The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC RES 79-1240 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0. 79-124 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING A FINAL EIR FOR THE PALM DESERT TO'rJN CENTER, GJHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 78-32 establishes procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); WHEREAS a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared observing said procedures in conjunction with the request by Ernest W. Hahn, Inc., for development of a regional commercial shopping center, known as the "Palm Desert Town Center", (Case Nos: CZ 08-79, CUP 09-79, DP 12-79, and 120 C); and, WHEREAS the City P7anning Commission has considered the draft text, amendments thereto, suggested responses to comments received, and recommended certification of a final EIR along with their action on the project. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pa7m Desert, California, as fo]lows: 1. That the above recitations are true, correct, and constitute the findings of the Council in this matter. 2. That the Council does hereby certify that the final EIR text has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and the State and City guidelines, 4rith the inclusion of the following attached hereto: - Exhibit "A", draf� EIR text revisions; - Exhibit "6", comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR during the public review period; - Exhibit "C", listing of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; - Exhibit "D", authorized response to significant environmental points raised in the review and consul- tation process; and, - The administrative record for Case Nos: CZ 08-79, CUP 09-79, DP IZ-79, and I20 C, incorporated hereto by reference and made a part of the final EIR record. 3. That the Council, being the body with final approval authority over the project, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to a Council action approving the project. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council on this 25th day of October , 1979, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Brush, McPherson, Newbrander, blilson & Mullins NOES: None ABSEyT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: � -- \ �� ; . �� . -� XJ.,� .��.�. . ` � = . 7L�.`TG , �i�v�� r'. i j �� 7 "- , - � �, � � `� , , , � �� .� =� � ;�:. `U �DW RD D. M LLINS, MAYOR � 0 ' �1 tj/ �OUfi� � � �� Resolution No. 79-124 Page -1- EXHIBIT "A" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) TEXT REVISION: Revisions, changes, or additions, outlined in this exhibit become an attachment to the draft EIR and are incorporated into the final EIR text. Items encompass subsequent information, responses to comments, and additional text sections. The following is listed in order of its subject and sequence in the draft text: � PAGE 3(Summary of revised approach to drainage) "1.2.2 ADVERSE IMPACTS TO BE h1ITIGATED A. Surface Water Runoff" REVISION (2nd paragraph); strike, "...However, the applicant has proposed the construction of a retention basin sized to accomodate the site's increased runoff. On this basis, a retention basin would maintain existing conditions downstream." Replace with; The mitigation approach being advanced would involve piping onsite drainage to the Palm Valley Channel, and hard surfacinq of the Channel. e PA�E 49 (Revised Drainage P�1itigation) "C. Mitigation Measures" REVISION (lst paragraph); strike, " A retention basin designed to accommodate increased site runoff will be incorporated into the plan of development. The basin will have storage capacity sufficient to maintain existing condition dovm stream." Replace with: Increase site runoff and area draina e. Considerations may be addressed by a contribution of funds estimated $500,000 necessary toward the improvement of the Palm Valley Channel; in addition to construction of a storm drain along 44th Avenue from El Paseo extended to the Palm Vallev Channel. ° PAGE 30 (Added discussion regarding emergency vehicle access) "4.3 Circulation A. Setting Traffic Circulation..." REVISION (lst paragraph), add to end of paragraph; Fire access to the center buildings would be accross the arkin lot from the l proposed location adjacent to E1 Paseo (extended . E ress for fire I vehicles would be b wa of El Paseo south to Hw 111 and north, if extended, to 44th Ave. All other emergency vei�icles would access the site via a described route. ° PAGE 40 (Added discussion regarding Fire Dept. Emergency Vehicle Egress) REVISION (New 3rd paragraph), Add new paragraph to read; Improvements and signalization_of El Paseo must incorporate provisions for emmergency fire equipment egress. Control of signa s at intersection should be provided at the fire station to facilitate emergency responses. Likewise center median design should not encumber vehicle egress to the south. 0 City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -2- EXHIBIT "A" •PAGE 59 (Revised comparison of proposed project to Redevelopment Plan Project) REVISION - When comparing the Redevelopment Plan alternative to the proposed project, it should be noted that out of the 500,000 square feet of regional commercial area allocated on plan, only 300,000 square feet was provided north of SR 111. Therefore, Section 7.2 of the EIR (pages 59-65) are revised as illustrated in the new text for the subject pages: � 7.2 Alternative Project 4Jhich Shares Similar Objectives to Those of the Proposed Project Alternative projects which share similar objectives are defined as. those which propose a different project size/scale. An alternative of this nature is discussed in the Palm Desert G�neral Plan and Redevelo;ment Plan for Project Area No. l. The follo�•�ing sec�ion provides a compa►•ison of the proposed project versus the General Plan/ReuevelopmeRt Plan* regional shopping center. The rationale which supports the project at the proposed scale involves the following consideratians: - The proposed scale is based o� present market factors as we11 as existing and potential demand arithir� �he larye retail trade area of the Coachella Va11ey. - Based on the potential for fi��ure groti�rth in the trade area popul ati on and househol d i ncc:��^, �here sF�oul d bc: an i ncrc�asc in the projected expendii:�eres