HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 04-87 PP 04-13 EN Engineering/Lowe's Home ImprovementREQUEST:
Resolution No. 04-87
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Consideration of approval of a precise plan of design and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for a 135,152 square foot home
improvement center at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and
Gerald Ford Drive, 35-850 Monterey Avenue. Project includes a
height exception to permit architectural projections at 34 feet, 36 feet,
44 feet and 48 feet. Project also includes a height exception for the
wall -mounted business identification sign at 33 feet.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: EN Engineering on behalf of Lowe's Home Improvement
1920 Main Street, Suite 850
Irvine, CA 92616
CASE NO: PP 04-13
DATE: August 26, 2004
CONTENTS:
Recommendation
Executive Summary
Background
Draft Resolution No. 04-87 approving PP 04-13
Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 2004
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2278
Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 20, 2004
Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-87 approving PP 04-13,
including building and sign height exceptions.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 2
August 26, 2004
Executive Summary:
Lowe's Home Improvement proposes to construct a 135,152 square foot
building with a 31,048 square foot garden center at the northeast corner of
Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive.
The property is a vacant 20.67-acre site. Lowe's will occupy the southerly
13.05 acres of the site. The remaining 7.6-acres will be subject to a future
application.
The west facing building will be setback 303 feet from Monterey and 170 feet
from Gerald Ford with 560 parking spaces located onsite.
The Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Finerty and
Tschopp voting nay) recommended approval, including the height exception.
Commissioners Finerty and Tschopp were concerned that the project was
providing too much parking. The project will provide 223 spaces in excess
of the City standard for a lumberyard.
Discussion of Appropriate Parking Standard:
Staff has looked further into the parking required for a home improvement
center. We were unable to find a city which has a specific standard for said
use. In the Planning Commission report we used the standard for a
"lumberyard." We recognized that the required number of spaces maybe on
the low side as lumberyards from the 1970's (where this code provision
originated) are different from today's home improvement center.
However, considering that the applicant was providing a significant amount
of excess parking above the lumberyard standard, we felt comfortable
recommending approval.
Our planning report noted that the ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) Trip
General Manual provided trip generation rates for home improvement
centers. This report concluded that home improvement centers had 30%
fewer average daily vehicle trips than did a similar sized neighborhood
commercial center. This seems reasonable considering that neighborhood
centers provide a wide array of uses from supermarkets to theaters to
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 3
August 26, 2004
restaurants while home improvement centers are generally stand alone. The
ratio of vehicle trips to required parking is direct.
If we accept that home improvement centers have 30% less traffic than a
similar sized neighborhood center, then an argument can be made that the
appropriate parking standard for a home improvement center should be 30%
less than the standard for a neighborhood commercial center.
The neighborhood center standard is five spaces per 1,000 gross square
feet. The appropriate standard then for a home improvement center should
be 3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The applicant has revised the site plan from that shown to Planning Commission.
The revised plan provides 530 +/- spaces (30 +/- fewer spaces that the plan shown
to Planning Commission. (Note: as of the writing of this report, the site plan was still
under review by the architect/engineer so the actual number of deleted spaces may
vary slightly.)
The revised site plan provides 530 parking spaces for the 135,152 square foot
building or 3.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet (57 excess spaces).
We conclude that the revised site plan meets code and is providing only a modest
(12%) amount of extra parking.
Building and Sign Height Exception:
Maximum building height in the PC-2 zone is 30 feet. Code Section
25.30.260 permits the City Council to approve exceptions to building height
limits.
In order to facilitate interior function of the use, the main building has been
designed at a height which ranges from 27 feet to 32 feet.
Architectural projections have been provided to improve the project's
appearance. The porte-cochere over the lumber pick-up area is 34 feet in
height. The main entrance has been designed with a series of steps set 36
feet, 44 feet and 48 feet in height. At each step there will be a color change
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 4
August 26, 2004
or texture change. These heights are a result of the basic building height and
size.
ARC unanimously granted approval of the building design including the
above described building heights.
The taller main building results in signage needing to be installed at a height
greater than 20 feet (33 feet). Considering that the building is more than 300
feet from Monterey Avenue, this sign height is acceptable.
Conclusion:
• The property at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and
Monterey has been zoned District Commercial (PC-2) since it was
annexed to the city in 1988.
• The property to the north is also zoned for commercial use.
• A home improvement center is a permitted use in the PC-2 zone.
• Considering that the City has approved a Wal-Mart and Sam's Club
one half mile to the north of this site it is unlikely that this property
would ever develop as a typical supermarket anchored neighborhood
center.
• The plan proposed by Lowe's complies with all of the code provisions
except for building and sign height for which exceptions are sought.
• The building architecture is an attractive contemporary look using
pastel colors ranging from peach orchid to silver tinsel to El Paso
peach. ARC has given the architecture preliminary approval.
• The project access and onsite circulation are adequate.
• Parking provided for the project is adequate and complies with code.
• Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the project be
approved.
Background:
The site has minimal vegetation and is generally flat with a slight slope from the
southwest comer to the northeast corner.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 5
August 26, 2004
General Plan Designation:
The site is designation C/R-Commercial Regional in the General Plan.
Zoning:
The site is zoned PC-2 District Commercial. A home improvement center is a
permitted use in the PC-2 zone.
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: PC-2 / Vacant
South: PR-5 / Shadow Ridge Timeshares
East: PR-13 / Sares Regis Apartments Approved
West: Rancho Mirage / Residential / Single Family Dwellings
Project Review (the 13.05-acre project):
Site Plan:
The building is located toward the south and east lot lines. The parking lots are
between the building, Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive.
The building front faces west to Monterey Avenue with the indoor lumberyard
at the north end and the garden center at the south end of the building.
Access and Site Circulation:
The project proposes two access points from Gerald Ford Drive and two access
points (three for the entire 20-acre parcel) from Monterey Avenue.
The easterly access from Gerald Ford Drive will be right in, right out and will
provide for a left -turn ingress from eastbound Gerald Ford Drive. This access
point connects with a two-way driveway that extends around the rear (east) of
the building.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 6
August 26, 2004
The westerly access from Gerald Ford Drive will be right in, right out only and
has a deceleration lane for westbound vehicles. This access aligns with a two-
way driveway that extends northerly across the front of the building.
The southerly access from Monterey Avenue will be right in, right out only with
a deceleration lane for northbound vehicles. This access connects to the central
area of the main parking field.
The second access from Monterey is located to align with the north end of
Lowe's building and the driveway that extends around the north end of the
building. This access will provide for right in, right out and left in movements
from southbound Monterey Avenue. This access also has a deceleration lane for
northbound Monterey vehicles.
The third Monterey access is located at the north limit of the 20-acre site and
will be part of a new public street that extends to Gateway Drive and points
east as shown on the new General Plan. This access point will be right in, right
out and left in only.
Parking:
See discussion in Executive Summary.
Architecture:
The building architecture is contemporary in style comprised of tilt up panels.
Exterior finish includes both split face and smooth face C.M.U. texture paint
colors ranging from peach orchid to silver tinsel to an El Paso peach. These
color changes with changes in texture will create a finish similar to that used at
Borders in The River project.
The garden center will be enclosed by a steel fence with vinyl -coated mesh
which has been designed to blend with the building design.
ARC at its June 22, 2004 meeting granted preliminary approval of the building
architecture.
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 7
August 26, 2004
The east elevation of the building shows the loading dock area and trash
enclosure at least partially enclosed by a combination of masonry and chain Zink
fence. These facilities are adjacent to the Sares Regis Apartments to the east.
These areas should be totally screened by masonry/block walls and will be so
conditioned.
Project Data:
Street Setbacks:
Monterey Avenue
Gerald Ford Drive
Side Yard Setbacks:
To East
District Commercial Zone Project
32 feet
32 feet
54 feet
(2 x's building height)
To North 0 feet
Lot Coverage 50%
Landscape Depth from Street:
Monterey Avenue 20 feet
Gerald Ford Drive 20 feet
Building Height 30 feet
Parking - Lumberyard Standard:
1/500 sq.ft. retail 271 spaces
1/1,000 sq.ft. garden center 31 inches
1/2 Employees 35 inches
TOTAL 337
303 feet
170 feet
60 feet
92 feet
23.7%
35 feet
30 feet
Main bldg 27', 30', 32'*
North porte-cochere 34' *
Entry 36', 44', 48' *
560 spaces
Modified Parking Standard as per discussion in Executive Summary:
3.5/1,000 main building 473 spaces
2/1,000 garden center 62 spaces
TOTAL 535 spaces
Loading Spaces
560 spaces
3 required 3 provided
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 8
August 26, 2004
Bus Stop:
Sunline Transit, through the City's management analyst, has requested that a
bus stop/shelter be provided on Monterey Avenue 300 feet to 600 feet south
of the project's north property line.
Sunline also requested and obtained a bus stop/shelter on Gerald Ford Drive in
front of the Sares Regis apartment project that is immediately adjacent to the
east.
Public Works and the Planning staff have requested a service plan from Sunline
so that we may better anticipate future bus stop locations. Our goal would be
to minimize impediments to traffic flow on arterial streets and maximize the
future transit service efficiency. In this instance we would much prefer that the
bus stop be provided on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive between the two
access points, that way we could eliminate the bus stop adjacent to Sares Regis
apartments. One stop could service both projects.
Staff have imposed a condition which will require that a bus stop/shelter be
provided in a location to be determined in consultation between the City and
Sunline.
CEQA Review:
This property has been zoned commercial since 1988. The commercial use of
the property as a neighborhood center was analyzed as part of the recent
General Plan Update and the Environmental Impact Report prepared therefore.
