Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 01-101 and Ord 1004 CZ 01-03 PP 01-07 at 41505 Carlotta Drive
Ordinance No. 1004 Resolution No. 01-101 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of a request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a change of zone plan of design for the - PR 1 1 and aprecise a from PR 10 to p g addition of 82 new single story units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living) with the existing 22 assisted living units converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building. New units to be constructed on the westerly 7.7 acres of the existing Fountains at the Carlotta site at 41- 505 Carlotta Drive. III. APPLICANT: The Fountains Mainiero, Smith and Associates 2020 West Rudisill Road 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Tucson, AZ 85709 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Todd Pratt 821 Rollin Street S. Pasadena, CA 91030 IV. CASE NOS: C/Z 01-03 and PP 01-07 V. DATE: August 23, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. 01-bland Draft Ordinance No. 1004 B. Planning Commission Minutes C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2080 D. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated May 15, June 19 and July 17, 2001 E. Related maps and/or exhibits 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That City Council: 1 . Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1004 to second reading. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 01-10lapproving PP 01-07, subject to conditions. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . Current Proposal and Background and Project Description The Fountains at the Carlotta has existed on Carlotta Drive for many years. The facility currently offers 1 1 1 residential apartments, a 59 bed skilled nursing facility and a 22 unit assisted living facility on a 19.4 acre site. The westerly side of the property is currently vacant and covered with turf. The applicant wishes to develop the westerly side of the site (7.7 acres) with 82 new single story units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living units) and convert the 22 existing assisted living units into an Alzheimer facility. This project has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission along with a change of zone from PR-10 to PR-1 1 . 2. Background The applicant originally requested a more intensive, two-story project. Staff looked at the project as falling into the senior overlay category and processed it as a general plan amendment, change of zone and development agreement. The senior overlay provisions would have permitted up to 970 persons over the entire 19.4 acre site. The project at that time would have had a total of 472 equivalent persons per the S.O. provisions. At public hearings held by Planning Commission on May 15 and June 19, 2001 the neighborhood expressed concerns with the project as follows: a. Light glare leaving the site b. Noisy entry gate at south side of property c. Fire department leaving flashing lights running once it arrives at site d. Traffic volumes 2 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 e. Project magnitude, density and height f. On-site circulation g. Number of employees h. Blind spot around center entry gate i. Number of persons attending special events and parking outside RESPONSE TO ISSUES a. Light glare leaving the site. Response: Prior to the June 19, 2001 meeting the applicant installed shields to control glare. b. Noisy south entry gate. Response: Prior to June 19, 2001 meeting the applicant installed rubber wheels to quiet the gate. c. Flashing lights on parked emergency vehicles. Issue: Neighbors expressed concern that emergency vehicles go to the site at all times of day and night and that once they arrived they left vehicles running with emergency flashing lights which are irritating after dark. Response: Prior to June 19, 2001 meeting the applicant worked with the Fire Department to have the lights shut off once the vehicle reaches the site. d. Traffic volumes. Residents expressed concern that traffic levels on Carlotta Drive are high and would increase when Hovley Lane is improved and that traffic backed up at the south entry gate. Response: The applicant had a traffic study prepared which showed that the Fountains contributed only about 225 vehicle trips per day. 3 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 Ultimately the applicant reduced the size of the project and modified the zone change request. This project will result in maximum built out of the Carlotta site. The site plan provides for a redesign on the south entry to add stacking. Also, Planning Commission imposed a condition requiring the gate to be open during shift changes so that employees do not stack into the street. e. Magnitude, density and height. Residents expressed concern that the original project which proposed the senior overly (S.O.) district would have allowed up to 970 persons on the site and that the two story assisted living facility would impact their views from their two-story homes. Response: The applicant withdrew the S.O. zone change request, reduced the number of units, and eliminated the second story on the assisted living. f. On-site circulation. Residents to the south of the south entrance expressed concern that delivery trucks, trash trucks, emergency vehicles and employees were creating impacts at all times of the day and night entering and exiting the site. Response: The applicant revised the site plan to add a third north access gate and at one point offered to create a circulation system which entered at the south entry, traveled around the perimeter of the site and exited at the new north gate. This solution to one problem resulted in a petition from residents to the north of the new north gate saying they did not want the impacts moved north to them. As well, the Carlotta Residents Council opposed altering the on-site circulation and moving those vehicles to their side of the site. The Residents Council does support the additional gate but for residential use only (i.e., no delivery or employee traffic). 4 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 g. Number of employees. Residents expressed concern that the applicant was understating the number of employees that would be required for the larger project. Response: The applicant reduced the project size. h. Blind spot around center entry gate. Residents expressed concern that vehicles exiting the center gate had impaired lines of vision. Response: Planning Commission imposed a condition to red curb 40 feet on either side of the entry. The most recent site plan shows a revised center gate entry system with a dedicated lane for Carlotta residents. Number of persons attending special events. Residents expressed concern that special events held at the Carlotta occasionally resulted in over flow parking using Carlotta Drive. Response: Planning Commission imposed a condition limiting special events to 12 per year and limited the size to the number of parking spaces available onsite. Between the Planning Commission meetings of June 19 and July 17, 2001 , staff altered its position relative to the number of new units we would support and therefore the need for the general plan amendment/change of zone to add "senior overlay" to the site. Effectively staff took the position that the Carlotta would be entitled to develop the remaining vacant property (7.7 acres) based on the existing PR-10 zoning (i.e., 77 units). 5 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 With this knowledge the applicant revised the proposal to 82 new units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living). The new units will all be single story and a new Alzheimer building was deleted. The revised plan retained the proposed new north access gate and redesigned the existing south gate. It (south gate) will remain open during shift changes. The total number of new units will be 82 units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living). The existing 22 assisted living units will be converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building. This revised proposal and staff position was presented to Planning Commission at its July 17, 2001 meeting. The issue at that time came down to the total number of new units 77 versus 82. The applicant made his case for the additional five (5) units. Ultimately, Planning Commission accepted the applicant's proposal and recommended approval of a zone change from PR-10 to PR-1 1 in order that the 82 units could be approved. The neighborhood basically accepted the revised proposal because it had addressed many of the concerns and by not going to the "senior overlay" density it took away much of the future uncertainty (i.e., would the Carlotta come back in the future to increase the density to up to 970 persons as would have been allowed under the Senior Overlay zone). The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project subject to conditions. 3. Events Since Planning Commission Action The Residents Council at the Carlotta has continued to provide input in support of its position. Specifically, it wants the north gate added back into the project and that the limit on the number of special events be eliminated. The applicant also has asked for further consideration with respect to three (3) conditions: a. Delivery hours for commercial vehicles b. Trash pick up hours 6 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 c. Limit on number of special events Also, the applicant notes that they will request a modified center gate to include a "resident only by-pass gate." This revision is shown on the revised site plan distributed to City Council. In the matter of adding the north gate back into the project, the Resident Council met with the Fire Department who issued a letter dated August 1 , 2001 that states that "a new northern access is and was appropriate." Later the letter notes "At the very least we should add an additional point of access and restrict the use to emergency vehicles only through the Knox Box System." This latter suggestion is consistent with Fire Department comments of May 9, 2001 where they stated, "we will need some type of secondary access." This latter condition was included as condition number 19 of the Fire Department section of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2080. The Fire Department will need to decide if they want a new, separate north gate on the Knox Box and limit use to emergency vehicles only or they may wish to consider whether the revised center gate design would better serve their needs. Staff does not support the reintroduction of the north gate for use by the general public and delivery vehicles. To do so would be to spread those impacts further into a residential community. If the Fire Department wants another access point for emergency vehicles only, then this can be provided in the approximate location of the northerly gate but strictly limited to emergency vehicles only. The Planning Commission resolution condition number 23 limits the Carlotta to 12 special events per year. The Residents Council seeks elimination of the condition while the applicant indicates it will request a revised number of events. The concern expressed at the Planning Commission hearings was that special events occasionally attracted large crowds and resulted in parking spilling over onto Carlotta Drive. The staff position on this was and is that Carlotta Drive is constructed to facilitate parking on both sides. While it is our practice to forward resolutions and conditions as 7 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 recommended by Planning Commission, staff does support elimination of this condition. In the matter of conditions 9 and 10 limiting delivery hours and trash collection, staff attempted to strike a balance and suggested that deliveries be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The applicant sought unsuccessfully an earlier hour from Planning Commission. The applicant will discuss this matter further with Council. 