by shoppers for goods and services. - In addition the purchases m�,�c� by people residing outside the trade �rea (leakage, tourisca unu seasonal residents) sho��ld . further increase the anticip4ted gross pene�ration rate. - The area (Coachella Valley) is sufficient to suppo��t one regional center. Therefore, the proposed ma11 is designed to accorrmodai:e this market. - A regional shopping center of this scale wouid maxiriize City revenue. * Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. l. City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIQIT "A" Page -3- The proposed mix of stores and its scale is s��hat makes this a viable project. This mix is expected to create enough traffic in the center to support the "anchor" stores. A smaller project, such as that proposed by the General Plan, might not meet all o� the needs of the potential shoppers and it is possible that shoppers might continue to leave the Valley (i.e., to shop in San Bernardino, Riverside, etc.). The reasons for developing a regional shopping center no�r, rather than five years from notv, are based on the existing demographics and economics of the area, The population growth in the Coachella Valley has created a viable market area for a project of this scale. In addition, a five year delay would create a situation �•�here it might no longer be feasible to consider such a project given the increased land and develooment costs w�ich could be anticipated. However, as an alternative to the proposed project (776,617 square feet) one might consider a shopping center on the scale of that proposed in the Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan (approximately 300,000 square fee�). The Redevelopment Plan designated approximately 500,000 square feet of regional commercial land usage in the vicinity of the site. Noirever, 200,000 square feet of the use was to be located souti� of Highway 111, �•rhile the area of the project site t•ras designated for 300,000 square feet of regional corrnercial uses. This smaller scale shopping center ti•rould have similar impacts to the proposed project; with proportional reductions based on the change in leasable area. Table 3 compares the impacts from the proposed project with those anticipated as a resul� of the General Plan/Redevelopment Plan alternative. There may be a reduction in air quality impacts resulting fro�n the 1 scaled dov�n alternative project. This would occur primarily as a result of � � the reduction in the square footage of the structure and the subsequent decrease in traffic. Ho4�ever, a smaller center would allow room for additional on-site ancilliary uses. The surface water runoff characteristics of the site would be similar even with a smaller project. There a�ould be some reduction in runoff if more open space/landscaped areas 4rere provided. Energy consumption, electricity and gas, would be reduced as a result of scaling down the project, since there would be less square footage requiring heating/cooling and lighting. It is not known at this tir�e if the sarre energy savings could be anticipated as that attainable by the proposed project City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIBIT "A" Page -4- -. Economic losses resulting from seismic activity a�ould decrease if the project were to be scaled doti�n. Hol�rever, the risks of damage due to seismic activity would be similar for both projects. The smaller scale alternative project �rould provide for some reduction of the noise impacts related to the project. This would be due primarily to the decrease in project generated traffic. No:•rever, the types of noise impacts from boti� projects would be similar. The land use impacts for both projects are similar and are not significant since they would not require any amandments to the General Plan. - In addition, both projects are generally consistent with the Redevelopment � Plan for Project Area No. l., although the proposed project would roughly double the alloted commercial square footage shoti�rn in the Redevelopment Plan for the site. In addition, the proposed project requires a zone change in order to provide adequate parking area. The smaller project, ho�,��ever, would not require a zone change. The impacts on population and employrent would be reduced by the alternative project. In addition, less gro�.•rth inducing impacts a�ould be expected. Fe��er new jobs (600 vs. 1553) would be gererated by the scaled do�vn project. The reducti on s n the number of neG�� jobs resul ti ng from the alternative project would also contribute to some reduction in housing demand in the area, particularly that attributable to gros��th inducement. There would be an incremental decrease in project associated traffic impacts resulting from the scaling down of the proposed project. However, the impacts from both projects ��rould be similar in terms of circulation patterns, etc. However, many of the recommended �traffic circulation improve- ments may not be required with this alternative since the scaled do��n alterna- tive's weekend volumes (±17,400) are signi�icantly less than the proposed project's weekday volume (+30,000). Fire protection requirements for the alternative project would be similar to those for the proposed project. Both projects require such things as on-site security considerations and adequa�e fire flo�.�_ The need for a fire station exists with or without the project or its alternative. 0 City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIQIT "A" I Page -5- There would be no adverse impacts on the City's schoois or parks resulting from either project. Increased revenues to support schools and parks should be generated by either alternative. In addition, the maintenance impacts on the City's Public l•lorks Department ��ould remain unchanged from either project, assuming El Paseo is extended in either case. Revenues to the City 4�ould be considerabTy less as a result of implementing a smaller scale project, since less sales �vould be expected. With $700,000 in one-time construction and purchase costs (fire-related) and �335,300 in yearly costs to the City, the proposed project was expected to net �560,000 in the second year of operation. If the alternative P.edevelop- ment Plan project is implemented, the primary costs to the City would remain unchanged. Therefore, the alternative is expected to net approximately $10,700 during its second year of operation. Communications (telephone) requirements ►�ould be similar for both projects. 