from the south parking lot to the theaters.
To service the expansion, a 956 space parking deck will be constructed to maintain
the current 4.63 spaces/1 ,000 square feet ratio. The close proximity of the new
spaces will increase the overall efficiency of the lot. The applicant has requested that
the City/Redevelopment Agency contribute $1 1 million for the parking structure.
II. IMPACTS:
A. IMPACTS
•
Since the project involves only minor alterations of the original building foot
print, potential impacts are confined to increased traffic resulting from the
expansion. The goal of the project is to increase sales through the attraction
of additional retail traffic. A comprehensive traffic analysis has been
conducted which preliminarily indicates increased weekend ADT of 5950 trips
and 4700 weekdays. Without mitigation significant impacts will occur at the
- San Gorgonio/Monterey, Waring Plaza/Highway 1 1 1 and Highway 1 1/Highway
74 intersections. Proposed intersection improvements should mitigate these
impacts. The traffic engineer will be providing a full report.
B. AESTHETICS
The project will also involve addition of major architectural features at each
end of the entertainment spline. These features have not yet been designed.
The new theater complex will require a envelope 70-75 feet in height. The
current height on the north to the top of the equipment screen is 44 feet.
Since we have yet to see detailed architecture for the theater this aesthetic
impact cannot be assessed at this time.
III. CONCLUSION:
Without question the renovations and expansion are vital to the future financial well
being of the mall and the City. The overall magnitude and scope of the project should
not generate significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area assuming traffic
mitigations are implemented and the theater height issue is resolved. Of greater
concern to the City is that the project design create a revitalized dynamic retail
environment capable of ensuring the long term financial success of the center.
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. DP 12-79 AMENDMENT
JULY 7, 1998
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
By minute motion indicate conceptual support for the proposed project pending
submission of architectural design and continue public hearing to August 4, 1998.
V. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal Notice
B. June 2, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes
C. Original Staff Report and Information from 1979-80
D. Plans •
Prepared by` CSC_
Phil Drell
/tm-
3