4. Project Description The Carlotta facility will consist of four components: skilled nursing, assisted living units, independent living casitas/apartments and an Alzheimer unit. Each product provides progressive levels of senior care, meal services, social and recreational amenities ranging from active independent living to supervised medical care within a relatively low density resort environment. THE NEW FOUNTAINS UNIT MIX: Independent Living Apartments (existing) 1 1 1 units Independent Living Casitas (new) 32 units Skilled Nursing (59 existing) 59 beds Assisted Living (new) 50 units Alzheimer Facility (converted from existing assisted living units) 22 units a. Casitas: The 32 single story casita units will be located in 19 foot high structures (four and eight units per building) which will be located at the northwest corner of the site. The buildings are setback 94 feet from the north property line and have a west setback that ranges from 57 feet to 70 feet. The units range in size from 935 square feet (one bedroom/one bath) to 1 ,200 square feet (two bedrooms/two baths). The unit mix provides 8 one bedroom and 24 two bedroom units. Parking is located adjacent to the units on all four sides. A detailed parking analysis will be provided later. 8 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 b. Assisted Living: This facility is designed for those that require a small degree of help in their daily lives. The 50-unit assisted living complex will be in a wing-shaped one-story building located at the southwest corner of the site with a setback from the west property line that ranges from 50 feet to 160 feet and a setback of 45 feet from the south property line. CIRCULATION AND PARKING: The addition will be served by the existing access points from Carlotta Drive. The existing perimeter driveway system will be extended westerly and will extend along the west property line (10 feet setback for a landscape planter). A minor driveway will run south from the existing north driveway between the existingapartment units and the proposed p p casitas then turn west to connect to the west driveway. Parking spaces (94) are shown on all four sides of the casitas with additional spaces to the south. This parking, coupled with the existing parking, results in a total 320 spaces of which 209 spaces are covered. Required parking is 283 spaces: Existing Apartments 1 1 1 units 1 space/unit* = 139 spaces Casitas 32 units 1 space/unit* = 40 spaces Skilled Nursing 60 beds 1 space/2 beds = 30 spaces Assisted Living 50 units 1 space/unit* = 63 spaces Alzheimer Unit 21 beds 1 space/2 beds = 11 spaces Total Required 283 spaces Parking will be adequate. *based on age 55 years minimum project c. Data Summary: Proiect Ordinance Site Area 19.4 acres --- Parking 320 spaces 283 spaces Setbacks: North 45 feet 20 feet South 45 feet 20 feet West 50 feet to 170 feet 20 feet Height 19 feet 24 feet 9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 AUGUST 23, 2001 5. Architectural Review Commission The ARC at its meeting of April 10, 2001 granted preliminary approval of the original design concept. That included the two story assisted living facility and a new Alzheimer building. Once the applicant has a better indication of the ultimate layout of the project they will go back to ARC with revised plans for the one story assisted living section of the project. 6. Conclusion Staff will recommend that the project be approved as recommended by Planning Commission with deletion of Condition No. 23 and that Condition No. 24 be added to read: That the site plan provide for a secondary fire access to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Said access, should it be located north of the existing center access gates, shall be used for emergency access purposes only and shall be secured with a Knox Box System. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: 6T11 S EVE SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: RICHARD J. FOLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER . ., DEVELOPMENT SERVICES •.. ,........ ar• 10 CITY COUNCIL_ACTION: APPROVED ► DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETIN DATE • - r AYES: ..e •, . e ANSVIIMPRINIMPOWIrallff 4 NOES: ietvr pJ _. ABSENT: . Lt.a yr n) ABSTAIN: _.-'%t-/114_41 VERIFIED BY: k - original on File with dity L;plo 's Office *Approved with conditions to Resolution No. 01-101 to reflect: 1) Unlimited number of special events (no restructions) ; 2) addition of north gate for resident and emergency purposes only; 3) elimination of condition restricting trash service to be replaced with, "That the Applicant shall work with Waste Management to assure that trash collection occurs between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m." RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 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 MAXIMUM ADDITION OF 82 NEW SINGLE STORY UNITS (32 CASITAS AND 50 ASSISTED LIVING) WITH THE EXISTING 22 ASSI STED LIVING UNITS CONVERTED TO AN ALZHEIMER FACILITY WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING. NEW UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE WESTERLY 7.7 ACRES OF THE EXISTING FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA SITE AT 41 - 505 CARLOTTA DRIVE. CASE NO. PP 01-07 WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 23rd day of August, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of The Fountains for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a precise plan of design for a maximum addition of 82 new single story units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living) with the existing 22 assisted living units converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building. New units to be constructed on the westerly 7.7 acres of the existing Fountains at the Carlotta site at 41 -505 Carlotta Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2080 has recommended approval of the precise plan of design; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: 1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone. 2. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 3. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 4. 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. 2. That Precise Plan 01-07 is hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 01-07 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Each casita unit shall have designated a parking space under a carport. 7. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 8. 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. 9. That commercial deliveries shall only occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 10. That parking lot lighting and lighting mounted on the building exteriors shall be mounted below the top height of the adjacent perimeter wall to the west and south. All lighting shall comply with Ordinance 826 which regulates outdoor lighting. 11 . That trash collection shall occur only Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 12. That all delivery vehicle engines be shut off if a truck is parked more than five minutes. Post accordingly inside receiving area. 13. That horn blowing for all delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 14. That loud talking and radio playing associated with delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 15. That the applicant shall implement the redesign of the south entry gate to minimize noise created when the gate opens and closes and make the gate operate in an efficient manner. 16. That all employees shall park on-site and that the entry gate shall remain open during employee shift changes so as to minimize the number of gate movements. 17. That the applicant shall continue to work with the County Fire Department to assure that emergency vehicles turn off their emergency lights when they arrive 4 RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 at the location and that emergency vehicles while serving the facility will park in the service area parking lot area. 18. That delivery vehicles shall park only in the service area parking lot. 19. That the applicant shall work with all delivery vehicle owners/operators to assure compliance with Condition No. 9 above relating to commercial delivery hours. 20. That the project shall comply with all requirements of the planned residential (PR) zone requirements. 21 . That the site plan be revised to delete the proposed north access gate. 22. That the curbs on either side of the mid site entrance gate be painted red for a distance of 40 feet in each direction to improve sight lines. 23. That the maximum number of special events shall be limited to 12 per year and that attendees shall be encouraged to park onsite. Applicant shall limit the number of invited outside guests to the number of on-site parking spaces typically available during the time of the event. 24. That the site plan provide for a secondary fire access to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Said access, should it be located north of the existing center access gates, shall be used for emergency access purposes only and shall be secured with a Knox Box System. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Any storm drain/retention basin construction associated with 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. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 6. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 7. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 8. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC 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. 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 gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 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 a 3,000 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 UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 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 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). 12. 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". 13. 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. 7 ', i RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses or contrasting colors of a size approved by the City. 17. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 18. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: 19. Fire Marshal needs some type of secondary access. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 01-101 EXHIBIT A Article 6 (commencingwith section 15070) of the Pursuant to Title 14 Division6 u California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 01-07 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: The Fountains 2020 W. Rudisill Road Tucson, AZ 85709 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A precise plan of design for a maximum addition of 82 new single story units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living) with the existing 22 assisted living units converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building. New units to be constructed on the westerly 7.7 acres of the existing Fountains at the Carlotta site at 41 -505 Carlotta Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 Dale and Judy Barbat 75 714 Dolmar Court Palm Desert, CA 92211 August 9, 2001 Palm Desert City Council Re: Case Nos. C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 We strongly object to the above referenced zoning change and construction to be done at The Fountains. This is an area of single family homes and the streets are not designed to handle all of the additional traffic. Hovley Lane has too much traffic as it is and at times is almost impossible to turn onto Hovley from Carlotta. August is not an ideal time to schedule this hearing as we, along with others in the area will be on vacation at this particular time so is a little difficult to attend the meeting to voice our objections. Yo rs ly,, 1Y4/2ui ' 2adoi-7L- ale Judy Barbat 114.6 Sit fi IS T Lid CI Jed T0. { SUBJECT T1 REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 B. Case No. PMW 01-24 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT, SCHMID INVESTMENTS AND JACQUES DEBONNE, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to move a lot line between two office professional lots, parcels 14 and 15 of PM 28596, located on Village Court. C. Case No. PMW 01-19 - HOWARD HAIT, FRED AND ELIZABETH PIZZUTO, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to move a lot line between an office professional lot fronting on Monterey Avenue and a single family residential lot fronting on San Antonio Circle. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks may be limited to a maximum of five minutes. A. Case Nos. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 - THE FOUNTAINS, Applicant (Continued from May 15 and June 19, 2001 ) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR- 10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on 3 SUBJECT N "" REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 - 505 Carlotta Drive. Mr. Smith explained staff's position. He said that staff could support 77 units under the current zoning. If the commission was inclined to look at the 82 unit proposal which is what was before the commission this evening, the suggested route would be a zone change amendment to increase the density from 10 units to 11 units per acre. Commissioner Finerty noted that on the information sheet Mr. Smith distributed, it said that the change of zone from PR-10 to PR-1 1 would allow 84 units and the current request had 82 units. She asked for clarification that the applicant only wanted to add 82 but the zone would allow up to 84. Mr. Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an existing PR-11 zoning. Mr. Smith said existing zones included PR-1 7.5, PR-22, and PR-9. It was a very flexible zone. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they had the ability to recommend a PR-11 zone even though it wasn't specifically on the books. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Drell said it was on the books. The PR zone allowed densities from one to 18. Commissioner Jonathan noted that the original application contained a Senior Overlay zone and as a result there were certain concessions, a development agreement, mitigations and cost offsets. He asked what they might be losing in terms of benefits for seniors. Mr. Smith indicated that the previous proposals were requesting significantly more units. In order to support that type of proposal, they were looking for mitigation fees to go into the housing program. If they were to take the 77 units, they would be right on the current zoning. Since they were looking at perhaps five additional units, he wasn't sure a mitigation fee would apply in such a minor manner. If the commission wished, staff could insert the additional five units into the formula used in the original development agreement and come up with a mitigation fee for that amount of extra units. Commissioner Jonathan pointed out that what the City gained under the original proposal was a fee, not senior housing subsidies or new units for seniors that would not otherwise exist and don't now. So what the City was losing was additional mitigation fees. Mr. Smith informed commission that the fees totaled $127,000. Commissioner Jonathan 4 r, ,,,,, ni SUBJECT T( REVLSI©N MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 noted that the fee wouldn't be required if they went with the lower density of 77 units. Chairperson Lopez noted that the public hearing was still open and asked the applicant to address the commission. MS. JULIE FERGUSON, 2020 W. Rudisill in Tucson Arizona, addressed the commission. She indicated that the Fountains had spent the last 30 days working on several of the issues brought before them by their neighbors. After much review, design analysis, and consideration of all of the list of items that they were trying to fit into their project, what the commission saw in front of them was the result of all those conversations and efforts. As they became aware half way through the process, there were some additional concerns raised about the north gate that came in the form of a petition. The Fountains development got caught in the middle of their southern neighbors, their northern neighbors and their neighbors living across the street from them. They tried to make everyone happy, but they had constraints on what they could or could not do. What she thought they came up with was a response that met many of those items as well as some of the concerns as they relate to the absolute maximum density that the Fountains at the Carlotta could have. That was specifically outlined in the requested change. They went from having a request for 105 units to 82 new units on this campus which reduced the density by 22. She noted that the 22 units being deleted were from the conversion of the piece which was going to be converted from assisted living to skilled nursing and it was now being converted into Alzheimer care. Three sections would all be assisted living. What was notable about that was the skilled nursing portion of their business was the most service intensive, the most emergency vehicle intensive portion of their business, staff intensive, etc., so it reduced a lot of issues raised at the last meeting relating to ambulance traffic and staffing traffic because it was one of the highest intensity uses on their project. Relating to the change to the PR-10 zoning, she thought that Mr. Smith hit all the key points as to what they were hoping to achieve. Regarding Commissioner Finerty's question about the 84 units versus the 82, the change of zone wou►d allow 84, but based on 5 r /01.1 SUBJECT TQ , REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 their current plan they were looking at 82 in their current architectural plan. The request and change Mr. Smith alluded to was only an increase of seven units over what the existing zoning would allow which was a 6% change to what they were allowed to do. She noted that 50 of the 82 units would be assisted living apartments and as discussed in prior meetings, the assisted living portion of their project is a lower intensity use than their independent living because their assisted living residents typically don't drive. That was a less intense use for in and out residential traffic being created. The other items discussed with Mr. Smith today dealt with the gates. The north gate they just wanted to use for residential traffic. That would alleviate the build up of traffic on Carlotta Drive at the front gate and the south gate would still be used for deliveries and keeping the delivery trucks and emergency vehicles at the south end of the property. On the handout, she said they also briefly reiterated some of the items they discussed with some of their neighbors and items they put into action, some of them today, in order to make the Carlotta more neighbor friendly based on some of the requests and concerns of some of their neighbors that had been expressed to them as well as some of the redesign items they had done to their project to make it more neighbor friendly and to coexist in the residential environment. The other pages of the handout outlined their requested changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Campbell asked about the parking lot at the main entrance and about additional landscaping. Ms. Ferguson said that additional landscaping was somethingthey p 9 looked at in concept but she didn't spend any money to have a landscape architect design a new entry or put trees on the plan because that would just cost more money for something they were unsure of. She said she would entertain that and look at it as part of this project. It was a great opportunity for them to do that. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification. They are currently allowed 77 units and they plan to go to 82, an addition of five. 6 n, tril! SUBJECT K REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Ms. Ferguson said that was correct, but the zoning change would allow up to seven. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR of the proposal. MR. HUBERT SCOTT, President of the Carlotta Resident Council, stated that he has lived at the Carlotta for 12 years. He has seen all of the adjoining residential communities built and he thought sometimes it was a shame to have their views cluttered. He said he is 93 years old and he mentioned that only as a testimonial to the virtues of living at the Carlotta. He introduced Dr. Harold Schoenfeld, the Chairman of the ad hoc committee who was assigned the responsibility of preparing the letter that went to the commission. DO. HAROLD SCHOENFELD stated that they appreciated the opportunity of having the commission consider their rebuttal to the arguments proposed by the opponents. Their letter addressed that fact and he said he wouldn't read the entire letter, but would jump to the conclusions and summary. Their neighbors who were opposing these plans were requesting the commission to solve certain grievances including reversing the submitted layout of the campus, eliminating the covered walkway, and transferring the emergency and service entrance to the newly proposed north gate which some of them were opposing, although they purchased their homes several years after the Fountains began using the south gate. He showed them pictures of the south gate which was built in 1989. The Carlotta was originally built in 1986 and the neighboring homes to the south and east were built in 1991 -92. The Fountains management addressed and corrected most grievances, but they couldn't in good conscience for safety, environmental and efficiency reasons accept any reversal of the facility layout, the elimination of the walkway, or the entry traffic rearrangement. Many of them use canes like him, many of them use walkers, a few use wheelchairs, and a few have oxygen tanks. To get to their vehicles which they legally can drive, it was necessary that they keep the west drive and the north drive for the residents only. Said reversal of the plans and entry would create 7 SUBJECT TO- - REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 an extremely inefficient and time-consuming operation for the medical nursing staff, for the patients, for the ambulatory residents, for the culinary and housekeeping staffs. It was an inefficient layout if it were reversed. Furthermore, an estimated 100 plus residents would face safety and environmental hardships. Therefore, the Town Center Residents of the Fountain at the Carlotta for vital heath, safety, financial and environmental reasons respectfully requested that the Palm Desert Planning Commission approve the planning and zoning as recommended by the competent staff with the exception that they believed in having the north gate for the residents only. The present arrival and departure of emergency and commercial vehicles should continue as planned and approved by the Planning Department and as utilized since 1989. He said that the comparison of the Fountains at the Carlotta with the apartments at One Hawkeye on Fred Waring and the apartments on Country Club wasn't a reasonable comparison by the staff. They were a senior retirement center. They have restaurant services for the residents. They have nursing services for the people that need skilled nursing and assisted care. In the two apartment houses that are used for comparison on gates, it wasn't reasonable. Those people were younger and their only service would be the post office, Federal Express or United Parcel Service. He had never seen the type of services they have in the way of fire engines and ambulances. He thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MS. TAMMY BUCKLAND, 41-550 Carlotta, stated that their house was where the north gate would be and they live on a blind corner. That was where all the neighborhood kids play. People already fly around that corner and almost hit the kids all the time and by adding more traffic on that street it would just increase the chances of those kids being hit, not to mention she has lived there four years and has never seen any cars lined up trying to get into the Carlotta as far as traffic being backed up and if the people weren't going to be driving and there weren't that many more vehicles, there was no reason to add an additional gate. In addition, there would be family and friends coming which would 8 SUBJECT TO ' t "' REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 increase the traffic if they were having them enter the north gate, so she was opposed to a north gate. When they bought their house there were no plans for an entrance there. MS. ROSLYN MONAHAN, 75-683 Duval Court, said that she was one of the residents living in the middle directly across the street from the Carlotta and wanted to go on record as not being opposed to having more residents or services and she wasn't opposed to an Alzheimer's unit. In theory she wasn't opposed to the overall idea. She noted that Ms. Buckland just spoke and her husband is a Palm Springs police officer. Ms. Monahan said she spoke to Ms. Buckland's husband and she wanted to tell the commission that Buck, as a police officer, was adamantly opposed to an Alzheimer's unit. She wasn't, but she worked in mental health and had a different perspective. An Alzheimer's unit in the state of California could not be locked. It was secured. That meant that when someone went out the door, a bell is supposed to ring and the alarms are supposed to go off. Ms. Monahan informed commission that she has a sister in the skilled nursing facility and the same thing is supposed to happen. She went to see her on Sunday and the system didn't work. There was some concern about adding an elevator in the proposed original project and what would happen if the power went off. She asked what would happen if the power went off in the Alzheimer's unit. She only mentioned that, not because she was opposed to it, but because the commission probably didn't understand the difference between locked and secured. She thought the neighbors needed to understand that and be able to voice their opinion one way or the other. She said she would respect whatever the neighborhood wanted to do. Her bigger concern was really the parking and the senior overlay which would allow for a density of almost 1 ,000 people. When she went to the meeting last night at the Carlotta, and she respected the fact that they offered the opportunity for them to meet and she respected the people who worked at the Carlotta and who were trying to put this together, but they would go back to Tucson and Los Angeles and didn't live across the street, so some of that fell on deaf ears. One thing she brought up last night was her concern of the hypothetical. One of the things Ms. Ferguson said was that she couldn't deal in hypotheticals, but 9 Lgni SUBJECT 11 MINUTES IA E T liKe REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Ms. Monahan wanted to reiterate that they were dealing with hypothetical. Hypothetically a north gate, hypothetically casitas, hypothetically two stories, etc. As a resident who has been there almost 12 years and watched the neighborhood grow, 12 years from now she would probably still be there and hypothetically the Fountains might sell out to someone else. If they sold out to someone else and the senior overlay was applied (which they weren't asking for now) a third owner could increase the density, traffic and parking. She thought the zoning of PR-11 sounded interesting and might be reason for the commission to vote to have that, but she didn't want a north gate. If it was appropriate, she would like someone to explain to the audience the mitigating fees. She personally understood housing elements, the five-year strategic plans the cities were held accountable for, she understood there were no teeth in it and that there was a bill in the legislature right now that if passed would put teeth in Palm Desert and other cities to fulfill their five-year strategic plans. But mitigating fees sounded like a buy off. She would not want the City to give any kind of zoning for an exchange of dollars. She asked if someone could address that so they could all go home and understand it a little clearer. MS. LAURI CAESAR, 41-475 Carlotta, stated that she has lived at the corner of the cul-de-sac for almost 11 years and was opposed to the north gate. She stated that she has never seen traffic lined up to the middle gate where they would need a new entrance. Even if they put the residential there that meant that the elderly driving out toward the north end would be where the children all play near where that new entrance would go and she thought that would be more dangerous to the children. It was a non outlet street, but it would bring more heavy traffic into their residential area which wouldn't be safe or a good idea. The other issue was that there have been a few close calls at the original main gate which she felt should be changed as far as being able to see when they exit. There was a blind spot and she was concerned about her children. MR. ROBERT WATSON, 4152 Carlotta Drive, stated that he was directly in the path of the new entrance way to the third gate and 10 D 11, R, SUBJECT Ti MINUTES iv 1 "1 REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 he was strongly opposed to it for safety reasons. There would be increased traffic coming through the area from Hovley cutting through the area onto Sandcastle Lane to get over to El Dorado. There was also a stop there which people do not obey. He thought it was a hazard right now to back out of his driveway and with a new entrance way it would be more of one. MR. PAUL BEATY, 75-686 Dolmar Court, addressed the commission. He acknowledged that this was a difficult issue and appreciated the effort the commission had made to give the residents and the Fountains staff time to work together. He thought the staff of the Fountains had made some good concessions. He couldn't sayhe was in total agreement with 9 everything. He said he would love to see the walkway go so that they could have free flow through the middle, but he understood their need. He loved the new zone idea and that would protect them and would give the applicant what they wanted in the near future as well as make it more difficult for someone who purchased the Fountains in the future to come in and change things. He liked that compromise very much and thought it was a good idea. He was very much in favor of the north gate when the idea first came up because of the impact to the people who live immediately along the south wall and it would be much less if there was a gate on the north. Especially if they split residential traffic, service traffic and emergency traffic. But he could understand the people's feelings who live up near the proposed north gate area. As he said at the last meeting, he lives in the middle and it didn't really impact him, but he thought as a compromise for the good of the whole neighborhood he would still like to see the north gate go in for residential traffic and emergency traffic. It made no sense to have fire engines and ambulances come in the south or middle gate if they were needed at the north end. He also thought the City should consider a three-way stop sign at the intersection at Sandcastle and Carlotta which could help out with some of the safety issues that were being raised. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant wanted to give any rebuttal comments. 