6later consumption and sewage generation ��i11 be incrementally reduced by implementation of the scaled do�,�n alternative project. No:•�ever, no special impacts are anticipated on the Palm Desert 1�Jater Reclamation Plant as the result of either project. The aesthetic impacts and illumination impac�s �vould be similar for either project; since they wuuld both require the construction of large structures (mall) with similar lighting considerations. � City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIBIT "A" c� l.t] _1 m ¢ h- E 0 � LL H W U (n W O '7 S O F--� cL' z a. �--� � ..� I-~- U Z W � 7 W � �"" � .J n.. Q � Z w Q N J O D.. � O F--- � Z C1. W J w � S O F-- J W F � O W � a LL., w R' N \ c�.� ¢ � J a. n. � ►-� dJ li CL' O W Z Z W O C7 rr W � 2 ¢ F-- CL � � U F- Z W � � �' U O w J ,� w � 7 � W � O W � CZ � \ � Z � ¢ ¢ J Z a � J w Q ~ � J ls_! ¢ F-- U W 7 0 � O_ 0 W ci7 O [�.. O CG � L O N �--� � d d E � U � O N F-- z O GL \ N Q W � 4 - >, — +� �i- •r O � r- C cn ro 3 +� � � � � 4-- CS � Q1 Ql O +� 4- i � �D L � � � � i-� •rD r-- � L L � •r r0 O aJ CJ cn � C L V1 a� c +-� � VI N N C Q N •r � � O � O r O N S- � ln �i-- C7 rt3 r0 +� O 'r U� � � M U 1-- � � S- U •�- C � � � r- • O� O r- V1 � +-� (� r0 a1 > c� +� S� Q1 � r- � • 'D •r-' r0 QJ cn �--� Cil X C � a--� U �o o c��a, S- •r S� rt7 •� � Q Q: U d O t C1 � C � i. f-- �7. i �--� •r GL �--1 Q) � 4-� Q1 5-. ro � � N � �D � n n L o E 4-- U L � � � O +� '� Ll r � Q1 � v� S- tn O QJ L]. N S.. O •r i. S 'O t1 a--� r-- � a� � O L r- 3 +� .. � y.- Z- rfl O •r .i ¢ i--� i O � V1 •r N +-� +� U r0 � c� �-.� O a � •r � � � •r � U al � � r Cn a1 Q..i-� r � U •r •r Ql . �o .,� Q� +-� N O N � � S.. N "a +-� f1 � � '� � N � r �� O .N N .� W 3-�� U � .,� O tn i Z �.. O �--r Q1 cn > N •r .--� i-� � � w � L W Q1 J +� U � ►-� Q S w � � � O ^ � � 0 � W \ I— N � � �--� � � N V1 w C O •r N N .� W +-� U � .� O � a '� a N O Q O S- � � Q1 "� v v> > C � O rt7 � i _C C Q U rU � N O �D C r � r0 CJ C Q) CJ � tn (� n.n O U tD l0 C`J M�-- "� +-� d M Cn lD r- r- � V1 � 7 � � O � C 3 �o a� C]. aJ N O i � � � L L r O i-� � \ � '0 C � 4-- � r 4- r O Q1 rB C C U � • r- � i_. a �n r� rJ C U [� •r t/1 NNCOt1'7� Ql Lf') r- Q1 00 CO Ql lD N M r- r N 01 - • i- vf � Y O +-+ r-- a--� U �4 � y N � i.. QJ � � �i--� � '� •r tn •r +� N L c0 'D � r � � U O tn C U U O r0 os-n � O c/f r--� L1 L a-.> r-- Cl CJ •r L. Qi 3 o a� s- 4-� ..0 a-.� 4-- +� N 4-� �n O �D E � � O Vf � � � � L �O 4- QJ i-. '0 � Q1 (SS Q1 C� � in in •,- a� (6 �6 +� i � � r-•r 5... S- � Y U U cn S.. � Q) N �D `--• � S.. d page -6- i � C O E S- \ � C) +� \ � r V y � r �C L'+ � 7 U O C� O � C� O C� _ n N C? a— N � � � � � V1 U O � Q � � � L]. � N .-- L � �- o t .0 �--� N C i �n E n�°i s°J.. � � � �--� \ v1 4- t � � � U Y E •r- � N � � M O U M •r � +-� c lD r �S. O CU n Q� N ln 61 •.- i�l ^ +-� O � •r � r- N E .D M � � "O � O U N � N N O r Q1 +� L U. �--� Q! .,...� �^ O � Q > a� a 1 > O •.- � � N � � tn S.. � � U � a� .-- •� �o O a 3 O � � a-.i O 'p � � r � � O U � N L v t� L � � �E c M- •r N V1 a v� � N � ^ r v �� 0 3 0 � N Y � v► a �.-- �--' S- U � QJ Cl .� X F--- v Q1 � � �►.� O O lL � L t0 � S.. Q' •r N Q 0 � C1 N � � � C O •r � a �--� � i � � N \ C O +-� U 4-- � � a' i-� N •� \ (� � �L ..3 y � U O Q� aJ i .— f� N W N C w V •r \ � � � � U � L O � N d .. �� N � � � r6 N � � GJ � '--� O .- 4- +-� O a E • N 4-- O U Q'� v t/1 �C � � N • C rC +� O c� '�- E C � +-� .j .,... � U Q V •r � N .� N v H N O J V •r E O C O V w Q 0 N C O N .a � 'C7 5_ � •r (C} � N X U •r- � N O O X'� � C LO•.-+� d-� O � X rt3 � � � v � � +� C Q� � U � O� O �•r r- � tb L 4- �►-� L � L i-� +-� �-- S.. � O �O O •r � rU � a (.� I— Z t/') [l. � • 3 N � i� . V- O i-� C Q1 U i Q� Q N � C r � �.. N � •r � O � Z C7 . C � � City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIBIT "A" T O � it. r-- l� U N W O '"7 _ � �--- Q' a 2 ►-r } 7 ti.y � � � 7-- Q ,U C.� Z � li] 2 � 7 W �r � �"" � � J � a. ¢ O U � � N J M a" F- Li1 Z _.1 W Q a i'-- z o F-- J 1�J � � O W � � u... w G1.' N \ ¢ � G`-. Ll. � ►-+ J l.L � O W z z w O C:3 N +--. w � 2 C F— a � O U r C � r- (b � • r0 r- r0 � � O C d CJ Z O C E •r i-� .r- �D t0 +� C �•�a +�rn � >, s- v E � c w C Q "� Q � .,... . �� rp � r6 O cn U a� � U � U � � L -p � W L � O > � w'7 r 'rJ Q1 Q •r ] O � O • 'O �f-� t t] n' a' �+-� QJ L 0 d I4J d � � � �--� s- • a 3 � W S.. Q N +-� O �� ;��0 N� U L ' F--- � O a � �7_ �O �'JO•r � E � I r p J w i+� a tn '� a� vi f- i U � QJ � a J al +-� �' � v � Q •n C O � > Z O � �•r r- rp W S-. E r- N �� d L1 S- • r p O � > U � QJ — � � �-- >a�ca� +-�� •r-> vo �--� Q1 -f� R7 Z7 C a •r7 tn C Cil � r- O L C E t0 i. N � 4.1 C Q. �J--� +-� L � •r- CJ r O Q Q� N �J rt3 �•r ]•r7 i •r S- •r � a� rtf O +� i � — 'CS r0 C1. � i� � r--� �--� C U � tC i � w L r- O..0 � d--� � o � 3 +-' +� o � C S-. r C�] � C� i-� S- rty � +-� � U CJ U QJ 'U > v • � Ql C7 'n O � +-> W ' � O -►-� U N O+� i tn rp � S-. C1 N S.. d � a� N O E n- N iJ � •r � � (�J N a--� � �� Nr- U� �C! d N O rCS a! C N O � d•r •� Cil i. a'--- O U O� rt3 O rts i- S- � �, Ld QQJ N d0 4! d � .L] '- t Q1 aJ E O"v n. -t--� aJ � � O 'r7 QJ � � +� +� U 3 o a1 .� O ^ r- N a 4J S.. +� L r0 C O> tn � N � S_ •r i-� L vf > O M�1 i-� U , i--� f-� a1 •r Ln •r �L7 '- c 3 rn� a� cn n. . •CJ QJ O a! L O E I z�_ $�-. r f- Q•r Z 0 N .--� CL' Q a � 0 U tL O (/') F--� G O d � N 4 W CL' Q i I � � � i I � I N : � i .� ; C � 1 J 'p � a � � �6 4- L � C Q� � N U O +-� N O c��n � O � ••--� i � � 0 3 � r � Q C N W 4-- a \ O O C r O i Q •r QJ E +� � aJ � � � � r � Z� n O a � O ��• � N � U N N � i--� � � � • Q1 +-� +� U �o a� CJ '�--� i O U S-. d v C Z7 rt a� 41 O � Q O � L � 0. .� � � L o +-� � N � � +� "L7 QJ C -F-� •r (U Q1 QI i- cn U � � � S.. rp U � � � � E r O �6 5,. -F-� 4-� � Q� -1-� � U a a� 5- 'n U O C � � a c � �v > •r � -1-� � � C r- s.. r QJ � .1--� 3 r'- � N i c a� 3 � O f-' � C71 c .N � O _ 0 a -n �D C v � Y .Y. � � Q1 QJ �� t� O �' C7 I� O � � � � �� rJ C '� N Y �C N N N � 3 3. O O O O ct N O M M �t � �i--� N rO t 5.. a--� � C � O N E C � O L •r � � � � � r3 '� � � � s- 3 U � i QY •r (D U tn QJ \ iZ Q. O •L � •r +� ..0 a-.� .�.