The attached environmental checklist and initial study analyze this specific
development proposal and provide necessary mitigation measures which have
been included in the draft resolution as conditions of approval.
We would note that this home improvement center project will generate 30%
Tess traffic than would a similarly sized neighborhood commercial center, which
was the basis for analysis in the General Plan. The ITE trip general manual
prescribes an average weekday vehicle trip rate of 29.8 vehicles per 1,000
square feet for a home improvement center versus a rate of 42.94 vehicles per
Staff Report
Case No. PP 04-13
Page 9
August 26, 2004
1,000 square feet for a shopping center (see excerpt from ITE manual
attached).
Based on the information contained in the General Plan and its related EIR,
which was certified by the City Council, and analysis of this project, the
Director of Community Development concludes that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact should be adopted.
Submitted by:
Planning Manager
Approval:
Homer Croy
ACM for Develnt Services
(Wpdocs\cm\srlpp04.13.cc)
Department Head:
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
Approval:
Carlos L. Orte
City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
APPROVED DENIED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETING DATE
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File with City Clerk's Office
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A PRECISE PLAN OF
DESIGN FOR A 135,152 SQUARE FOOT LOWE'S HOME
IMPROVEMENT CENTER WITH A 31,048 SQUARE FOOT
GARDEN CENTER, INCLUDING BUILDING AND SIGN HEIGHT
EXCEPTIONS, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MONTEREY
AVENUE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 35-850 MONTEREY
AVENUE.
CASE NO. PP 04-13
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 26th day
of August, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by EN Engineering on
behalf of Lowe's Home Improvement for approval of Case No. PP 04-13, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, by its
Resolution No. 2278 has recommended approval of Case No. PP 04-13; 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.
02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration 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 granting approval of said precise plan:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN:
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values not
be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonable interfere with the use and enjoyment of the
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general
welfare.
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.
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact relating to Case PP 04-13,
Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby certified.
3. That a height exception for building and sign heights delineated in the staff report
dated August 26, 2004 is hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions.
4. That Precise Plan 04-13 is hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 04-13
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. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program. 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 in
Section 25.58 of the zoning ordinance.
3
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
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.
8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
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. 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.
11 . The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe -Toed Lizard, TUMF,
School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
12. That the east wall of the truck loading dock area shall be a solid masonry wall to the
height at least equal to the height of trucks using the facility.
13. That the trash enclosure area shall be of masonry construction for its full height.
14. That the applicant shall install along the east property line a minimum 6' high block
wall in a design acceptable to ARC. Said wall may be waived if one has already been
installed by the property owner to the east.
15. That there shall be no outdoor storage of any type on the site.
16. That there shall be no gates in the east driveway, unless first approved by the Fire
Marshal and the Director of Community Development.
17. That the landscape plan shall provide for screening of the parking area. Said
screening to be accomplished by landscaping, berming or garden walls or combination
thereof.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
Department of Public Works:
1. Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon
a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be
designed to retain a 100 year storm and to retain nuisance water on -site. Any off -
site drainage shall be preceded with property owner's permission.
2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. 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 a grading permit.
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
7. 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 to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on -site shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner per City
of Palm Desert standards. Owner shall enter into a landscape maintenance
agreement with the City of Palm Desert
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary
landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
1 1 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Future development
pad shown at the northern part of the site shall be lowered to 316'.
12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards
and the city's Circulation Network including the following:
• Full improvement of Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey Avenue with 75'
dedication to accommodate a 9' half center median, 3 thru travel lanes, a bike
lane, and 8' sidewalk within a 24' parkway.
• Deceleration lanes shall be installed at the westerly entrance on Gerald Ford
Drive and all Monterey Avenue entrances.
• Developer shall install a landscaped center median on Monterey Avenue and
be reimbursed by the City of Palm Desert for half the cost.
• Right -of -way dedication shall be of sufficient width to include dual left turn
lanes on southbound Monterey Avenue at Gerald Ford Drive.
• Proposed public street at the northern edge of the site shall be improved with
a 26' half street section within 38 feet of right-of-way.
• Northern driveway on Monterey Avenue shall be left and right in only, with no
left out.
• An assessment district may be formed to install some of these improvements.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
13. This project shall be limited to two driveways each on Gerald Ford Drive and
Monterey Avenue, and one on the proposed street on the northern end of the project.
Driveway and parking Tots shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a
standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Driveway shall
be 30' minimum in width.
The minimum length of the driveway throats -the distance between the prolongation
of the curb on Monterey Avenue and the first break in the parking lot islands -shall be
100'.
6
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
14. Grading shall be co-ordinated with the property to the east so that the property line
shall be located at the top of slope.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check,
the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipal Code, appropriate NFPA standards, CFC, CBC,
and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon
per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2-
1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not Tess than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post indicator valves and Fire Department connections. All valves and
connections shall not be Tess than 25' from the building and within 50' of an
approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water -
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA10, but not less than 2A10BC extinguisher
per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire
extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
7
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
10. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and
private cooking operations except single-family residential usage.
11. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn -around (55' in industrial developments).
12. Wherever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system
to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
13. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
14. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
15. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
16. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
//
8
RESOLUTION NO. 04-87
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code
of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: PP 04-13
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: EN Engineering
1920 Main Street, Suite 850
Irvine, CA 92616
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A 135,152 square foot Lowe's Home Improvement Center at the northeast comer of Monterey
Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
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
9
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: July 20, 2004
CASE NO: PP 04-13
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan of design and negative
declaration of Environmental Impact for a 135,152 square
foot home improvement canter with a 31,048 square foot
garden center at the northeast corner of Monterey Avenue
and Gerald Ford Drive, 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
APPLICANT: EN Engineering on behalf of Lowe's Home Improvement
1920 Main St., Suite 850
Irvine, CA 92616
I. BACKGROUND:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The property is a vacant 20.67-acre site at the northeast corner of
Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. Lowe's will occupy the
southerly 13.05 acres of the site. The other 7.6-acres will be subject
to a future application.
The site has minimal vegetation and is generally flat with a slight
slope from the southeast corner to the northeast corner.
B. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The site is designated C/R-Commercial Regional in the general
plan.
C. ZONING:
The site is zoned P/C-2 District Commercial. A home improvement
center is a permitted use in the P/C-2 zone.
D. ADJACENT ZONING ANDLAND USE:
North: PC-2/ Vacant
South: PR-5/ Shadow Ridge Timeshare
East: PR-13/ Sares Regis Apartments Approved
West: Rancho Mirage/ Residential/ Single Family Dwellings
PROJECT REVIEW (The 13.05 Acre Project)
A. SITE PLAN:
The building is located toward the south and east lot lines. The
parking lots are between the building and Monterey Avenue and
Gerald Ford Drive.
The building front faces west to Monterey Avenue with the indoor
lumberyard at the north end and the garden center at the south end
of the building.
B. ACCESS AND SITE CIRCULATION:
The project proposes two access points from Gerald Ford Drive
and two access points (Three for the entire 20 acre parcel) from
Monterey Avenue.
The easterly access from Gerald Ford Drive will be right in, right out
and will provide for a left tum ingress from eastbound Gerald Ford
Drive. This access point connects with a two-way driveway that
extends around the rear (east) of the building.
The westerly access from Gerald Ford Drive will be right in, right
out only and has a deceleration lane for westbound vehicles. This
access aligns with a two-way driveway that extends northerly
across the front of the building.
The southerly access from Monterey Avenue will be right in, right
out only with a deceleration lane for northbound vehicles. This
access connects to the central area of the main parking field.
The second access from Monterey is located to align with the north
end of Lowe's building and the driveway that extends around the
north end of the building. This access will provide for right in, right
out and left in movements from southbound Monterey Avenue. This
access also has a deceleration lane for northbound Monterey
vehicles.
The third Monterey access is located at the north limit of the 20
acre site and will be part of a new public street that extends to
Gateway Drive and points east as shown on the new general plan.
This access point will be right in, right out and left in only.
C. PARKING:
The parking ordinances for a lumberyard requires 2 spaces per
1000 square feet for retail areas, plus 1 space per 1000 square feet
of garden center and plus 1 space for every two employees.
Based on the building area of 135,152 square feet plus a 31,048
square foot garden center we have a parking requirement of 302
spaces. The applicant advises that the maximum number of
employees at any one time is 70 for a parking requirement of 35
more spaces.
Total required parking is 337 spaces. The plan provides 560
spaces.
D. ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING HEIGHT:
The building architecture is contemporary in style comprised of tilt
up panels. Exterior finish includes both split face and smooth face
C.M.U. texture paint with colors ranging from peach orchid to silver
tinsel to an El Paso peach. These color changes with changes in
texture will create a finish similar to that used at Borders in the
River project.
The garden center will be enclosed by a steel fence with vinyl -
coated mesh, which has been designed to blend with the building
design.
Maximum building height in the P/C-2 zone is 30 feet. Code section
25.30-260 permits the City Council to approve exceptions to
building height limits.
In order to facilitate interior function of the use the main building
has been designed at a height, which ranges from 27 feet to 32
feet.
Architectural projections have been provided to improve the
projects appearance. The porte-cuchere over the lumber pick-up
area is 34 feet in height. The main entrance has been designed
with a series of steps set 36 feet, 44feet and 48 feet in height. At
each step there will be a color change or texture change. These
heights are a result of the basic building height and size.
ARC at its June 22, 2004 meeting granted preliminary approval of
the building architecture.