11 r) T SUBJECT II MINUTES 1, RE VtSION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Ms. Ferguson said she had a couple of quick points for clarification. The north gate as outlined in the report today would be strictly for residential traffic and for emergency vehicle traffic for the independent living northern side of the campus. It wasn't where friends and family would go to visit. They would continue using the center gate because that is where the call system to the front desk is located. The north gate would be on a remote control system for residents and emergency vehicles. Otherwise, they talked about a lot of the things that werer brought ht upand asked for 9 any questions. Commissioner Jonathan said he could understand how they would find the north gate a convenient and attractive feature, but he asked if having the north gate interfered with the integrity of the project. Ms. Ferguson said it didn't interfere with the integrity of the project entirely. What it really did was allow their residents to have a private access which was something that kept them from having to wait behind cars trying to get into the visitor access. But the integrity? Probably not. Commissioner Campbell said that the north gate only came about because of the traffic concerns. Ms. Ferguson agreed that it was in response to trying to work concerns out with their neighbors and trying to make the neighbors happy with their development. It was originally not on their development plan and was in response to concerns. They got caught in the middle. Chairperson Lopez closed the public hearing and asked for staff clarification on the mitigation fees. Mr. Drell explained that the senior overlay, like other density bonus or ordinances, required that to get additional units and special standards that the senior overlay affords, a certain number of the units would have to be affordable for low or moderate or very low income seniors. It was originally designed for typical senior apartment projects. For projects like the Carlotta which maintain a high level of services above and beyond a typical apartment project, they have found it difficult to figure out what an affordable rent 12 SUBJECT T1 I t T. REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 would be. In essence they were trying to make a house at the beach affordable to low income people and to solve that problem, the City had a very aggressive housing program which provided subsidized units both to seniors and families and in lieu of trying to force affordability onto these high end projects, they would take in lieu a fee which allowed the City to subsidize a senior family or senior household in one of the Housing Authority projects. Staff wasn't necessarily recommending that the mitigation fee be applied to the current request. The modified request was now essentially at the current zoning. Their density bonus was so negligible that any benefit they would be receiving from the Senior Overlay wouldn't justify them paying a mitigation fee, so staff wasn't recommending they pay it in this case. He also stated that it wasn't buying zoning. Many projects changed from five units per acre to 20 units per acre and when they received that large of an enhancement to their property, they would make a contribution to the City's affordable housing program for seniors. In this case it was so negligible that he wasn't recommending it. Chairperson Lopez asked for commission comments. Commissioner Campbell felt the Fountains management had agreed to many requests made by the surrounding residents. Regarding the north gate, the commission hadn't heard from those residents prior to this meeting. The total of the residents using the north gate would be 143 - 1 1 1 in the town center and 32 in the casitas. She didn't think everyone would be using that gate at one time. She was in favor of having the north gate for the residents and emergency vehicles only. She was also in favor of the change of zone amendment to PR-1 1 to allow 82 units. She noted that Mr. Beaty brought up the suggestion of a three-way stop at Sandcastle and Carlotta and she thought that was a good idea. Mr. Beaty was on the Planning Commission for many years and has lived in that area for many years and she was in agreement with him on that issue. She didn't hear any opposition from the residents that were at the last two meetings. She noted that the Carlotta was there first before the other homes were built, but there was vacant land there and they knew something would be constructed and they chose to live. She felt the applicant had made many revisions from the original plan and she was in favor of the project as presented with the change of zone amendment to PR-1 1 . 13 SUBJECT Ta ' x REVISIOf MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp pp noted that they have seen quite a few changes during the last two meetings. Regarding the requested changes to the conditions of approval as far as delivery times, he asked if the commission was anticipating incorporating those into the resolution. Mr. Drell said those items should be discussed. The members of the audience had not really a chance to hear them. Commissioner Tschopp pointed out that the applicant was requesting commercial deliveries Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and he believed that was a change from the staff recommendation of 8:00 a.m. They were also requesting trash collection between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and it was previously recommended by staff to be limited to 8:00 a.m. There was a change in the curbs to be painted a distance of 40 feet and the condition on limiting the number of events. If his memory served right, he thought they weren't limiting the number of events, but asking that they commit to limiting attendance to the number of cars that could park on the site. Mr. Drell said they talked about that and it was difficult to limit in advance how many people might show up. Historically it was his understanding they have had 15 or 20 cars on the street. One of the advantages of the new project would be the addition of 192 parking spaces which historically over time in these projects have more and more vacant spaces as the project ages. Chairperson Lopez noted that these items were requests from the applicant. The times were in the conditions of approval and the commission could make changes to the times if they wished. Mr. Drell stated that relative to the change of zone, since they were requesting a lesser intensity than advertised, the commission always had the option of approving a change of zone which is less intensive as well as add or delete conditions. Commissioner Campbell noted that trash collection starts at 7:00 a.m. in private developments. She also didn't have a problem with 7:00 a.m. for commercial deliveries. Commissioner Finerty said that with regard to condition number 9 and the commercial deliveries from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and condition 11 with trash collection from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., she asked where the 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. time frame came from. Mr. Smith said it was in response to earlier commission comments. In regard to condition number 14 r) r SUBJECT T REVISION MINUTES k � PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 22 and the curbs being painted 80 feet versus 40 feet, Commissioner Finerty asked what staff's position was on that issue. Mr. Smith said that in talking with Mr. Diercks, 40 feet was acceptable to Public Works. Commissioner Tschopp asked for clarification on the exact location of the proposed north gate. Mr. Smith explained that there would be a gap between the proposed north gate and the existing cul-de-sac to the north. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was any other east-west road coming into it. Anyone going to the north gate would have to travel up Carlotta into that north gate and there was no other way to go in or out. Carlotta was the only entry street into the north gate. Ms. Ferguson informed commission that there would be an offset between the north gate and Sandcastle. She said it wasn't a direct relationship. Mr. Smith pointed it out the location on a map. Commissioner Finerty stated that she really appreciated everyone coming to the meeting again and the efforts made on everyone's part. Originally she thought the north gate would be a great idea. However, going with the concept that everyone knew what the situation was when they bought there, it seemed to her that it would be best since they were no longer dealing with the senior overlay issue, to eliminate the north gate for safety purposes, mainly for the children and also for the residents that bought at that end that didn't expect there to be a north gate. Going back to the staff reports for May 15 and June 19, all the conditions for commercial deliveries and trash collection were between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and she recalled a number of people at the last couple of meetings talking about the early noise and she would prefer to see the hours remain 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for both of those. As long as Mr. Diercks could live with the curb painted red 40 feet out instead of 80 feet, he was the expert so she would agree with that. She thought the number of events should be limited and that 12 was reasonable. She lives right across the street from Southwest Community Church and from the Tennis Gardens. She said it was nice to know that those events were limited because they do have quite a bit of traffic generated from those and 12 would be more than reasonable. With regard to the three- way stop sign at Sandcastle and Carlotta, she would like to see staff investigate that. With the issue of the units and zoning, she would agree with staff's suggestion of PR-10 and 77 units. That was what everyone went into this with and would not require a change of zone. The 15 r SUBJECT TC D ,, , t ' " REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 consistency would be there and everyone that bought on the south knew what the situation was and that way it seemed to be fair for everyone. Commissioner Jonathan stated that the proposed change of zone to PR- 1 1 seemed to be a reasonable compromise. The applicant initially came in seeking a significantly more intense usage. The request was reduced from 105 to 82. That simplified the application and they didn't have to go through the senior overlay, development agreement or general plan amendment. Going from 77 to 82 was a also reasonable compromise, so he was okay with it. Regarding the north gate, that was a Pandora's Box. Whatever they did they would make some people happy and some people unhappy. He was not in favor of allowing the north gate. They heard from the applicant that it wasn't really that significant of an issue as to interfere with the integrity of the project. They lived with it until now and he didn't want to create a problem where there wasn't one. He thought the three-way stop was an excellent suggestion and deferred that issue to staff. When they tended to think that a stop sign or stop light would solve all the problems, staff sometimes enlightened them and told them that it just created a whole host of new problems. That was the last thing that any of them wanted to do and it seemed like a very good suggestion, but staff were the experts so he wanted to defer that to them. Amending condition number 22 with regard to the red painting on the curb going down to 40 feet, he again would defer to staff's expertise. He was in agreement with Commissioner Finerty regarding the operating hours and 8:00 a.m. seemed to be more reasonable and he thought the project could live with that and the residents would appreciate it. Commissioner Tschopp agreed that five more units than currently allowed under PR-10 was reasonable and should be allowed. The Carlotta existed before the surrounding neighborhood, but at the same time everyone was making a good effort to come together on a compromise and he complimented everyone for that. He didn't see the traffic increasing any more with the addition of the five units compared to what would occur under normal development on a piece of ground that size. After receiving the clarification on the north gate location and Sandcastle, he would also agree that some of the residents who