� � � -{-.1 r � i U C O •r •r- a � i.. Vf aJ � C�"� � L H � � > � � C � a� � r� L Q1 � �--� .� � •r i-. r0 r .� •r N QJ .a "0 � O 3 N � v rt3 i]. E C 0 i-�� U � �i-� O S.. d Q) L 4-- a� � F-- "� � L N a--� cO � � +� O C 17 r � O 3 N � � � E � i .� � � i � O � U � -F� O L a. � U O a. a� ..0 F-- i � L +-� .� 4-- O � � � v L � � �i--� N � � . Q1 �--� r3 Q •U +-� � � � � -U � O S N +-� U � d E � C N E r O Z C � � O _C U N � N S.. v +� > U 'n a1 r'3 •r7 o � z n. � O i •r O +-� •r (J +� � , v +-� N O +� L O d i vf a a� � U O � •r O � � •r O U � a N � 0 0 64 i `(, N � � +� r- QJ •QJ > i.. � � O vi -t-� O r +� � V7 '� v a� i +� U Q1 � L Q +� X � N � � � •r a� +� i-� U r3 Ql C1'n •r O U S_ • r Cl. � C � �6 N � � o � a O• "� i� v� r Cl QJ � •r- O aJ �t--� � -� ' � � N -r- Y � +� S.. S-. U rt3 N r6 C1 > N in 3 +� O •r �= C � � U • c � o Q1 Q1 CJ L a� +� c e� a� E C E O O QJ N v1 Q i +� E O U •r 4- (O a � i-� � C � r- •r •r N O a--� .� Q. U N +� .- � U rD •r �U U � •n O o v- O �- z Q �a C .� C N � � r � O • � �--� U +� QJ C 'n v O C � :-� n. i � � d QJ � � � � V1 •QJ Y S_ L O a-' 3• � � � � � � "� � � d C1 � tn X � � +-� QJ � � V O � � � i-� N �•�- � O QJ VI v Rs � d tti � .--- � W �--> � rn •r � ffl •r E � � � N O N � � U "� t'3 � Q. � � � •r t0 L �J U t � � � � U � � C 4.1 N i� Y C 5... •r R1 �6 0- L � 0 Page -7- � a, � � � � a, +� N "� � O O � �-- N Q C t/1 7 � O +� O � i i N L � � O O v� � � � � N � � � L r-- a U � +.� +.� .,� � a .� � •r r3 V C•rU �'Z1 b O r � C � -p .L� N '� .� N . C � +-� +-� '_ � •r- N •r (O b � � � r d V � � � ''- � � ^ U •r' C � � � �7 .r. 4- •r rJ s. a, +� � '� � � � UO \ 6- > t6 tB •r- O � aJ. � r � ^ L � � � O O r-- • r � O �' � ..0 L7 �r — .LZ r3 � i1i t-3 " ^ N O � � -� � riT •r r- � r.. 3 v �F-� .n r C� � O r-- U r3 � U � � � .a a� C � 3 �c � -a o � C al Z � C� � � S- � S-- �'� p r V-- QJ • S., C �i-- � . N � � � � � � a-.� Q' Q/ c v .� � � N U tcS L N M O � � f� O r v � a--► (� O 0 .� a;o 3 a � � c7 t� �n � t� r-- ln +� \ � C f!1 N 4!a !f� � C ^^ E O 1 -(- Q! r � �iv S. r � •r f� •r S_ i � � +� vf � �O Q' r +� QJ QJ aJ C�i '� U i� �l S- l� � 41 lD t0 '�'7 +-� -n a� o N f► L 1� � S- r N ►--- f� ►-� d O \ o rts O aJ ' � .--- rts Q1 .. r. N � i-� � aS rp v� U i r0 � 0) � C r- r O � •r N m Y N � � � O � O � � U •r Vf � N i-� = N . •r' �O O C !.L U V O •r- �� r �� U � .-- � •r � i �D RS �-" Gl Q7 � � � n. U 3 � ■ i ` n City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -8- EXHIBIT "A" a � �, � � � C Q1 U +� � � F-- rt3 'U �d Z r' •� L1 Q1 W C1. > � U � O •r � ' a � � L .� p w O Q U in W� +-� ZJ +-� • .. - � � rJ r- C�J +-i W � � � � U p � � O +� N W �"' 3 N •r� . � � U UJ O . • . Z� Q1 Q1 • N L � � •- � \ Q r0 �--� •-- J Q 1- U•r RS. i . . p„ '� � tn U � Q1 . ' n= +-� f0 N ..0 J L+-� �C T3 Cl •r- i-� . ¢ 1-' 3 � t� > •e- J � w Q +-� � U 4-- � Z S.. � +-� O E � w Q1 4J C . p tn S.. QJ N+� L � � QJ � t1 S.. 4- - �y 0 4J +-� � O ..0 rt3 � d i� ��V r-~ i N L � • C/') W r0 +-� L tn O '� d +� N a1 Z O � C •r L ~ � � al O �:- ..0 N 4' ...0 +-> O +-� � C �1--� C � r O 1— ltl � v � 4- � •r �--� � y F..`�"._ o aEi � a� 3 ro F.., Q r- .a rty c s.. � U Z 1--. 'D a. n. O tn Q1 Q) W�" U �� t f0 •r .i-� � � 7 W W +� 'r +.1 U i-� V•� � � 3' U r3 Vf �r � J � Q N O N v d� � � a--� � Q Q. 'r •r i •r N • � U � �� I � � Z � •r In i� N . ' (� w C � +� +..� 4-- U U N Q� N� � C U O a1 •r Z C R7 � •�'7 +� (b •r - M �� N.O O �t Q�s L�-1 � Z p i S.. •r C1+-� Ql ___I d W d' � Q+-1 N Z3 •r ' d j � R3 L QJ C r tn � � QI Q �O � _ � +� N O t i- i-- J U Q1 � i--� � O� t� � RS .i O •r ..0 C r . c- � Ll }� U � �-1 •r •r o w � c� +� E CG � •r 4-- �O 4-- i i•r ly Lt! O O•r Q� N Q• r- �--� •r N\ c� i- � N"� r- Q1 }--' Z •r Q1 C � � > U Q' U L O rtS tn i rt � J N�4-� •r U 1n �O L � � n •r- +-� (n � r L V1 Q1 •r- V •r � . �--+ J "fl � fA � +-> ¢ 04--� �•r •r O LL Q,' Z•r r0 f- T7 N 1] O W Z T_ t.if O C.7 N � � . � '. Z . Q h- O �- N L �--� O ¢ � L , � U LL O . � i Z b � � . ' O N n. v � ' \ •r C Q � Ql � W Q1 � � � rC3 a--� � Q 3 in rn a1 aJ •r N ¢ J � Q � 65 0 City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIQIT "A" • PAGE 73 (New page added to list reference documents) Page -9- REVISION - Add new page listing EIR Reference Reports and documents as follows: DOCUM�NT INCORPORATED I�TO THE EIR BY REFERENCE Note: Al1 documents available for public review at the office of the Dept. of Environmental Services, City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, Calif., 92260. l.a Redeve1opment Plan, Project Area number One - City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency; adopted by City Council Ordinance No. 80, July 16, 1975. l.b Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1. (Related EIR for l.a above) 2. Palm Desert Mall Retail Market Potentials, Gladstone Associates Economic Consultants, May 12, 1979. Draft EIR draws from conclu- sions found in this market feasibility study prepared for Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. � City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -1- � EXHIBIT "B" Comments and Recommendations Received on the Draft EIR (Copies of letters follow) City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -2- EXNIQIT "B" � RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION ELMER M. KATZENSTEIN. Cha�rman. Rub�doux August 28, 1979 KAY S. CENICEROS, Hemet JESS E. LILLIBRIDGE, Corona KAY H. OLESEv, Palm Desert Paul A. Williams, AICP City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Paul: �` ti1`/: iv�:,,�ci'i7:,L �L".:I.. �i`Y oF r�L�:1 ��s��r We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Palr� Desert Town Center and offer the following comments: MARKET ANALYSIS The Draft EIR and initial study mentions a market appraisal prepared by G1G�stone Associat however, a copy of that study is not included within the document. This ap�raisal should be included in the Final EIR. SIMILAR PROPOSALS As you probably know, three requests are pending to amend the Cove Communities General Plan to permit a regional shopping center in the vicinity of Bob Hope and Ramon Roads. The Draft EIR states, "...approval of the project will eliminate the need for a regional shopping center elsewhere in the Coachella Valley since the trade area is sufficient to support only one major facility of this type." If this assumption is true, then the current