The east elevation of the building shows the loading dock area and
trash enclosure at least partially enclosed by a combination of
masonry and chain Zink fence. These facilities are adjacent to the
Sares Regis Apartments to the east. These areas should be totally
screened by masonry/block walls and will be so conditioned.
E. PROJECT DATA:
District Commercial Zone Project
Street Set Backs
Monterey Ave. 32' 303'
Gerald Ford Dr. 32' 170'
Side yard set back
To East 54' (2X's building HT) 60'
To North 0' 92'
Lot coverage 50% 23.7%
Landscape depth from street
Monterey Ave. 20' 35'
Gerald Ford Dr. 20' 30'
Building height 30' Main bld. 27',30',321*
North port cuchere 34'*
Entry 36',44',48'*
Parking Lumber yard Std.
1/500 sq. ft. retail= 271 spaces
1/1000 sq. ft. garden center= 31 "
1/2 Employees= 35 "
Total= 337
Loading Spaces 3 required
*Height exception required
F. BUS STOP:
560 Spaces
3 provided
Sunline Transit through the city's management analyst has
requested that a bus stop/shelter be provided on Monterey Avenue
300' to 600' south of the project's north property line.
Sunline also requested and obtained a bus stop/shelter on Gerald
Ford Drive in front of the Sares Regis apartment project that is
immediately adjacent to the east.
Public Works and the Planning staff have requested a service plan
from Sunline so that we may better anticipate future bus stop
locations. Our goal would be to minimize impediments to traffic flow
on arterial streets and maximize the future transit service efficiency.
In this instance we would much prefer that the bus stop be provided
on the north side of Gerald Ford Drive between the two access
points, that way we could eliminate the bus stop adjacent to Sares
Regis Apts. One stop could easily service both projects.
Staff have imposed a condition which will require that a bus
stop/shelter be provided in a location to be determined in
consultation between the City and Sunline.
G. CONCLUSION:
• The property at the southeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and
Monterey has been zoned District Commercial (PC-2) since it
was annexed to the City in 1988.
• The property to the north is also zoned for commercial use.
• A home improvement center is a permitted use in the PC-2
zone.
• The plan proposed by Lowe's complies with all of the code
provisions except for building height for which an exception will
be sought through the City Council.
• The building architecture is an attractive contemporary look
using pastel colors ranging from peach orchid to silver tinsel to
El Paso peach. ARC has given the architecture preliminary
approval.
• The project access and on site circulation are adequate.
• Parking provided for the project is 66% in excess of code
requirements.
• Staff recommends the project be approved.
H. C.E.Q.A. review:
This property has been zoned commercial since 1988. The
commercial use of the property (as a neighborhood center) was
analyzed as part of the recent general plan update and the environmental
impact report prepared therefore.
The attached environmental checklist and initial study analyze this
specific development proposal and provide necessary mitigation
measures, which have been included in the draft resolution as
conditions of approval.
We would note that this home improvement center project will
generate 30% less traffic than would a similarly sized neighborhood
commercial center, which was the basis for analysis in the general
plan. The I.T.E. trip generation manual prescribes an average
weekday vehicle trip rate of 29.8 vehicles per 1000 square feet for
a home improvement center verses a rate of 42.94 vehicles per
1000 square feet for a shopping center (See excerpt from I.T.E.
manual attached)
Based on the information contained in the general plan and its
related E.I.R., which was certified, by the City Council and analysis
of this project the Director of Community Development concludes
that a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact
should be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the findings and adopt Planning Committee Resolution NO.
approving PP 04-13, subject to conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.) Draft resolution
B.) Legal notice
C.) Comments from City departments and other agencies
D.) Project exhibits
Steve Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN
TO CONSTRUCT A 135,152 SQUARE FOOT LOWE'S HOME
IMPROVEMENT CENTER WITH A 31,048 SQUARE FOOT
GARDEN CENTER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
MONTEREY AVENUE AND GERALD FORD DRIVE, 35-850
MONTEREY AVENUE
CASE NO. PP 04-13
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the
20th day of July, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by EN
Engineering on behalf of Lowe's Home Improvement for approval of Case No. PP 04-13, and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No.
02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration 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 granting approval of said precise plan:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN:
1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values not
be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonable interfere with the use and enjoyment of the
property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety, or general
welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, Califomia, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
commission in this case.
2. That a negative declaration of environmental impact relating to Case PP 04-13,
Exhibit "A" attached, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
3. That a height exception for building heights delineated in the staff report dated July
20, 2004 is recommended for approval to the City Council.
4. That Precise Plan 04-13 is recommended for approval to the City Council for
reasons and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 20th day of July, 2004, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, JONATHAN
NOES: FINERTY, TSCHOPP
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Sicretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
SABBY J NATHAN, Chairperson
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 04-13
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. Applicant shall participate in a commercial recycling program. 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 in
Section 25.58 of the zoning ordinance.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
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.
8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works
prior to Architectural Review Commission submittal.
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. 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.
1 1. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe -Toed Lizard, TUMF,
School Mitigation and Housing Mitigation fees.
12. That the east wall of the truck loading dock area shall be a solid masonry wall to the
height at least equal to the height of trucks using the facility.
13. That the trash enclosure area shall be of masonry construction for its full height.
14. That the applicant shall install along the east property line a minimum 6' high block
wall in a design acceptable to ARC. Said wall may be waived if one has already been
installed by the property owner to the east.
15. That there shall be no outdoor storage of any type on the site.
16. That there shall be no gates in the east driveway, unless first approved by the Fire
Marshal and the Director of Community Development.
17. That the landscape plan shall provide for screening of the parking area. Said
screening to be accomplished by landscaping, berming or garden walls or combination
thereof.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
Department of Public Works:
1. Any drainage facility construction required for thisproject shall be contingent upon
a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be
designed to retain a 100 year storm and to retain nuisance water on -site. Any off -
site drainage shall be preceded with property owner's permission.
Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project.
3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
4. 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 a grading permit.
5. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading
permits.
6. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
7. 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 to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
8. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on -site shall be drought
tolerant in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner per City
of Palm Desert standards. Owner shall enter into a landscape maintenance
agreement with the City of Palm Desert
9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive
Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary
landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
11. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Future development
pad shown at the northern part of the site shall be lowered to 316'.
12. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards
and the city's Circulation Network including the following:
• Full improvement of Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey Avenue with 75'
dedication to accommodate a 9' half center median, 3 thru travel lanes, a bike
lane, and 8' sidewalk within a 24' parkway.
• Deceleration lanes shall be installed at the westerly entrance on Gerald Ford
Drive and all Monterey Avenue entrances.
• Developer shall install a landscaped center median on Monterey Avenue and
be reimbursed by the City of Palm Desert for half the cost.
• Right -of -way dedication shall be of sufficient width to include dual left turn
lanes on southbound Monterey Avenue at Gerald Ford Drive.
• Proposed public street at the northern edge of the site shall be improved with
a 26' half street section within 38 feet of right-of-way.
• Northern driveway on Monterey Avenue shall be left and right in only, with no
left out.
• An assessment district may be formed to install some of these improvements.
Rights -of -way necessary for the installation of the above referenced improvements
shall be dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
13. This project shall be limited to two driveways each on Gerald Ford Drive and
Monterey Avenue, and one on the proposed street on the northern end of the project.
Driveway and parking lots shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a
standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Driveway shall
be 30' minimum in width.
The minimum length of the driveway throats -the distance between the prolongation
of the curb on Monterey Avenue and the first break in the parking lot islands -shall be
100'.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
14. Grading shall be co-ordinated with the property to the east so that the property line
shall be located at the top of slope.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check,
the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipal Code, appropriate NFPA standards, CFC, CBC,
and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon
per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2-
1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a
commercial building measured via vehicular travelway.
5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with
3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post indicator valves and Fire Department connections. All valves and
connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an
approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water -
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA10, but not less than 2A1OBC extinguisher
per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire
extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
10. Install .a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and
private cooking operations except single-family residential usage.
11. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn -around (55' in industrial developments).
12. Wherever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system
to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
13. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent
detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type.
14. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
15. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
16. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
//
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2278
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the Califomia Code
of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: PP 04-13
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: EN Engineering
1920 Main Street, Suite 850
Irvine, CA 92616
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
A 135,152 square foot Lowe's Home Improvement Center at the northeast corner of Monterey
Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, Califomia, 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.
July 2U', 2004
PHILIP DREUL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9
LEGEND OF SOURCES
1. City of Palm Desert General Plan
2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance
3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development
4. Visual inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development staff
5. (Intentionally Omitted)
6. (Intentionally Omitted)
7. (Intentionally Omitted)
8. (Intentionally Omitted)
9. City of Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage
10. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance
11. Coachella Valley Water District
12. Sunline Transit
13. (Intentionally Omitted)
14. Riverside County Fire Department
15. Sheriff's Department /Palm Desert Branch
16. Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Conservation Plan
17. Palm Springs Unified School District
18. University High School- Initial Study
19. Desert Gateway Development/ Draft Subsequent EIR
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
Lowe's Home Impro vement
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:
Steve Smith, Planning Manager
(760) 346-0611
4. Project Location:
Northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey Avenue
5. Project Sponsor's N ame and Address
EN Engineering For Lowe's
1920 Main St., Suite 850
Irvine, CA 92614
6. General Plan Designation:
Regional -Commercial
7. Zoning:
PC-2
8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but
not limited to the later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or
off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attached additional
sheet(s) if necessary.)