bought not expecting a north gate should be assured that the north gate didn't go in. He was not in favor at this time of allowing a north gate. He also wanted to see the number 16 • 4 SUBJECT Tc AFT• MINUTES ~ REWSION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 of events limited. He thought that was only fair and if they left it wide open, the current owners might be reasonable about the number of events they might have, but if they had a new owner, they might decide to have nightly events and that would severely impact the neighborhood. He would also agree with the original conditions of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for the deliveries. Chairperson Lopez thanked everyone for taking the time to attend a third meeting and for all their time and effort. He noted that they have made a lot of changes from density, traffic, gates, fire department vehicles, parking issues, lights, etc., and he agreed with the issues discussed tonight. The times for deliveries and trash should remain from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He acknowledged that other areas begin at 7:00 a.m. and he was tired of running out at 7:00 a.m. to get his trash out in time. He didn't think anyone else should have to go through that. He thought 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. was fine. He said that at one time he was in favor of the north gate because he thought it might help the situation with the south and main gates, but he no longer felt it was necessary in light of the change being made with the zoning. Regarding the curbing, he agreed with Commissioner Jonathan and deferred to the traffic experts that 40 feet was acceptable. He also agreed that the three-way stop was a good idea, but deferred to the traffic experts. There were certain things they couldn't control like people speeding through those areas. He said that he has had young children who played in the streets and it was a scary thing. He agreed with the other commissioners on the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., no north gate, investigation of a three- way stop, and the change of zone to PR-1 1 . He said he would entertain a motion incorporating the items discussed. Commissioner Finerty made a motion recommending to City Council approval of a change of zone to PR-1 1 ; with conditions 9 and 11 regarding deliveries and trash collection to be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; that condition 21 remain deleting the north gate; that condition 23 remain limiting events to 12 per year; amending condition 22 to 40 feet; and requesting staff to investigate a three-way stop sign at Sandcastle and Carlotta and one issue that was overlooked that Commissioner Campbell raised, which was increasing or enhancing the landscaping at the main entrance. 17 SUBJECT TE MINUTES t REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 17, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2080, approving PP 01-07, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. CHAIRPERSON LOPEZ CALLED A TWO MINUTE RECESS AT 8:11 TO ALLOW AUDIENCE MEMBERS TO EXIT. B. Case No. CUP 01-08 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, Applicant (Continued from June 5 and June 19, 2001 ) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 50-foot high wireless communication tower, camouflaged as a flagpole located at 74-535 Highway 74. Mr. Drell noted that the item was still in the Architectural Review process and recommended a continuance to the August 21 , 2001 meeting. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, by minute motion continue Case No. CUP 01-08 to August 21 , 2001 . Motion carried 5-0. C. Case No. TT 30216 - GHA PALOMA GROUP, LLC AND THE KEITH COMPANIES, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to subdivide 10 acres into 32 single-family lots located on the west side of Shepherd Lane, 990 feet north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Mr. Alvarez explained that this was a request for a tentative tract map on the north end of the city limits. He pointed out the location of Shepherd 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks may be limited to a maximum of five minutes. A. Case Nos. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 - THE FOUNTAINS, Applicant (Continued from May 15, 2001) Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41-505 Carlotta Drive. Chairperson Lopez noted that this was an open continued public hearing and asked for staffs report. Mr. Smith stated that there was a revised site plan. The southerly existing gate would be located further to the west to allow for additional stacking. Also, the applicant was proposing to add a third ingress/egress at the north limit of the property. In association with the work on the north gate, the applicant has been working with Public Works staff to come up with a landscape scheme for the triangular area to the north to help dress up that end of the street. The existing southerly gate would have a new system, a more quiet, efficient system. In addition, there was a condition that the southerly gate be left open during shift changes so that employees could 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 enter and exit in an efficient manner. During the continuance, the applicant conducted a traffic count and a copy was given to commission. At the peak morning hour the count showed 15 vehicles entering/exiting the property. The applicant has had discussions with the Fire Department. He was advised that the Fire Department agreed to dispense with the emergency lights once they have arrived at the site and instead of parking in the southerly driveway, they will park toward the center of the site in the service area. He pointed out the location of the service area and explained that they would enter through the southerly gate and instead of parking along that driveway, they would pull in and park toward the center. Mr. Smith said that the applicant also did a view analysis of the proposed buildings. Regarding parking, 290 spaces were required by code and the new facility would have 320 spaces onsite. The applicant advised today that they have done parking counts at the facility and currently they have 201 parking spaces onsite and during their counts they averaged around 120 cars parked there - a little over 50% occupied. At the last meeting there were concerns about unshielded lights and he had been advised that those had been corrected and they were now shielded. The applicant held a meeting with the neighbors. While they haven't come to an agreement, there were some people who had been satisfied and others that still had some items they wanted to discuss. Staffs recommendation was a recommendation of approval to the City Council, subject to the conditions. He noted that on page 9 of the development agreement, Item C should reflect age 55, not age 62. That was an error that needed correction. Chairperson Lopez observed that it was his understanding that the recommendation is that hours of delivery would remain at the suggested time of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Mr. Smith said that was staffs recommendation. It was his understanding that the applicant would request some variation to that. Commissioner Tschopp asked who the parking inside the Carlotta was for specifically. Mr. Smith said for residents and employees. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many cars would be accommodated by the stacking area at the south gate. Mr. Smith said it was about 200 feet. Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the hours of construction since the delivery hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She asked if it was 7:00 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. for gardeners and construction workers. Mr. Smith said it 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 varies through the year. During the winter October through April 7:00 a.m. and May through September 6:00 a.m. Property maintenance fell within a separate category from construction, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Campbell asked what time construction workers could begin construction work right now. Mr. Smith said 6:00 a.m. for summer, the rest of the year 7:00 a.m. The ordinance read 8:00 to 5:30 for gardeners. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant would like to address the commission with an update. MR. TODD PRATT with the Fountains stated that the team put their heads together and met with the neighbors a couple of times. He thought they were very close with a number of the traffic issues and noise issues that were raised. They considered themselves a long- term 15 year neighbor and intended to maintain that relationship in the community. They were trying their best to blend in. Included in the packet was a list of some of the requests by the neighborhood. Most of the ones on the front page were agreed with. They implemented a third gate, revised the south gate, and tried to get the card readers and clickers set up so that the staff and residents could immediately enter the property without blocking traffic on Carlotta. They thought they were at a point now where they have resolved just about all of the traffic issues on Carlotta. They wanted to request that they have a little bit of leeway on the truck deliveries. They have approximately 14 truck deliveries a week and it ranged from zero to four trucks per day. One of the trucks was a semi, a Sisco Food delivery truck. The balance of the trucks were milk or bread delivery type single axle trucks. Typically one would come in the morning and that would be a milk truck and he would like to come in at 7:00 a.m. and then the other trucks would come in the morning or afternoon. They were low intensity users in terms of trucking. They didn't have a lot of heavy deliveries like a supermarket or a heavier commercial user. They don't have a loading dock,just a simple back door and the trucks pull in the back and unload. They would request 7:00 a.m. to accommodate the milk truck. Last meeting there was a question about parking and the number of people onsite. There are currently 200 existing parking stalls. They did a parking count over a three day period and there were approximately 85 parking stalls used at night and 100-120 during the day. That was around a 60% usage of the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 200 stalls they currently have. With the completion of the proposed build out they would add 119 stalls to the existing 201 stalls for a total of 320 parking stalls. At the same time they anticipated a usage of about 50 cars for the new residents as well as about 20 cars for new staff, for a total of 75 new cars. That was about a 60% usage. He felt they had more than an adequate amount of parking. On the overall population of the campus, there were some questions about how many people live there today versus how many would live there when they are done. Currently there were 225 residents today. With the addition of the new campus, they would add about 124 more potential residents for a total of 349 residents. He noted that 80 of the residents would be in skilled nursing and would not drive, 21 