proposals awaiting action by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors later this year may lack a sufficient market base. The Final EIR should discuss the merits of these similar requests as alternatives to the Town Center. POPULATION/EMPLOYEMENT The Draft EIR states that "There is an existing need for a local housing program to provide low and middle income housing. The proposed project should not result in any desert housing impacts although it should result in a substantial growth inducing impact." In our opinion these two statements are in direct conflict with each other. As indicated within the initial study, this project will require an employment base of 1,553 persons. We disagree with the conclusion that "...it is unlikely that these employees will have any difficulty in qualifying for new or used housing. . It is obvious from the positive "fair share" distributions of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Palm Desert that these cities will experience difficulty meeting their SCAG fair share allocation. This regional cenCer may compound the existing problem. A Iarge percentage of future employees of this center may not be able to find affordable housing in the four cities referenced above. This will put pressure on the unincorporated area, as well as the cities of Banning, Beaumont, and Indio to provide affordable housing. We would argue that this constitutes a significant impact that deserves consideration in the Final EIR and a great deal of thought before a final decision is made. DAVID W. TER BEST, Calimeso RUSSELL E. CAMPBELL, Blythe MARION V. ASHLEY, Perris PATRIGIA NEMETH — A.I.P. — PLANNING DIRECTOR 4080 LEMON STREET, 9th FLOOR, RIVERSIOE, CALIFORNIA 92501 .. ,.z . , �.. < 'T ._, ...� .� , . �. �. fl �_ 1 . .. - � City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -3- EXHIBIT "B" Paul A. August Page 2 Williams, AICP 28, 1979 We also question the immediate tangible mitigation measure for adopted by the City Council. effectiveness of the Palm Desert Housing Element as a this project especially when the document has not been TRAFFIC The Draft EIR provides an accurate analysis of the impacts to local circulation patterns. The section titled "Mitigation Measures not Included in the Plan of Development" describes several roadway improvements which must be constructed to provide an acceptable level of service. The Final EIR should indicate who will bear the costs of these improvements and a timetable for the construction. Furthermore, the Fina1 EIR should address the potential problems when emergency vehicles attempt to reach the site during congested periods. FIRE PROTECTION The Draft EIR states that "the area is currently lacking adequate facilities and equipment." he proposal for the applicant to donate land and "loan" the city funds for equipment and ersonnel is commendable. However, should complications arise, alternative methods of ire protection must be provided. The Final EIR should address the possibility of this occurring. Also, the Cost/Revenue Analysis specifies a first year deficit of $139,773. How does this relate to the proposed loan of $700,000 and $290,000 needed to staff the station? In summary, the proposal for a regional center at the proposed location will have impacts that extend beyond the city limits of Palm Desert. In this regard, we find that the Draft EIR is deficient in its discussion of secondary impacts to the Coachella Valley core and the Final EIR should address these concerns. If there are any questions, please feel free to call me at 787-2331. Very truly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLAN^IIVG DEPAR'I'�1E:�'T Patricia Nemeth, AIP, Planning Director . Jq �ph . Richards, Deputy Director V AR/pmp City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -4- EXHIBIT "6" PALM DESERT PROPERTY ��NERS ASSOCIATIOi� PALNi DESER"I' PROPERTY OWNFRS ASSOCIATION 73-833 EL PASEU PAL!�9 ULSERT, CALIFORNIA 9'_�60 TGLEPHOtiE 346-2804 A �Vnn-PruJit Corpuratiun 21 Se�te��,er � �7° C? tV O`� D31;'1 r�SE'_'t �� -�7� PI'� Cii!'.r �E'?:' L21�1�' pal:n �e�ert , Ca. �22�� !?t�:�: Paul p.. ;•:illia�rs '� : Case :10. D? 12-7� CiJD � �-7y . C/� �3 -; �? , 12�� C. � i�e 3oard ef �irectors of the Pal� �ese„t Dro^er�� ,r�er� ^,sso- ci at? o� ^�et Tues7a•� , Se�tQmbe„ 1? . 1�'� a�i� :3i:�c�ussA; t�e ':ah:� Pro{ect an�i �.�e :�ave tne _`'olla.�i�r co.^.,�ents o» su"'CSti011S' 1, �!''l� �.If�. T?E?n0"� ?'lE.':'1�i0?-:�•: 2 CC�1r'Ct�OC? b1S�'1 i'O'_'' "�n0�: .^,O?1�:"O1� :JUt Ur`O:'1 7'?V? ?l�Ji'."1�'" �`.'lEi T' S� t� ^12'1 '•72 CC::.I�'� `�? T:� :ZO c''„r'�'? (.�si�-nateci as sucr . r'`le �02T'(: �eels �'lat � CO':':.^��`i.� ?_:1� ?C�?^.il :�E.' n100'1 COTlt"�� . S"St��1 s�oul� �J� �PVcil�nor.�. t0 C�'''a.i:': �^�S S� �E' �O �'I:Zi �A•.��to» �iVo+� ^::3"?'.1�1. 2. Tti-,c �'iT'2 Sr3�{O"1 S{t� S��e �eemed �00 c"^ol� ''0=" �"1310?' CO"'.''"- e�"C�21 `_�{I'� ��^':1��`.1C j'c1C{�;��! a11� }'lE? �01:'� :'�CC:",.^:�'.1^S t`,11?i`. ��"14.' r; �`.'1 I'oVlc";7 �`.:��j 3t7C.�i jnn,..l,"c' 3.� �•'ao'�'..i3�o S� �o S=�E'. 3. ^_'�e �o�.r�?. 's co�cnrn�ci :�rit:: , �� o� lutio^ �ahi c:� ,.li„ a�v�lc-�� ^ri:�G�j.i�J �`vOr;� t%lE.' 11"11`v�'.�1'r O� t�":C' .^c`�...:':[i�c^ �C� c`.�.:1.`�.� '_"E.'CO:'::"�:1 :.� �rlcit a li�'�t�:�r s��ste� be devA?o^e�? to �ini-�i?� li�ht �ollu�'o�. �;l? T`�CO�1T`l�'.^c� �C13t �:1'? 1' �^"?��?:'r �0�' OCl 3��:'1� CiCCiC ?Yl�: C�'.'^L:�te:� i."1 S L: C til A''1 ?,'1 �`, �"i 'i �`, :: L O'.,1 �� T' � O'.,l'.1 � 2:^ i� S rJ 1` �:, n•� ,::• t•+,.� �• 1 O � � i.*:1 �{"10 be snut �io:•r� first an� ^ave a:•�al;:��?� J.]U��ic�:�:� o-' li�^n�{n� to:vard t:^e *�?�� buil�?'�:^� CO,^'.:7�P:�. �. ':`'1� i30�T"j r?AZS t�:'?t `,:.'1+� �E'V"ZO'1!'�:e:`It :+I{Zl �:+nat�•• !:lC:'�r'iSe �•�2s�s�tC �.`l� �}1%Lt'. t�:E.' ^'?VC�O•'�e:^ ��"1(�UZ(a �� '_'C'S;�p�'?c;p1E' f0:' �ti'.� ��V?�— C*�m�'.�1� On ^I"JT`r?:'' !"C� �S �:1`� �� '.'"?"�lin�- �r� �^_�Tl� t^ L!iS T'T'OT.n»�V 3�1'1 :�.7�' Otnn�+ �as3�'flC C�:ZI�"�1 �:��%�r..�..5 �/'�''��.Z�� .liJ rl��i��\t. nac.o � �f` 2 City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -5- EXHIBIT "B" j. i'�:" develo�er's� n�0^OSaI i�clu�?es 2 Si:?�irl�' :'�:^�:� Ctil�� C?P'�' C�:2�(.':"� ttzea�T'e �uila c1I?C� CO'!:'?]U`��t!' `�8�.