Approval of a precise plan of design for a 135,182 square foot
Lowe's Home Impro vement center and related environmental actions.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's
surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
North: Vacant/ Commercial
South: Residential Timeshare
East: Vacant/ High Density Residential
West: Single Family Dwellings
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement).
None
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.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
XBiological
Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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.
Xnot
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) 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. 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, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
,_&zei6*
Signa ure
'mil. V
Printed Name
Date
I c 11-1.1 6V -ems , .sue —
For
C ITY/RV PU B/2004/546265
Page 2 of 14
FORM "J"
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 in the parentheses 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"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) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 1 5063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
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.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to 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.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is onlya suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 3 of 14
b) the mitigation measure ic. .ified, if any, to reduce the impact to Tess t. significance.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, tress, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
).<
X
x
X
C ITY/RVPU B/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 4 of 14
Issues:
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
x
X
X
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265
Page 5 of 14
FORM "J"
Issues:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in '
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
' 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
x
x
x
x
X
x
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 6 of 14
Issues:
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off -site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
X
><'
x
?.<
x
x
C ITY/RVPUB/2004/546265
Page 7 of 14
FORM "J"
Issues:
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
X
k
X
X
x
X
C ITY/RVPUB/2004/546265
Page 8 of 14
FORM "J"
Issues:
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
x
x
X
X
X
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 9 of 14
Issues:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either.directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
x
x
X
X
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 10 of 14
Issues:
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
X
X
X
x
x
X
Ix
CITY/RVPUB/2004/5462,65
Page 11 of 14
FORM "J"
Issues:
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
x
X
X
X
X
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 12 of 14
Issues:
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making
this determination, the City shall consider whether
the project is subject to the water supply assessment
requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq.
(SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code
Section 664737 (SB 221).
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
1) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat or 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 periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) 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 project, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
Less i nan
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 13 of 14
Issues:
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
CITY/RVPUB/2004/546265 FORM "J"
Page 14 of 14
Home Improvement Superstore
(862)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 9 .
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 129
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation g'Y
29.80 18.35 - 39.31 9.01
Data Plot and Equation
6,000
xsr
x
X
5,000 X
W
0.
F- 4,000 .
N X „-
a)
d X
OI
fC
3,000 X.
X ..;;.
r
2,000
1,000 I 1
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.70 Ln(X)+4.85 R2=0.59
Trip Generation,7th Edition 1600 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Shopping Center
(820)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 302
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 328
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
42.94
Data Plot and Equation
12.50 - 270.89
21.38
T = Average Vehicle Trip Ends
70,000
60,000 -t
50,000 4
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Actual Data Points
- Xx
X,' x
{ X
X x N iXX
X- xF'. X X X X
x X
jk X X X
CSC uxx X x x x
7 ), 3(xx x
4 x. x. . x X
X X X
x
I 1 T—T• 1--1
x
x
x
1 I TI
•
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 600 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) + 5.83
Average Rate
R2 = 0.78
Trip Generation, 7th Edition
1451 Institute of Transportation Engineers
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP 04-13
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED
CHECKLIST)
I. AESTHETICS
A. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically
offensive due to blow sand problems. The proposed development
must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission.
The general plan visual resource element at page 111-155
discusses visual impacts and identifies no adverse impacts to
visual resources. The general plan does identify mitigation
measures as follows:
• Signage shall be limited to functional
identification.
• Mixed -use development projects shall
incorporate safe and convenient vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, with screened outdoor
storage/loading areas and landscaping designs
that preserve and enhance visual resources.
These two measures have been incorporated into the project.
B. There are no scenic or historic resources in the immediate vicinity
of the site. There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the site.
No mitigation measures required.
C. Development of the proposed project will change the visual
character of the site and its surroundings, replacing the sand dunes
with a home improvement center. The project is consistant with
uses found in the regional commercial district and therefore would
not degrade the visual character, setting, or overall appearance of
the project site.
D. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent
lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered
lighting plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition
is fulfilled. Sources: 1,3
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
A,B,C.
The site is vacant desert with minor amounts of native desert
vegetation. The site has never been used for agricultural purposes
nor shown on maps as agricultural.
Sources:1
III. AIR QUALITY
A&B.
During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is
a short term impact. Project will require preparation and
implementation of PM 10 plan.
C.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development
will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. The
conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality.
This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air
quality contained in a draft environmental impact report prepared
for the general plan. Completed development of the site will result
in Tess dust leaving the site A currently occurs with the site's vacant
condition.
The general plan air quality element at pages 11-52 then 62 and
the University High School initial study prepared by LSA
Associates, INC for PSUSD discuss air quality in this area of the
in detail. The High School initial study states at page 2-4.
Ozone and PM 10 are the two pollutants of concern in the
Coachella Valley. Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Valley is
currently classified as a "severe-17" non -attainment area for ozone.
The region is also classified as a "serious" non -attainment area for
PM 10 by the U.S. EPA. The general plan study area and the
Coachella Valley are subject to the provisions of the Coachella
Valley State Implementation Plan (2002 CVSIP) for PM 10. The
2002 SIP has been prepared for the Coachella Valley, outlining an
enhanced PM 10 reduction program that demonstrates how the
federal PM 10 standards will be achieved to bring the Coachella
Valley into attainment. To further reduce the impacts of local
fugitive dust and PM 10 emissions, the City of Palm Desert has
adopted a Fugitive Dust (PM 10) Control Ordinance (Chapter 24.12
of the Palm Desert Municipal Code). Project grading will comply
with this ordinance.
1. During earthmoving or excavation operations, fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving of
roads, and other dust prevention measures using the
following procedures:
• All material excavated shall be sufficiently watered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering, with
complete coverage, shall take place at least twice daily,
preferably in the late morning and after work is done for
the day.
• All earthmoving or excavation activities shall cease
during periods of high winds (i.e. winds greater than 20
mph average over one hour).
• All material transported off site shall be either sufficiently
watered or securely covered to prevent excessive
amounts of dust.
• The area disturbed by earthmoving or excavation
operations shall be minimized at all times.
2. After earthmoving or excavation operations, fugitive dust
emissions shall be controlled using the following measures:
• All active portions of the construction site shall be
watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
3. At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using
the following procedures:
• On -site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15mph.
• Road improvements shall be constructed as soon as
feasible. Should the road system not be constructed at
the time of project development, access roads shall be
watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
4. At all times during construction phase, ozone precursor
emissions from mobile equipment shall be controlled using
the following procedures:
• Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition
and in proper tune according to manufacturer's
specifications.
• On -site mobile equipment shall not be allowed to idle for
a period longer than 60 seconds.
5. Outdoor storage fills of construction materials shall be kept
covered, watered or otherwise chemically stabilized with a
chemical watering agent to minimize fugitive dust emissions
and wind erosion.
• The proposed development does not call for uses which
would create substantial pollutant concentrations.
• The proposed development does not call for any odorous
land uses.
Sources: 1, , 4, 10, 18, 19
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. The property is in the designated area of Coachella Valley Fringe -
Toed Lizard. This project will eliminate all fringe -toed lizards within
the project boundaries. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe -
toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan, the Toss of the lizards and
habitat can be mitigated by payment of a $600 per acre fee for
each acre development. Project will be conditioned to pay said fee.
Mitigation fee will be used by Nature Conservancy to purchase land
in special preserves. The Coachella Valley Preserves will create
suitable habitat for lizards as well as other species.
The site may contain other dune species which are of statewide
concern (i.e., Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A multi species habitat
conservation plan is being prepared by CVAG which will establish
preserves and conservation practices to insure the future survival of
these dune species.
B. No riparian habitat present on site.
C. No wetlands habitat present on site.
D. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site.
E. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other
than delineated in item (A) above.
F. See (A) above. The dune species of concern are not migratory in
nature. The site has been designated for development with
mitigation fees within the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard
Habitat Conservation Plan.
Sources-1, 3, 16
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A-D. The cultural resources study performed as a part of the general
plan found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical
significance on this site. In addition, state law requires that should
any evidence be found during construction, construction cease and
the site cleared.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
A(I-iv).
The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various
studies have concluded that with proper building design which is
required by Uniform Building Code people will not be exposed to
substantial adverse effects.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The city of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures
must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are
constructed within acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of
building and occupancies being developed.
B. Development will reduce blow sand erosion which is common in
this area. There is no topsoil present.
C. See mitigation measure above.
D. See mitigation measure above.
E. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks but they will not be
used as sewers are available.
Sources: 1
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZAROUS MATERIALS
A. Site and immediate area are not subject to route transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials.
B. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards.
C. See (B).
D. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials
sites.
E. Site is not within two miles of a public air port.
F. No private airstrip in area.
G. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or
evacuation plan.
H. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable
brush, grass or trees.
Sources: 1, 6
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
While any development results in the use of water and therefore
reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the
Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water
supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella
Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in
the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future
development.
A. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan
of Drainage and the grading ordinance.
B. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere
with groundwater recharge.
C, D, E.
Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and
constructed to accept the water from the site.
F. Project will not substantially degrade water quality.
G. Site is not within a 100 year flood hazard.
H. See (G).
I. Area is not subject to flooding.
J. Area is flat desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mud
flow.
Sources: 1, 9, 11
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
A. The site is designated for commercial use, which is the use
purposed.
B. Project is consistent with the General Plan.
C. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, other than that discussed in
Section IV (A1).
Sources: 1, 2, 3, 16
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
A. No known mineral resources.
B. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on local general plan.
Sources: 1
XI. NOISE
A,B,C,D.
Construction of the commercial project will increase ambient
noise level. All uses on the site will be required to comply with
the city noise ordinance.