�. `�'}:PSC' USES ?I'�' �0�9 incer.:e rQntal sraces ;v�:'_c� �z�uall�� re co^v- �te�? later �o r�ore ' acr�tive sales rental s��a_ces . as �;ras t::e �ce-s::�tinc rir.k in t�e Pal:� S�rinrs "•°all. n'i:C' �02T'i7 .;JO'.,1�.C: �'�.'CO:"..^'.e?1ri �i?� t:C' ^C'VE'� C'�� :' tiJn ,�+e�7Ui nnrl t'.O '?�r'- '"c:1�2? �ZY ^T'OVi d� 2`�' XeC: G:lil�i..^.^ SC•aar� `_'G0�2E"2 :•J{ �!1i �1 }'f�S CO�':_ �lex `_'or �:^.ese co^^r:u:-i{ tv service� �^� re^rpar � on uses . rJR:l:s Ver�� ru�Y vou:^s . ^eOr�� T. R�t:e^ ��;'�C�O?" 0 City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIBIT "B" Page -5- 1 Ci t of R�1 /�lC�IQ �,�IIRA GE y 69 825. HiGHvrA� i i i R��C-�G rn�Ri,o� CAL:�ORtiiA 922/0 TELEPhONE (71a) 324-a5� I September 26, 1979 Gity of Palm Desert Attn: Murrel Cr� 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Cor�nts on Draft Envirorur�ntal Itr�act Report on the "Palm Desert Zbwn Center" Dear Murrel; Sony for the delay in our response to your request on the draft �vironmental Inqxzct Report for the Palm Desert Town Center Shopping Center. The draft, except for a couple of issues, seemed to address all the major o�ncenzs and provide the necessary and appropirate mit- igating imasures. Those sections of the report which we would like to see additional intormation provide are: - Traffic Circulation: The report indicates a ntunber of public improvanents abutting and imr�diately adjoining the proposed shopping center site. Hawever, our ooncern is that although an "adequate level of service in the vicinity af site will be achi.eved", the proposed increases in traffic vr�lumes will affect circulation routes and patterns not in the vicinity of the site, but in the City of Rancho Mirage i.e. the Nbnterey Drive and Countzy Club inter- section and Highway 111. - Population: Draft indicates that the retail space provided by this project is needed and that the area is "understored". A recent draft �viron- mental Irr�act Report prepared by Riverside County Planning Depari-r.ient indicated that retail space was at or very near capacity in the Coachella Valley. Although not a significant issue, the info�tion would be helpful and should be appended to the Final �virorunental Irr�act Report. We appreciate t�he opportunity to oa�nt and look forward to the project's develoP�� t. If you hav� any questions regarding the above, please do not hesita�to7ca11. JLiY � ✓11' SPx'V1CeS 0 City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIBIT "B" Page -7- .i:.` ,�� u.. � r +. - . . �y�. ;i�'� � J .i`'�.� � ° ' ' �.; . ��. �.�' '.' , '�.t•' . . :- ' _-�,� Y ,. . +iy.:�' �M .'. �4 �`} f. ` 1.r ' i .r_' [y• `'` `�f � �.1. c � �� IOUTHER� CAUfORf11A ��'� AllOCiATlOt1 OF GOVERt1fYlEt1T! .. � 600 Iouth Commonweolth Hvenue •Iuite 1000 • Loi Rngelei• CaliFornia • 90005 • 213/385-1000 DAjE: September 26, 1979 T0: Murrel Crump y � � • � City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane �:;:: ,- "�� Palm Desert, CA. 92260 � :'� _ .. _....1! .,`F.':�.._.. "'ii�i rr ..,_�„ ..:....; I FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: Palm Desert Town Center Draft EIR SCAG File Number: RI-14021-ED Thank you for submitting the environmental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. In accordance with procedures deve]oped to comply with the clearinghouse guidelines for the review of voluntarily submitted environmental impact reports, we have disseminated information regarding the document to cities, counties and some special agencies which may be affected by, or interested in the project or the results of the environmental assessment. No comments were received in response to this areawide notification. Additionally, the environmental document has been reviewed by SCAG staff to determine the relationship of your project and possible environmental impacts resulting from it to adopted regional poiicies, pians or programs. The SCAG staff review of the proposed developr�ent found that it: 1. is primarily local in nature; 2. does not conflict with adopted regional plans; �nd 3. is consistent with adopted regional policies. �._ earinghouse f icia LK:mdc � City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Page -1- EXHIBIT "C" Listing of Persons, Organizations and Public Agencies Commenting on the Draft EIR: 1. Riverside County Planning Department 2. Palm Desert Property Owners Association 3. City of Rancho P�irage, California 4. Southern California Association of Governments - Metropolitan Clearing- house 5. State of California, Office of Planning and Research - State Clearinghouse City Council Resolution No, 79-124 EXHIBIT "B" ��:.�. � `,�;'i�'�,: �� EDMUND G. BROWN Ja. aovenHort �#tt�� t�f �! �lif�rztt� GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING A�ID RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 (9J.6) 445-OG13 October 9, 1979 Murrel Crump City o� Palr.l Desezt 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 9??.Ef? �..- : " "rM ` �} . �' � � �� C � }� k� a '� :t�; . x � ,�„ �!� ;,s " f ...� � �7 �� L SERVICES � i1JIFiC�'�',1bt: t+� 1 OES��S C � �F pA1.;. Subject: SCFt� 79082911 Palm Desert Town Cneter Draft �'IR Dear ?�1r . Crump : Thz S�at� Clearinahouse subr:li ��e� the a�ove listed er.viro:�:r,�r �a� docur�ent to selectec State ag�ncies fe� review. i:�e rQ�� w ;s comple�e a:�d none of the State ac`n�ies :�ave com�IT�CIi�J. Tnis l�tter verifies your cer:lpliance evith environ*�ental ra�ie�� reauirer�.ents of the Cal��crr.ia Er_viron^lental Quality �ct. "'hank ��ou for your cootieration. � Sinc�rzl j�, ( � ' : � r � � �,�, �� . � t� �.��,, ��,,��.� � i�Jv � �r Stec��`n �v� llia�son S �a :e Clear� :1C.^.�liS2 SVN/ag 0 City Council Page -1- Resolution No. �g-124 EXHIBIT "D" RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED: All corranenis received (as of the date of report preparation) are dis- cussed below, followed by a response: A. Comments received from the Riverside County Planning Department. 