Sources: 1, 2
MITIGATION MEASURES
Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required.
Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be
required. Noise to be mitigated so that noise levels set in the General
Plan Noise Element are not exceeded.
e & f.
Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in vicinity of
a private airstrip.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
A-C. The site is currently vacant, commercially designated land, so
the project will not displace people or dwellings.
Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A
commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the
study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps
designated for commercial development. Infrastructure improvements
(i.e., streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the
proposed development. The proposed land use would increase the
economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and
greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current
state of the land.
The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the City of
Palm Desert.
Fire and Police Protection
Police and Fire service has indicated that they can service the
proposed project.
Schools
The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law
at time of building permit issuance.
Parks
The project is a commercial development.
Other Public Facilities
Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project.
Sources: 1, 12, 14, 15
XIV. RECREATION
No Impact.
Sources: 1, 3
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
A-G. The project will result in additional traffic being attracted to this
area. Existing street capacity is adequate to serve the purposed
use. With proper mitigation the additional traffic impacts would
be reduced to a level of insignificance. Specifically, the project
will be required to widen both Monterey Avenue and Gerald
Ford Drive to three travel lanes and install free flow right -turn
lane from west bound Gerald Ford Drive to north bound
Monterey Avenue among a series of other required items. See
public Works Department conditions.
Project will not change air traffic patterns.
Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city
standards and the project will not include incompatible uses.
There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which
will be supplied by the project on site in compliance with city
code.
Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Street improvements will minimize traffic hazards to
motor vehicles.
The 7th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generator Manual reports that the average weekday vehicle trip
rate for a Home Improvement Superstore is 29.8 trips per 1000
square feet of gross floor area. The general plan assumed a
shopping center on this site. The trip generation for a shopping
center is listed at 42.96 trips per 1000 gross leasable area.
Both uses, a shopping center and a home improvement store,
would be expected to be similar in size with coverage of 22-23
percent. Development of the home improvement superstore will
result in approximately 40% fewer vehicle trips than were
assumed under the general plan.
Sources: 1, 2
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
A. Project will not exceed limits.
B. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project.
C. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They
will occur with or without this project.
D. See (B) above.
E. See (B) above.
F. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term
will be available at Eagle Mountain.
G. City will enforce these statutes through Environmental
Conservation Department.
Sources: 1,11,
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A. The proposed project was evaluated to determine if there is the
potential for significant effects to biological and cultural
resources. No such impacts were identified. In addition, no rare
or endangered plant communities will be eliminated.
This site was considered for commercial purpose in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palm Desert
Comprehensive General Plan, and was incorporated into the
Final Environmental Impact Report. That document identifies a
series of mitigation measures that will reduce the impacts of
General Plan implementation below a level of significance.
Where applicable, such mitigation measures have been carried
forward into this project.
Potential for the commercial project to have substantial
environmental effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly, has been evaluated. The proposed project will not
create any new impacts that cannot be mitigated. Mitigation
measures have been incorporated where necessary to reduce
potential environmentally adverse impacts to humans to a less
than significant level. Therefore, impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed project will be less than
significant. (Sources: 1, 3)
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 8, 2004
MINUTES
Gregory commented that if exposed wood on production homes can be
avoided, it's probably better.
Commissioner Vuksic suggested that on Plan 1 the single garage door
could be moved to the right about 12" so that instead of having spindly
pieces of plaster columns, you would have one thicker one on the end
and the garage door would be right up against the building mass. Mr.
Penrose commented that the only drawback would be that it might be a
little bit more difficult to drive a car into the garage. Commissioner
Vuksic asked about the lintel detail. Mr. Penrose stated that they will all
be stucco and painted a contrasting color. Commissioner Vuksic stated
that the elevations look nice.
Commissioner Gregory commented that the applicant did a great job on
the revisions.
Action: Commissioner Oppenheim moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lambell for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner
Hanson absent.
2. CASE NO.: PP 04-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS BRATTY, 1920 Main Street,
Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92614
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of 135,152 square foot Lowe's Home Improvement Center.
LOCATION: NE comer of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive
ZONE:
Chuck Landa, architect, was present to comment on Lowe's. This
particular building on the inside is a Lowe's prototype. They've thrown
away the outside prototype architecture and tried to come up with
something that was different. We haven't done anything like this on a
Lowe's building before. What we're trying to do is make it simple and
not look contrived. The doors are setback about 4' into the building and
they added a canopy to get more shade and shelter on the entries.
The building is designed as a tilt -up building but it was also conceived
where the same thing could be done in split -face masonry. They're
going to use form liners to put texture on all the walls. It could also be
G:Planning\Donna Quniver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN
9
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 8, 2004
MINUTES
a combination of tilt -up and block. There are a lot of ins and outs on
the building. The sidewalk is narrow along the front of the building.
Normally, the Garden Center isn't along the street, but in this particular
case it is so we've gone to some lengths to decorate the fence so that it
looks more architectural. The loading dock is about 300' off the street
so it won't be "jumping right out" at people as they go by.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he was having a little trouble following
the roof and elevation plans. He asked about the forms on the Gerald
Ford side of the building and where they are on the roof plan so that he
could see what's happening in terms of ins and outs. Mr. Landa stated
that the roofs on the Garden Center are setback from the fence 10'-20'.
On the roof plan, they left out the fence and the forms are part of the
fence. Commissioner Vuksic asked how far the tan and blue forms
come out. Mr. Landa commented that they come out about 16"-18".
They would be masonry with a stucco finish. The shallowest ones have
to be about 2' deep in order to work structurally because they're
basically cantilevered out of the ground. There's nothing behind the
structure. The fence would be made of tubular steel. Commissioner
Vuksic asked about the adjacent property. Mr. Drell stated that there
will be apartments (Sares-Regis) on the east side of Lowe's which will
be about 4'-5' lower. The landscape plan shows a line of trees along
the property line. We've talked about getting Lowe's and Sares-Regis
together to landscape the property line in one effort. The apartments
will be two story. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the back side
of Lowe's is 27' tall, but it's really dwarfed by the parapets over the top
of it. Mr. Landa stated that you'd have to be a long way away to see
the back of the parapet. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's not the
intent of Lowe's to wrap the parapet all the way around. They intend to
just do the front and the sides. Mr. Landa stated that the equipment
will be behind the parapet wall. Commissioner Van Vliet commented
that you might be able to see the equipment from a distance. He
suggested wrapping the parapet all the way around. Mr. Landa stated
that the units themselves are only about 3' tall and they'll be below the
parapet line. Commissioner Gregory commented that the back would
be visible by someone traveling west on Gerald Ford. Mr. Landa
commented that he could do a site line study. If you're going to see it,
you're only going to see a little bit of the top. Commissioner Van Vliet
asked if there was a problem wrapping the parapet around and making
it look like a full element. Mr. Landa commented that they're going to
be about 300' or 400' off the road. That's quite a distance across quite
a lot of roof before you'd ever see this. Your site line is going to be 20'
below the parapet. Mr. Drell commented that they have to prove why it
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR040608.MIN 10
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 8, 2004
MINUTES
can't be seen. They also want a site line from the apartments. Mr.
Landa stated that it wouldn't be a problem at all to do the study. Mr.
Drell asked if it would be a big deal to wrap the back of the parapet
around. Mr. Landa stated that it's more money. He suggested putting
a grill in the back to enclose it so that they still get good air circulation.
Commissioner Gregory stated that he was concemed about the south
elevation. It appears that there are cars parking directly adjacent to the
fence. Mr. Landa stated that the buffers would be about 3' from the
fence. Commissioner Gregory asked if they intended to add a straight
curb with something behind it or would they use wheel stops. Mr.
Landa stated that they typically use wheel stops. Commissioner
Gregory commented that he would prefer seeing a planter of some type
in that area to nestle the building in a little bit. Once you look through
the parking lot trees, which are regularly spaced, that will be a very
strong elevation. The front of the store needs to be accessible but the
blank wall to the left of the main entry could be made to be more
interesting. The south side has a lot of elevation with nothing to break
it up. The forms are nice architecturally, but they have an opportunity
to add a planter there and get some elements to help nestle it in. Mr.
Landa stated that they might be able to add some planters in two small
areas, but they have to maintain a pretty big opening in the middle
because that's where all the deliveries come in for the Garden Center.
Mr. Landa asked about the size of the planters. Commissioner Gregory
commented that the planter on the east side varies from 8'-13', which is
fine. The planter has to have substantial width so that it can actually
work. It will give them the opportunity to plant a few vertical elements
in places where it makes sense. This is not to hide the architecture
because it looks good. The blank wall to the left of the entry needs to
be worked on. Mr. Landa stated that sometimes they leave a blank
area to emphasize the architecture.
Commissioner Vuksic commented that some of the blank areas look
better on the elevations than they really will because they have
horizontal lines drawn through them, but basically they're a split -face
type of texture. The texture is not strong enough to pull off the areas
that he's talking about. The area to the left of the entry is too blank.
The wall next to it with the palm trees has a big blank wall with a little
door in it, which is going to look too plain. It serves as a canvas for the
shadows of the trees, which is sort of a neat idea but it's got a little
service door stuck in it. Mr. Landa stated that the fire code forces them
to have a door every 100' because of the nature of the storage inside
the building. Commissioner Vuksic stated that then he needs to work
with it and do something there. Where you've done stuff, it looks nice.
The entry has huge forms and he'd like to see them carried back
G:Planning'Donna Quaiver\wpdocs'Agmin\AR040608.MIN
11
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 8, 2004
MINUTES
further. It looks very lopsided on the side elevations so they should go
back at least twice as far as they are now. The north elevation has a
lot of very blank -looking wall. There should be some plane changes at
the stepped areas. They need to do more to this very blank wall. The
horizontal lines are deceiving. They make it look better than it's really
going to look. The River has very successfully dealt with some very
large, blank walls by just having some nice patterning with different
colors or textures of block veneer. Sometimes it's nice to have a blank
wall as a relief from all the excitement that's going on in another area.
There needs to be the right balance and they're not there yet. On the
back, there's a lot of concern. Commissioner Lopez suggested
texturing or color blocking the rear elevation. Mr. Landa stated that this
is the delivery area and won't be seen. Commissioner Vuksic stated
that he's not asking that the back look like the front but the back has to
look acceptable because you do see it from places other than the
delivery people. Commissioner Lambell commented that the east
elevation will be seen from the apartments. Mr. Landa stated that
they've already put a lot of texture and variations on this wall that they
normally wouldn't do. Mr. Drell suggested possibly just using paint.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that he didn't feel that paint would be
enough, but it would help a lot. Try to find the line of acceptability.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked about the external roof drains on the
back side. Mr. Landa stated that they use a basic conductor head into
a basic down spout, which are 5" x 14". Commissioner Vuksic stated
that they're substantial and there's a certain order to them.
Commissioner Lambell asked about the location of the cart storage.
Mr. Landa stated that there are a number of cart corrals throughout the
parking lot. There's an area inside the store where the carts are
brought in for the customers to access. The lumber carts are usually
lined up in the aisles in the lumber department.
Commissioner Vuksic asked about roof access. Mr. Landa stated that
the access to the roof is inside the building.
Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic to continue the request with the following comments: (1) wrap
parapet around all sides of the roof -mounted equipment, (2) add planter
area at south side of building (approximately 8' -13') in front of parking
spaces instead of wheel stops, (3) carry forms back twice as far as
shown on side elevations, (4) add changes in plane on the north
elevation, which is very blank -looking, and (5) add architectural interest
to east elevation, which will be visible from future apartment complex.
Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Hanson absent.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040608.MIN 12
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 22, 2004
MINUTES
5. CASE NO.: MISC 04-36
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): DESERT DESIGN BUILDERS, 42-480
Ritter Circle, #4, Palm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of
16' roof height on a single-family residence.
LOCATION: 74-210 Covered Wagon Trail
ZONE: R-1
Mr. Smith commented that a small portion of the roof element is above
15'. The element is 16' in height, hence the commission would have to
review it. They're maxing out the hip aspect of the roof.
Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez for approval. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van
Vliet absent.
B. Preliminary Plans
1. CASE NO.: PP 04-13
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CHRIS BRATTY, 1920 Main Street,
Suite 850, Irvine, CA 92614
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of revised plans for a 135,152 square foot Lowe's Home
Improvement Center.
LOCATION: NE corner of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive
ZONE:
Mr. Smith stated that the Architectural Review Commission reviewed
plans for Lowe's at its last meeting two weeks ago. The revised plans
were displayed for the commission to review. They've enclosed the
roof element, added some of the pattern work that was missing in the
earlier version on the rear elevation and landscaping adjacent to the
Garden Center.
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocsWgmin\AR040622.MIN
5
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 22, 2004
MINUTES
Commissioner Vuksic asked Chuck Landa, Lowe's architect, about the
types of block that they intend to use. Mr. Landa stated that they're
designing it so that it can be either tilt -up or split -face construction. Part
of it will be precision block and part of it will be split -face block. If it's
tilt -up, they would use some kind of form liners to give it the same kind
of texture.
Commissioner Gregory asked Mr. Landa about his approach on the
blank panel to the left of the main entry on the west elevation. Mr.
Landa stated that he's added banding to break up the bare surface.
Commissioner Lambell asked if it would be a color change or a texture
change. Mr. Landa stated that it'll be a texture change. Commissioner
Vuksic stated that what they've done looks good, but hoped that in
reality there's enough of a change. Mr. Landa stated that they've done
a similar type of banding with a contrasting texture on another project
and it does read very well, especially in a bright light situation.
Commissioner Hanson commented that the overall color palette
seemed awfully Tight. There's not going to be a lot of dissimilarity
between the lavender color and precision block. Mr. Landa stated that
the block will be painted. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the
hues are alright, but it's amazing how the colors wash out in the desert
environment. The lighter colors will look blinding white on the building.
They may want to adjust the colors. Commissioner Hanson asked if all
the tilt -up panels or the block would be painted. Mr. Landa stated that
they would be painted. Lowe's philosophy is that they have to put a
sealer on it anyway so they may as well put a colored sealer on it.
Commissioner Hanson suggested that they make the colors a little
darker by a shade.
Commissioner Vuksic asked what was changed on the east elevation
that faces the residences. Mr. Landa stated that there was concem
expressed about the back of the parapet. They've closed the back of
the parapet so that it doesn't look like a false front and they've done a
site line study which shows that it won't be seen by the residences.
Commissioner Vuksic asked about articulating the rear elevation with
some type of pattern. Mr. Landa stated that they're keeping the same
patterns that were originally proposed but instead of hiding the down
spout elements they're doing them in a different color to break up the
linear feel to the east elevation. Commissioner Vuksic commented that
he was concemed about people in the neighboring property looking at
the east elevation of Lowe's. It seems like they could do something
more with color and patterns in this area. Mr. Landa stated that on the
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin1AR040622.MIN 6
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
JUNE 22, 2004
MINUTES
other walls they've mainly articulated with patterns. Commissioner
Gregory stated that the utility area of a building is looked at as basically
a service -related space and maybe it wouldn't be too difficult to make it
somewhat more interesting. Mr. Landa stated that generally he thinks
about the other elevations and forgets about the back of the building.
He could do some additional banding. Commissioner Vuksic
commented that this could be done at a staff level. Mr. Drell asked if
the banding should be done with texture or color. Commissioner Vuksic
stated that he thinks that it needs both texture and color.
Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lopez for preliminary approval subject to addressing patterning, texture
and color of banding on the east elevation and the selected colors on
the building being a shade darker than they're currently represented
with approval by staff. Motion carried 6-0-0-1 with Commissioner Van
Vliet absent.
2. CASE NO.: CUP 04-06
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CINGULAR WIRELESS, 3345
Michelson Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval
of a wireless telecommunications facility including a 65' high mono-
palrn and equipment shelter.
LOCATION: 38-105 Portola Avenue, Santa Rosa Country Club
ZONE: OS
Mr. Urbina stated that staff contacted the management at Santa Rosa
Country Club where the second mono -palm is proposed. There's
already an existing mono -palm at Santa Rosa Country Club which is
56' in height with five live palm trees surrounding it. Staff contacted the
management today and spoke to the general manager asking him if
there was a possibility if the second proposed mono -palm by Cingular
Wireless could relocate immediately west of the existing mono -palm.
The reason for that is where the applicant for Cingular is proposing
their mono -palm would be substantially closer than where the existing
one is. The proposed mono -palm would only be 15' from the fronds to
the property line of Palm Desert Greens mobile home subdivision and
64' from the existing mono -palm. The manager indicated that he was
G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR040622.MIN 7
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer
SUBJECT: PP 4-13 Lowe's Building Center
DATE: June 8, 2004
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above -referenced project:
(1) Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be designed to
retain a 100 year storm .and to retain nuisance water on -site. Any off -site drainage shall be
preceded with property owner's permission.
(2) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project.
(3)
The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of
said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
(4) 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
a grading permit.
(5) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
(6) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
(7)
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 to be approved bythe Public
Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite
improvements prior to permit issuance.
(8) Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on -site shall be drought tolerant
in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner per City of Palm Desert
standards. Owner shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City of
Palm Desert
(9) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust
Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.
(10) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site
improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for checking
and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary landscape plans shall be
submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
(11) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Future develpment pad
shown at the northern part of the site shall be lowered to 316'.
(12) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the city's
Circulation Network including the following:
• Full improvement of Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey Avenue with 75' dedication to
accommodate a 9' half center median, 3 thru travel lanes, a bike lane, and 8' sidewalk within
a 24' parkway.
• Deceleration lanes shall be installed at the westerly entrance on Gerald Ford Drive and all
Monterey Avenue entrances.
• Developer shall install a landscaped center median on MontereyAvenue and be reimbursed
by the City of Palm Desert for half the cost.
• Right -of -way dedication shall be of sufficient width to include dual left turn lanes on
southbound Monterey Avenue at Gerald Ford Drive.
• Proposed public street at the northern edge of the site shall be improved with a 26' half
street section within 38 feet of right-of-way.
• Northern driveway on Monterey Avenue shall be left and right in only, with no left out.
• An assessment district may be formed to install some of these improvements.
Rights -of -way necessaryforthe installation of the above referenced improvements shall be
dedicated to the city prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project.
(13) This project shall be limited to two driveways each on Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey
Avenue, and one on the proposed street on the northern end of the project. Driveway and
parking Tots shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a standard inspection
fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Driveway shall be 30' minimum in width.
The minimum length of the driveway throats -the distance between the prolongation of the
curb on Monterey Avenue and the first break in the parking lot islands -shall be 100'.
(14) Grading shall be co-ordinated with the property to the east so that the property line shall be
located at the top of slope.
Mark Greenwood, P.E.