1. "h1ARKET ANALYSIS The Oraft EIR and initial study mentions a market appraisal prepared by Gladstone Associates, however, a copy of that study is not included within the document. This appraisal should be included in the Final EIR." Response: The subject market appraisal is a reference document which is available for public review in the office of the Depart- ment of Environmental Services, City Hall; and will be so noted in the EIR. 2. "SIMILAR PROPOSALS As you probably know, three requests are pending to amend the Cove Communities General Plan to permit a regional shopping center in the vicinity of Bob Hope and Ramon Roads. The Draft EIR states, "...approval of the project will eliminate the need for a regional shopping center elsewhere in the Coachella Valley since the trade area is sufficient to support only one major facility of this type." If this assumption is true, then the current proposals a�raiting action by the County Planning Commission and Qoard of Supervisors later this year may lack a sufficient market base. The Final EIR should discuss the merits of these similar requests as alternatives to the Town Center." Response: (a) The City of Palm Deser� is not obligated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to prepare an environmental analysis of County proposed General Plan amendments; (b) The County prepared analysis of these amendments would seem to suggest that they do not indeed have "merits", by the conclusions drawn, such as "leep frog" development, therefore, they could not be considered as a viable alternative to the subject project; (c) A comparative relationship probably does not exist. The County's environmental analysis was developed.at a very general- ized level (for purposes of considering the General Plan amend- ments) versus the project specific information contained in the subject draft text; and, (d) The draft text logically concludes that the market area could only support one center of this type. County consideration of new General Plan amendments to provide additional regional sites would appear to conflict with the long- standing City plans for a regional center which were established in the City's General Plan and Redevelopment Plan. City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIQIT "D" 3. "POPULATIO�J/Eh1PL0YMENT Page -2- The Draft EIR states that "There is an existing need for a local housing program to provide low and middle income housirg. The proposed project should not result in any desert housing impacts alti�ough it should result in a substantial growth inducing impact." In our opinion, these two statements are in direct conflict with each other. As indicated within the initial study, this pro- ject will require an employment base of 1,553 persons. 'rJe dis- agree with the conclusion that "...it is unlikely that these employees wi11 have any difficulty in qualifying for new or used housing. It is obvious from the positive "fair share" distributions of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, and Palm Desert that these cities will experience difficulty meeting their SCAG fair share allocation. This regional center may compound the exist- ing problem. A large percentage of future employees of this center may not be able to find affordable housing in the four cities referenced above. This will put pressure on the unin- corporated area, as well as the cities of Banning, Beaumont, and Indio to provide affordable housing. We vrould argue that this constitutes a significant impact that deserves consideration in the Final EIR and a great deal of thought before a final deci- sion is made." We also question the immediate effectiveness of the Palm Desert Housing Element as a tangible mitigation measure for this project especially when the document has not been adopted by the City Council. Response: (a) The comment shows a lack of understanding of the date and information presented in the draft text; (b) 7he comrient advances opinions unsupported by data and quotes conclusions out of context. The quotation refers to those high salary management employees who might be transferred to a Palm Desert Store; (c) It is illogical to assume that unskilled to simiskilled workers will relocate to the valley to gain minimum wage retail sales employment. The initial study determined that employees will be drawn from the existing (and expanding) valley labor force. Existing housing occupied by potential employees may or may not be "affordable", which may be a motivation for the second wage earner (spouse) to seek employment; (d) The cnly housing impact directly attributable to the project would be employees transferred into the valley, and they can be accom- odated by market rate housing. The project will have a groti•�th- inducing influence as a positive locational factor, which wi11 create a demand for housing in proximately to the project; (e) Other than for the general purpose o� keeping abreast of the community housing needs, the Palm Desert Housing Element is not proposed to be a project mitigation measure. The City of Palm Desert (contrary to the comment statement) does have an adopted Housing Element, and, is now in the process of updating it to reflect current information and policies, and to bring it into concert with the revised permissive State guidelines. 4. "TRAFFIC The Draft EIR provides and accurate analysis of the impacts to local circulation patterns. The section titled "Mitigation Measures not included in the Plan for Development" describes several road- way improvements which must be constructed to provide an accept- able level of service. The Final EIR should indicate who will bear the costs of these improvements and a timetable for the construction. City Council Resolution No. 79-124 Furthermore, the Final EIR should address the potential problems � when emergency vehicles attempt to reach the site during conges��d periods." y,-; Response: (a) The disposition of road�ray improvements associat�d with the project will be included in the administrative record r and the final EIR; and (b} The subject of emergency vehicle ; access will be addressed in a revision to the draft text. EXHIBIT "D" 5 "FIRE PROTECTION The Draft EIR states that "the area is currently lacking adequate facilities and equipment." The proposal for the applicant to donate land and "loan" the city funds for equip- ment and personnel is commendable. However, should compli- cation$ arise, alternative methods of fire protection must be provided. The Final EIR should address the possibility of this occurring. Also, the Cost/Revenue Analysis specifies a first year deficit of �139,773. How does this relate to the proposed loan of �700,000 and �290,000 needed to staff the station?" Response: (a) If alternative methods are used to provide fire service facilities, they will be reported in the findings, and administrative record. The required "Findings" would ; obviate to need for speculation relative to complications • arising. (b) The estimated first year deficit of 5139,773 is arrived at by subtracting estimated costs (including fire station construction, equipment, and annual staffing) from ; the estimated tax revenue. This figure would change if costs or revenues were altered; the figure does not antici- pate a loan or loan interest. ,, Page -3- 6. "In summary, the proposal for a regional center at the proposed location will have impacts that extend beyond the city limits of Palm Desert. In this regard, we find that the Draft EIR is deficient in its discussion of secondary impacts to the Coachella Valley core and the Final EIR should address these concerns." r r_ �� Reponse: (a) Information presented in the draft EIR concurs � that the project will have impacts which extend beyond the City limits of Palm Desert; and (b) Conclusions drawn by the ,.� commenting agency are unsupported by data, all other subjects have been addressed in the preceding responses. t B. Comments received from the Palm Desert Property Owner Association. l.a "The EIR Report mentioned a collection basin for flood control, but upon revie�•�ing their site plan we could find no area desig- � nated as such." Response: An alternative approach has been devised for site drainage (see draft text revision). l.b "The Qoard feels system should be River Channel." 2 that a complete and adequate flood control developed to drain this site to '�Jhite�,vater Response: Drainage to the White�r�ater River Channel is the objective of the said alternative approach. "The fire station site size seemed too small for a major commercial fire fighting facility and the Board recomTends that the City review this and secure and adequate size site." City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIBIT "D" Page -4- Response: It will be the objective of the City to have the site and facilities "sized" according to need. The subject would be addressed further by Findings/project conditions. 3. "The Board is concerned with light pollution which will develop primarily from the lighting of the parking lot and recommends that a lighting system be developed to minimize light pollution. We recommend that the lighting be on a time clock and circuited in such a way that the outer boundaries of the parking lot lighting be shut down first and have a walking shut-down of lighting toward the main building complex." Response: Project lighting will be specifically addressed in conditions, if the project is approved. The intended, criteria for the project's lighting system would encompass the concerns expressed. 4. "The Board feels that this development will greatly increase traffic and that the developer should be responsible for the development of proper roads and signaling adjacent to his property and for other traffic control devices beyond his property." Response: Responsibility for implementation of traffic mitigation measures will be determined in an approval action, and addressed by Findings. 5. "The developer's proposal includes a skating rink, child care center, theatre guild and Community Hall. These uses are low income rental spaces which usually are converted later to more lucrative sales rental spaces, as was the ice-skating rink in the Palm Springs Mall. The Board would recommend that the developer be required to permanently provide a fixed building square footage within his complex for these community services and recreation uses." Response: Comment relates to general project considerations; no response for purposes of the EIR is necessary. C. Comment received from the Southern California Association of Governments, "Local Clearing-house". The SCAG staff review of the proposed development found that it: 1, is primarily local in nature; 2. does not conflict with adopted regional plan; and 3. is consistent with adopted regional policies. Response: None required. D. Comments received from the City of Rancho Mirage. 1. "TRAFFIC CIRCULATION: The report indicates a number of public improvements abutting and immediately adjoining the proposed shopping center site. However, our concern is that although an "adequate level of service in the vicinity of site will be achieved", the proposed increases in traffic volumes �rill affect circulation routes and patterns not in the vicinity of the site, but in the City of Rancho Mirage i.e. the Monterey Drive and Country Club inter- section and High��ay 111." City Council Resolution No. 79-124 EXHIBIT "D" Response: Findings and would address the effect on circulation patterns) (Draft conditions employ 2. "POPULATIOiV: Page -5- conditions related to an approval action of increased traffic volumes (and effect which might be experienced by Rancho Mirage mitigation measures). Draft indicates that the retail space provided by this project is needed and that the area is "understored". A recent draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by Riverside County Plan- ning Department indicated that retail space �ras at or very near capacity in the Coachella Valley. Althougf� not a significant issue, the information would be helpful and should be appended to the Final Environmental Impact Report." Response: The referenced EIR prepared by Riverside County Planning Dept. indicated several conculsions drawn relative to: current retail space demand; demand far proposed General Plan Amendment Projects, (which were considered in the EIR) and resulting retail space demand (or lack of) if the Palm Desert Regional Center was constructed. Nothing within the said EIR would conflict with the viability of the Hahn Center as evaluated by the Gladstone Associates' report on retail market potentials. E. Comments received from the State of California, Office of Planning and Research - State Clearinghouse. "The State Clearinghouse submitted the above listed environ- mental document to selected State agencies for review. The review is complete and none of the State agencies have comments. This letter verifies your compliance with environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act." Response: None required.