G1PubWorks\Conditions of Approva!PPLANS\PP 4-13 Lowe's.wpd
CALIFORNIA
PcIRE1PRO T c449),
Tom Tisdale
Fire Chief
Proudly serving the
unincorporated
areas of Riverside
County and the
cities of:
Banning
r'•
Beaumont
Calimesa
Canyon Lake
•
Coachella
•
Desert Hot Springs
•
Indian Wells
•
Indio
Lake Elsinore
•
La Quinta
•
Moreno Valley
•
Palm Desert
•
Perris
Rancho Mirage
•
San Jacinto
Temecula
Board of Supervisors
Bob Buster
District 1
John Tavaglione
District 2
Jim Venable
District 3
Roy Wilson
District 4
Tom Mullen
District 5
RIVERSIDE C, _AUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
In cooperation with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 • (909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910
Cove Fire Marshal's Office
73710 Fred Waring Drive #222
Palm Desert CA 92260
(760) 346-1870
TO:
REF: ba, ° 7 (/3
If circled, conditions apply to proiect
DATE: -5.7Z
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal
Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
�,. remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed
on the job site.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
gpm flow of:
3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings
3000 gpm for commercial buildings
The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super
Hydrant (s) 4"x 2 '/" x 2 %Z", located not less than 25' nor more than:
6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
vehicular travelway
150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via
vehicular travelway
Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include
verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow.
10.
Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow.
Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all
buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire
Marshal shall approved the locations of all post indicator valves and
fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be
less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler
systems and Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per
CBC Chapter 9.
Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one
2AI OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking
distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial
kitchens.
Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96
in all public and private cooking operations except single-family
residential usage.
16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an
operation that produces airborne particles.
All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story.
The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and
13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on
both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide
with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be
provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial
developments.
10 Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of'
gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a
"Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle
access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical
clearance of 13'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire
Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be
accepted.
20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main
access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an
adjoining development.
This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to
facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and
occupancv type.
All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by
the city.
All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval
prior to construction.
Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances,
laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve
months.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Waring Drive #222, Palm Desert CA 92260
Other:
,5(
Sincerely,
David A. Avila
Fire Marshal
INTEROFFICE MEMORADUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: STEVE SMITH, PLANNING MANAGER
FROM: FRANKIE RIDDLE, MANAGEMENT ANALYST
SUBJECT: PP 04-13: EN ENGINEERING FOR LOWE'S
DATE: JUNE 2, 2004
The precise plan has been reviewed to determine the need for a bus shelter/stop
at the project location and inclusion of required trash/recycling enclosure for each
project.
Bus Shelter: I have discussed this project with Leslie Grosjean of SunLine
regarding the need for a bus stop/shelter at this project site. This project is
located on an existing or future bus route expansion plan along Gerald Ford and
Monterey Ave.; therefore, a bus shelter/stop and turnout lane will be conditioned
as part of this project. As this project is located at the corner of Gerald Ford and
Monterey, the location of the bus stop/shelter and turnout lane should be on
Monterey Ave. after the entrance and approximately 300' to 400' south project
property line.
Trash Enclosures: The plan does not appear to adequate address trash
enclosure(s) needs. The plan must provide for a trash/recycling enclosure that is
consistent with the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The construction of trash
enclosures shall be consistent with PDMC, Chapter 8.12. Waste Management of
the Desert's must review and approve the plans prior to final approval by the
City, as it is their vehicles that will be servicing the complex and who determine
trash capacity for the complex. They should also assist in determining the
location of enclosure to meet the circulation needs of the disposal (waste) trucks.
The Applicant may contact Jennifer at Waste Management of the Desert at (760)
340-6445 regar¢jng this issue.
FRANKIE RIDDLE
MANAGEMENT ANALYST
cc: Amir Hamidzadeh, Director of Building and Safety
Mark Greenwood, P.E. City Engineer
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
From: Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist
Date: June 7, 2004
Subject: Lowe's of Palm Desert
Steve, as requested, I have reviewed the proposed preliminary landscape plan for the
Lowe's in Palm Desert. Following are my comments:
The oak tree choice for the parking lot may take some time to achieve a
canopy for shade.
The ash tree is a good choice but will require a larger planter (10' X 10' at
least) due to the extensive root system.
Perhaps the use of structural soil should be considered where enlarging
the planter is not possible.
Do not use Brachychiton trees. They sunburn and they defoliate. There
are other choices for screening that can be used. (What are they trying to
screen?)
While there is an extensive shrub list, most of the planter areas appear to
be decomposed granite. Where are the shrubs to go?
Specify plant spacing.
Specify type and size of d.g.
Some parking areas do not meet the City of Palm Desert's Parking lot
Tree Ordinance.
The planters look to be narrow. Please verify the length and width of the
planters at the end of the row of parking.
There is no approved grading plan at this time to compare the preliminary landscape/
hardscape plan against.
Should you have questions or comments contact Diane Hollinger at extension 444.
G:\PubWorksDDiane Hollinger\Word Data\Memcs\Steve Smith Lowes.doc
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
From: H. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager
Date: July 15, 2004
Subject: Lowe's of Palm Desert
In response to your request, I have reviewed the preliminary landscape plan for Lowe's.
The pad is relatively level and the landscape will not provide a significant amount of
screening. I request that additional screening be provided through the use of a low
garden wall (30 — 40 inches in height) and/or mounding. A combination of mounding
and a garden wall would be preferable.
If you have any questions please contact me at extension 454.
Cc: Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist
G:\PubWorks\Spencer Knight\My Documents\MEMOS\MEMO-Steve Smith Lowes.dot
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
From: Deborah Schwartz, Public Art Coordinator °"
Date: 05/07/04
Subject: Lowe's Building Center (Case No. PP04-13)
The Art In Public Places Department recommends that the public art fee for the Lowe's
Building Center be used for an onsite public art project. We estimate that the total fee is
approximately $54,000 and feel that this amount will allow for a significant public art
project.
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 'TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS: OFFICERS:
JOHN W. McFAODEN, PRESIDENT
PETER NELSON, VICE PRESIDENT
TELLIS CODEKAS
RUSSELL KITAHARA
PATRICIA A. LARSON
May 26, 2004
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Gentlemen:
STEVEN 8. ROBBINS,
GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
MARK BEUHLER,
ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
JULIA FERNANDEZ, SECRETARY
DAN PARKS, ASST. TO GENERAL MANAGER
REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 0163.1
0421.1
0721.1
Subject: Precise Plan No. 04-13
This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of Palm Desert and is considered safe
from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at
this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Drainage from this area is contributory to the Mid -Valley Stormwater Project. The city shall
require mitigation measures to be incorporated into the development to prevent flooding of
the site or downstream properties. These measures shall include on -site retention of water
from the 100-year storm, dedication of right-of-way for regional flood control facilities or
other participation in the financing of regional flood control facilities.
The District will famish domestic water and sanitation service to this area i accordance with
the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain
fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change.
Applicant required to sign lower pressure water agreement letter.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 58 and 81 of the District for
sanitation service.
The District requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box,
sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities.
The size of the grease interceptor will be determined by the Riverside County Environmental
Health Department and approved by the District. Installation of the interceptor will be
inspected by the District.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert -2- May 26, 2004
The District requires detail, repair and Tube auto shops and car washes to install an oil and
sand separator, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to
any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the oil and sand separator will be
determined by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the
District. Installation of the oil and sand separator will be inspected by the District.
The District requires laundromats and commercial establishments with laundry facilities to
install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined by the Riverside County
Environmental Health Department and approved by the District. Installation of the lint trap
will be inspected by the District.
Pianis for guiding, landscaping and irrigation systems shall lot; submitted to the Distiict for
review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Dan Charlton, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2316.
Yours very truly,
Patti Schwartz
Assistant Director of Engineering
cc: Majeed Farshad
Riverside County Department of Transportation
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, California 92201
Jeff Johnson
Riverside County Department of Public Health
82-675 Highway 111, CAC Building, Second Floor, Room 209
Indio, California 92201
DC: tf\eng\sw\maylpp-04- 13
040629-3
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
June 4, 2004
City of Palm Desert
Attn: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: PP 04-13
Dear Mr. Smith,
Via Fax and Mail
MMUNIT'i
CITY OF PALM D'63E;10'
Thank you for sending the latest Lowe's site plan. Phil Drell said he would not take our
letter in good faith and that no EIR is being done "just to keep environmental consultants
in business".
Anyhow, enclosed is a blow up of a zoning map for the area in RM across from Lowe's
site. Please take a look at the blue line comments I put on the plan related to access
points.
Sincerely,
Planning Manager
AlYYC, _ Tti'3TiCN
Tel (7'50) 3.24-45' 1
F r7 0 324.3830
C:OM UN7Y aol-ncr+1 i,mancc
Tel. (76C; 328-2'66 T'.: (763` 77Q-3737
y. (76(j) 322 1 Fax.(760) 324-:,,523
AUT'+ORIT`%
•• 6 ) 7 o 321':
F�a:iC LIDRARV
Tel (760) 34 1 -7323
Fay. (C60 3 :1 -52 13
PUBLIC
TO. (760) 77'5•3224
Fax. (760) 770 �231
09 F25 14;C4-t.`JAY 111 't4i•4C}I-0 CA 93 7i0
5-27-04; 7:45M;CITY RANCHO MIRAOE
:3249851
CITY OF R
May 27, 2004
City of Palm Desert
Attn: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: PP 04-13
Dear Mr. Smith,
M1 RAGG
Via Fax and Mail
Thank you for requesting our comments on the Lowe's project proposed at the northeast
corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Monterey Avenue. On May 13, 2004 we received your
Request for Conunents form, along with only two exhibits: the landscape plan and
building elevations.
It appears obvious that a project of this magnitude requires the preparation of a project
specific Environmental Impact Report. At the very least questionable land use
compatibility, traffic and air quality impacts will affect the City of Rancho Mirage.
CEQA provides that if it is obvious an EIR should be prepared, you may skip the Initial
Study and direct the applicant to hold a Scoping Session. Since we were not given an
Initial Study to review we must assume an EIR is being prepared. Please invite both
Rancho Mirage Planning and Public Works to the Scoping Session. At that time when
more exhibits are presented we will be in a better position to conunent of the proposal as
it impacts Rancho Mirage. Scoping helps to identify the range of actions, alternatives,
environmental effects, methods of assessment, and mitigation measures to be analyzed in
depth, and may eliminate from detailed study those issues that are not important to the
issues at hand. This may allow a focused EIR, using the General Plan EIR as
incorporated by reference for those effects not considered potentially significant from the
specific project.
Thank you for considering our comments. We were given 11 business days to comment
on this significant project on our city boundary; comments were due at 5:00 pm today.
This letter is being faxed at 7:45 pm. Given the growth in the valley and planning
workload, we hope you accept these comments in good faith.
Planning Manager
ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DE'4ELOPMEf1T FINANCE HOUSING AUTHORITY PUDLIC LIDRARY PUDLIC WORKS
Tel. (760) 324-4511 Tel. (760) 328-2266 Tel. (760) 770-3207 Tel. (760) 770-3210 Tel. (760) 341-7323 Tel. (760) 770-3224
Fax. (760) 324.8830 Fax. (760) 324-9851 Fax. (760) 324-0528 Fax. (760) 770-3261 Fax. (760) 341.5213 Fax. (760) 770-3261
69-825 ?-+ICI-FWAV 111 /.12AIIC40 MIRAGE, CA 92270
www.ci.rancho-mirage.ca.us
Received May-27-2004 18:52 From-3249851 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001
PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT
Served by the
Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Bob Doyle, Sheriff -Coroner
73520 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 836-1600 Fax (760) 836-1616
May 10, 2004
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
ATTN: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
RE: PP 04-13
Dear Mr. Smith,
REC
$ ,;4
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT „LOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lowe's Building Center, located on the
northeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive in Palm Desert. Complete plans were not
submitted showing the specific design of the interior sales area, garden area, storage area, and receiving
area. At this time I will comment on the overall general building design, and request the right to review
the detailed plans for the buildings when they become available. The following issues of concern related
to public safety and law enforcement are presented:
1. Current Planned Design:
A. Exterior Building Security: The exterior doors should be of steel construction and secured
with a heavy-duty type lock to provide protection against forced entry. I recommend a
security alarm system be installed for all exterior doors/windows along with interior motion
sensors and roof hatch sensors. The subscriber (Lowes) should provide the servicing alarm
vendor with a point of contact, and/or responder in the event of an alarm activation. The
responder is normally a manager or assistant manager with keys to all areas of the building
that could meet with deputies in the event of an alarm activation. I also recommend a Knox
Box with a key to the front door be mounted on the exterior of the building, near the front
doors. In the event of an alarm activation and a responder is not available, deputies could
enter the building and search for intruders when the business is closed.
B. Security Cameras: The use of security cameras may also prevent loss of business equipment
and/or merchandise. The security cameras should function continuously and should be
recorded on VHS Videotapes or digital recorders and should be stored for a minimum of 45
days for future review in the event a past theft or crime needs to be investigated by police.
C. Exterior Lighting Plan: (Refer to Post -Construction Comments).
Page 2
D. Roof Access: The exterior of the building should not have exterior ladders, stored equipment,
or landscaping (i.e. trees) that would allow access to the roof by unauthorized persons.
Additionally, all roof top vents and hatches should be reinforced and locked to prevent forced
access. There should be an interior ladder, locked with the padlock keyed the same as the
front door, that leads to the roof in the event deputies need to access the roof in the event of an
alarm activation or emergency situation.
E. Landscaping: The landscape design should be based on the use of planted items that will not
overgrow areas of the business and/or property. For example, trees or shrubs, should not be
planted as to block the outside view of the front glass windows/doors, nor should they be
planted in a manner that will obstruct observation of exterior doors from the surrounding
roadways. Additionally, the selection of the proper type landscaping, along with its proper
placement, can help deter graffiti and other vandalism.
2. Construction Site:
A. Exterior Fence: Prior to construction of any structure, a material storage area should be
established along the perimeter of the property and enclosed by a six (6) foot chain link fence
with locking gates to minimize theft of materials and/or equipment.
B. Equipment, Staffing, and Supervision: It is recommended that a list of serial and/or license
numbers of equipment stored at the location be maintained both at the site and at any off -site
main office. The public and non -essential employees should have restricted access to the
construction areas. Current emergency contact information for the project and construction
supervisor should be kept on file with the Palm Desert Police Department. A list of
construction employee's names who are permitted to be on the construction site in the evening
hours should be kept with the construction supervisor in the event deputies check the site and
locate unauthorized personnel. Any phones at the site that are blocked for outgoing calls
should not be blocked from dialing 9-1-1.
C. Lighting and Storage: The developer and/or builder's name, address, and phone number
should be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Visibility into the construction site
should not be intentionally hampered by equipment or storage of construction materials. Any
stored construction material should be stored near as possible to the center of the site and
should be kept at a minimum height to allow view into the site from the surrounding roadways.
The construction site should be well lit during hours of darkness to prevent intruders and all
entrances and exits should be clearly marked and locked when not in use.
D. Parking and Temporary Roadways: Designate and establish specific parking areas for
construction site workers and employees. The parking areas and commercial areas on the
premises should be accessible to emergency vehicles at all times with paved pathways of
sufficient width to accommodate such vehicles in the event of emergencies.
Page 3
3. Post Construction & Project Completion:
A. Lighting: The current proposal does not include an exterior lighting plan for the location. All
exterior lighting standards and fixtures should be resistant to vandalism and tampering. The
standards should be of a height to reduce any tampering or damage. It is recommend that
metal halide type lighting be used for the reasons of accurate color rendition and increased
visibility. Each exterior door along the sides and rear of the building should have a light above
them that is out of reach and tamper proof.
B. Graffiti Issues: Prior to occupancy, the surface of walls, fences, buildings, logo monuments,
etc... should be graffiti resistant either through surface composition, applied paint type and/or
planned shielding by landscaping or plants.
C. Business Numbering or Monument: The property address should be prominently displayed
and visible from the adjacent roadways. The numbers affixed to the building should be a
minimum of a't' high block style numbers, id" in width, and of contrasting color from the
building facade. This will assist in emergency responses by the fire department or the Palm
Desert Police Department.
4. Vehicular Traffic:
A. Monterey Avenue: Monterey Avenue's posted speed limit is currently 60 Miles Per Hour for
north and southbound traffic. The plans show the addition of one northbound lane on the east
side of the roadway from Gerald Ford Drive and ends at the proposed intersection north of the
project. Prior to this additional lane, and just south of Gerald Ford Drive, there are still only
two lanes for northbound traffic. In my experiences and observations of vehicular traffic as a
patrol deputy, my opinion is that some northbound traffic may use this additional lane as a
passing area. Since most of the traffic would already be at approximately 60 MPH, the
passing vehicles may far exceed this posted limit due to the short distance of the lane. This
might present a problem for northbound vehicles slowing to turn into the complex as well as
vehicles exiting the complex to turn northbound. I recommend at least a 100 foot decelleration
lane and 100 foot excelleration lane at the entyway of the complex on Monterey Avenue.
B. Due to the length of uninterrupted travel for vehicles traveling north or sound on the first lane
of the parking lot, just east of Monterey Avenue, I would also recommend posting stop signs
for this traffic at the entry/exit to the complex on Monterey Avenue.
C. Currently, the roadway in front of the proposed project only has a center median with painted
double solid yellow lines to prevent illegal turns. I recommend a raised curb median be
installed allowing only a northbound turn onto Monterey Avenue for vehicles leaving the
complex.
D. Gerald Ford Drive: Due to the existing roadway conditions on Gerald Ford Drive, I did not
forsee any significant problems with vehicular traffic in the area of this proposed project.
Page 4
Should the Planning Department Manager, developer, or construction staff have any questions regarding
the above law enforcement and public safety concerns, they may contact Deputy Robert Bishop at (760)
836-1671, between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
Res ectfully Submitted
Deputy Robert Bis
ID#2759
Palm Desert Police Department
EIIY Of MUM DES' I
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
into®palm-descry. org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.: PP 04-13
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by EN Engineering on behalf of Lowe's Home
Improvement for approval of a precise plan of design and negative declaration of Environmental
Impact for a 135,152 square foot home improvement center at the northeast corner of Monterey
Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, 35-850 Monterey Avenue.
DWI, Oa
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
APN 653-260-018
.a
SAID public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 in the Council Chamber
in the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and
place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all
items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing.
Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in
the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
June 28, 2004 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY Of PULfD DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 76o 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
I nfo@palm-desert. org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. PP 04-13
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by EN Engineering on behalf of Lowe's Home Improvement
for approval of a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
for a 135,152 square foot home improvement center at the northeast corner of Monterey
Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, 35-850 Monterey Avenue. Project includes a height
exception to permit architectural projections at 34 feet, 36 feet, 44 feet and 48 feet. Project
also includes a height exception for the wall -mounted sign at 30 feet.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 26, 2004, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
August 12, 2004 City of Palm Desert, California