residents would be Alzheimer folks who would not drive, 144 existing apartment residents and about 70% have cars, an additional 32 independent residents with probably a one and a half ratio, and 52 units of assisted living which equated to about 60 more people. There would be a maximum of 3-5 cars for all 60 of the assisted living people. They typically didn't drive. Currently there were 22 assisted living residents and one or two cars. The 349 number was the total campus census at build out which is what they were basing their projection on, from their current population today and adding the new facility. The last item he wanted to address was the question of existing truck traffic with the current campus layout. Currently the trucks enter the south gate and go around to the central courtyard and unload and depart. They laid out their project so that they have the new independent folks next to the existing independent folks and that would create a synergy on their campus with all of their independent residents. There was a small kitchen with a service yard that was back to back with the existing kitchen and service yard allowing the trucks to come in, back in, provide deliveries for both kitchens and then leave. The two story assisted living wing would feed into a common area and would be linked to the existing building because of some common area amenities that would be enjoyed by all the residents on the campus. Typically these residents would need to walk indoors to the common area in an air-conditioned space. There was also a one-story Alzheimer's bungalow that was a secured, stand alone bungalow. There were some questions about elevating the link on a bridge and adding elevators on both sides to allow truck traffic to pass through and perhaps flip the plan and redesign the building. They studied that 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 initially and more recently because some of the adjacent neighbors felt that would alleviate some of the trips. Then they started looking at some of the truck trips and found that they weren't very intensive in their truck trips and that the additional hardship placed on the property by cost and the physical function of going up an elevator, across a bridge and then back down would not be a good solution. He said that they met with Paul Beaty and thought that Mr. Beaty was now in favor of the current design. MS. JULIE FERGUSON, Vice President of Construction and Development for the Fountains based in Tucson, Arizona, stated that in reading the minutes from the prior meeting, they went through and tried to address the very distinct points that the neighbors brought up which related to traffic, parking, landscaping and the noisy gates. There were several measures that Mr. Walker and his staff had already implemented in an attempt to help alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors. They brain stormed to come up with ways to alleviate the other concerns, hence the gate at the north end to spread out the traffic and direct certain types of traffic. This gate would be strictly for resident access, the middle gate would strictly be for visitor access, and the far gate would be strictly for truck delivery and associate/employee access. That would help distribute the traffic that entered their property on a regular basis and attempted to create some areas for stacking. There was a question earlier about how many cars this allowed. The south gate had 90 feet worth of stacking. An average car is 20 feet and she said she didn't know the size of a UPS truck which was the typical size of their delivery truck, but she was guessing that they could put two to three delivery trucks in there and with 90 feet four cars very easily. The north gate was created to have 60 feet which would allow three cars, but given that would be a resident access only they have automatic door openers that let them through the gate immediately. Also, they were leaving their gate open during shift changes to alleviate the traffic on Carlotta Drive. They had already implemented that measure in an attempt to alleviate some of the traffic. Mr. Walker and his staff had also addressed the concern with the lights and noise from the original gate. She wanted to reiterate that they went through the list of issues presented at the last meeting in an attempt to find solutions that worked for them and their neighbors to coexist in the same environment. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Chairperson Lopez announced that he was not at the meeting of May 15, but had listened to the tape of that public hearing and he would be participating in the discussion and vote on this matter. He also noted that there were many who would like to speak and requested that comments be limited to five minutes or less. Commissioner Tschopp noted that the south gate was 90 feet long for stacking and asked if it was the applicant's intent to allow delivery trucks to park in the stacking area. Ms. Ferguson said no, the intent was that if two delivery trucks happened to show up at the same time, there would be a space for them to wait for the gate to open. They were also implementing a way for the regular vendors to receive a code or gate pass that didn't require them to call the front desk for admission. In theory they should be able to punch in their code and go right through so there shouldn't be any stacking there, but in the off chance that two showed up at the same time at 8:00 a.m. sharp and were sitting there, at least they wouldn't be sitting on Carlotta Drive. Commissioner Tschopp asked if gardeners, maintenance workers, etc., showed up early, if they would be stacking in there or on the street. Ms. Ferguson thought that all of their landscaping crew was in-house, so all of their trucks, service vehicles, all the equipment were all on site. There was no traffic from landscaping trucks or anything of that nature coming in and out of their community. Commissioner Campbell said that when they drive there they arrive in their own cars and asked if they would be using the stacking area. Ms. Ferguson explained that as an associate they would be able to enter the property immediately. If they came at shift change, which they should, the gate would be open. If they didn't they would either have a pass key or code to let them in the gate. Chairperson Lopez asked for an example of who would be required to phone. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Ms. Ferguson said it would be a visitor to the community who was either coming for a marketing visit who wanted to take a tour of their community or a family member coming to visit a resident. During events, which they have quite frequently, they could arrange to have the gate open so there wouldn't be a constant barrage and if they were having a concert at 4:00 in the afternoon, there wouldn't be a huge line of traffic. Commissioner Campbell asked if the visitors would be usingthe centergate, P not the south or north gates. Ms. Ferguson said that was correct. Someone in the audience asked to be shown where the parking would be located. Mr. Pratt did so. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR. MR. DAVID OVERLAND, a resident of the Carlotta for ten months, informed commission that he is very pleased with the way the Carlotta is run. He said they were trying to be as accommodating to everyone in the neighborhood as possible. He thought the addition would be good for the Carlotta and good for the community. It is a badly needed facility and he had to wait over a year and a half to get in because they were full. This showed the demand and this was an attempt to meet that demand for senior citizens who have reached that stage in life where they don't want to house clean or cook. DR. HAROLD SCHOENFELD, a resident of the Carlotta for almost two years, addressed the commission. He said that prior to that he was a resident of Indian Wells for 30 years and was a retired school superintendent of Desert Sands Unified School District, as well as Palm Springs Unified School District. In answer to the previous question about pools, he suggested that the gentleman talk to the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District because the school district had an agreement with them to turn over their facilities, so it was just a matter of his going to see the manager and the problem would be solved in no time. Dr. Schoenfeld said that when the East Hovley/Carlotta area was approved for senior residents, assisted care 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 and skilled nursing services by the County Planning Commission, there was no incorporated city of Palm Desert. In fact, there were no homes in this area and Cook Street was a two-lane road. After the Fountains at the Carlotta was constructed, the County Planning Commission approved homes for construction in that area. The existing Fountains layout for the delivery of medical, patient and residential kitchen food supplies was approved with the original planning and construction permits. To change this layout now would be extremely expensive, unethical, impractical, and perhaps illegal. Now no matter what gate they might use, the existing layout required similar stops for delivery of patients and supplies. If the opponents kept with their desire to flip the casitas from north to south, it couldn't change the location of the existing kitchen nor the delivery of emergency patients. As long as the Fire Department used diesel motors and required two trucks to accompany the ambulance, there would always be substantial truck motor noise. Conversion to diesels to compressed hydrogen and natural gas would decrease the motor noise as well as improve the air and they already knew that Sunline as well as Desert Sands School District (who had 13 of the hydrogen compressed gas school buses and six more in the budget for this coming year). Unfortunately by providing speed bumps the Fountains management slowed up ambulances, fire trucks and delivery trucks and had thereby added to the duration of truck motor noise, but the management had been helpful in trying to solve these problems for the neighbors. The management of the Carlotta had been extremely cooperative and courteous in meeting all these concerns. For the neighbors who purchased their homes adjacent to the Fountains, the laws of the state regarding disclosure were available to them and perhaps, unfortunately, they should remember Caveat Emptor- Buyer Beware. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MS. KIMBERLY WEBB, 75-730 Dolmar Court, said that she invested a lot of time and preparation in her statement, which was a collaboration of her personal views as well as many in the audience and some who were unable to attend that were opposed to the Fountain's current proposal. She said she was certain to exceed five minutes, but she asked for the commission's indulgence as her 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 statement would bear great merit and would alleviate a number of people coming up to repeat the information. They would merely come to the podium and give their name and address in agreement. Although some steps have been taken by the management team coordinating this project on behalf of the Fountains, she said they failed to satisfy some of the most significant issues she raised at the May 15 meeting and at both subsequent meetings held at the Fountains that were raised by herself and others. In spite of the limited changes, she strongly believed that this project would adversely affect their neighborhood without additional revisions. For example, homes immediately adjacent to the Fountains at the Carlotta on the south, the specific residents on Hemingway, Marin Court, Freedom Court, Dempsey and three homes on Carlotta, one on Easy Street and another two on Dolmar Court were already subjected to traffic and associated noise from not only the gate, but diesel engines idling, doors slamming, horns blowing, radios blaring, loud guests or personnel, and flashing lights from emergency rescue vehicles. They also heard from a resident of the Fountains who had similar complaints in addition to dogs barking and kids racing down Carlotta Drive. Most recent changes proposed which they had already pretty much heard have been posted to prohibit loud noises, radios, voices, directions that no engines should idle more than five minutes and need to be turned off if they were going to be in the facility idling, new gate system's gears to allow them to operate more smoothly, quieter, quicker, and modified with rubber rollers, the south gate to be left open during shift changes. All residents, personnel, established delivery trucks and emergency vehicles would have open mechanisms in their possession. Significant is the proposed redesign that they would set back the gate further onto the Fountains property, the south gate where the residents, personnel vehicles, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles would stack up on their site as opposed to stacking up on Carlotta. She said that unfortunately what appeared to be totally lost on those involved with these alterations was that those same homeowners listed above would still be subjected to the noise of vehicles coming and going at all hours, the setback of the gate would do nothing but increase the noise as now there would be two, three and possibly more vehicles now stacked up along that south wall as opposed to those same vehicles which now stack up in the street at a greater distance from those homes. That 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 was one of the greatest concerns. They were stacking up in the street, but the Fire engine comes in, sits there and just rumbles. By allowing three or four now to just sit there and rumble they had three vehicles as opposed to one which was of great concern to Annette Andersen at the May 15 meeting. Another critical issue presented at the May 15 Planning Commission meeting was the problems the neighborhood already has with speeders literally racing down Carlotta Drive. At the June 18 meeting at the Fountains, residents also made note of the adverse conditions they encounter leaving their own facility both in their vehicles and as pedestrians. One gentleman said he is legally blind and walks with a cane and he was almost run over not too long ago and this information was provided to her last night. With the addition of a third entrance into the Fountains, a four-way stop was indicated at the intersection of Carlotta Drive and Sandcastle which is at the northeast sector. The Sheriffs Department and City were well aware of this problem and she hoped the commission's directive could provide immediate action on that matter as the four-way stop is long overdue. Any additions of personnel and residents would further compromise the traffic problems currently faced by all residents. Although Mr. Walker previously indicated that the proposed addition would have little impact and mentioned five or six employees per shift at last evening's meeting, Mr. Todd Pratt in stark contrast said 12. As mentioned on May 15 from her own experience in the medical field, she believed that even 12 additional employees per shift would be a low number and the supposed limited number of additional senior drivers will have an impact on their traffic flow. For the benefit of those not in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting of May 15, she wanted to address the proposed reconfiguration and limited access to their neighborhood off of Hovley due to the Indian Wells project developed by Sunrise Colony which borders Hovley on the south and calls for the widening of Hovley to four lanes. Currently traffic traveling east on Hovley could enter their neighborhood by turning left on Hemingway accessing homes on Hemingway, Dempsey, Marin Court and Freedom Court. Carlotta Drive was the only other entry to their neighborhood from Hovley Lane for residents of Carlotta, Easy Street, Dolmar Court, Duvall Court and Sandcastle. Residents leaving their neighborhood could exit Carlotta or Hemingway onto Hovley without restrictions currently. Under the new configuration of which few homeowners were aware, 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 access both entering and exiting their neighborhood would be significantly effected. With the new configuration if they were traveling east on Hovley, left turns onto Hemingway would no longer be permitted and all the streets would then enter their neighborhood off of Carlotta Drive. Leaving their neighborhood on the south to Hovley, right turns would only would be allowed at Hemingway and Carlotta. There would be no left-hand turns permitted. If their residents wished to travel east on Hovley Lane, they would be required to travel north on Carlotta, east on Sandcastle, south on Eldorado and finally east onto Hovley Lane. The new configuration for the Hovley Lane expansion combined with any additional traffic both chronic such as the new residents and employees of the Fountains and acute such as the construction workers for the next year once building begins. Both entry and exit would be a nightmare. Regardless of the final disposition of this project, she thought the City of Palm Desert should authorize a signal light to be erected at the intersection of Carlotta and Hovley prior to the beginning of construction at the Fountains, comparable to that of Hovley Lane and Fred Waring. She understood that a vehicle count was performed sometime ago to assess the need for a signal at that location and it was not deemed cost effective for the volume of traffic. The makeup of their segment of this community differed greatly from many neighborhoods with the mix of all ages and driving capabilities. Their neighborhood access was already deficient. With the new configuration of Hovley it would be further compromised. No one, especially the seniors, should have to feel intimidated if they attempt to compete with other drivers at precarious intersections. To limit all residents to one access to Hovley had not been very well received by parties on either side of this issue. Immediately following the Palm Desert Planning Commission meeting of May 15, she and others in attendance were approached outside the Council Chamber by Mr. Bob Walker and another gentleman. At that time she suggested that their management team look into acquiring a service road which appeared to be part of the Lakes Country Club Golf Course or redesign their master plan at the northeast corner where that previously mentioned abandoned cul-de-sac sits at the intersection of Carlotta Drive and Sandcastle where they would then be able to create a third entrance and she was pleased to see that they had. The northernmost entrance could be used for personnel, delivery 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 trucks and emergency vehicles as the nearest home to that location is at least 150 feet away and the few remaining influenced homes were even further, which was much greater than the ten feet that separate the southern homeowners adjacent to the south entrance which management appeared from the proposal to still designate as their service entry. Mr. Walker's response to her in the presence of others following the meeting on the 15th was that the Fountains' clients "paid good money to live there" and that the creation and designation of a north entrance as the primary service entry for the above-mentioned delivery vehicles would subject his clients to noise and disturb them. In reply she called to his attention the fact that the homeowners surrounding the Fountains have also invested heavily with their greatest financial investments likely to be their homes and that their mortgage obligations didn't permit many of them to just move away from an unpleasant situation with a 30-day notice. She found it regretful that Mr. Walker felt his tenants were entitled to peace and quiet that many homeowners were being denied even under the latest proposal. Following the commission meeting of May 15 she received an invitation for a meeting at the Fountains on the 23rd. Although Mr. Walker and other members of the management team who were present at the May 15 Planning Commission meeting, Todd Pratt, Management Director of the West Coast development of the Fountains, who was not available for the Planning Commission meeting was introduced and led the discussion with approximately 15 homeowners in attendance, most who had not attended the Planning Commission meeting either. At that time she again suggested creation of a north entrance. In addition it was discussed that the north access for personnel, delivering, and emergency vehicles would keep the least number of homeowners from being effected. It was also pointed out that the emergency vehicles could utilize the current north-south roadway that borders their current facility on the west. When the new phase is complete, this roadway would divide the two. She pointed out the location of the north-south entry way. She said that Mr. Pratt pointed out that through traffic would be eliminated to accommodate the link. In addition, he wanted to create this link so the ground would be terminated there. Mr. Pratt or another member of the management team in attendance indicated that the service road would surround the perimeter of the entire complex. Concerns were voiced that now all vehicles would be making this sweep which would 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 continue to be an irritant to not only the homeowners on the south which are the current ones under duress, but now those in the Mountain View Villa Condominiums on the west who would be on the opposite side of this perimeter road once the project is completed under the current plan. This link was discussed in management's discussion item on May 23 and again last night. While initially she'd only asked at the May 23 meeting that they eliminate the link and leave that north-south pass through intact so that the noise generated by service and emergency vehicles be confined as well as possible within their property in order to satisfy all parties. After further discussion last evening and understanding their clients needs to be able to travel between the units, she suggested an elevated or underground link be constructed over or under the existing roadway with access for their clients via elevators. She believed it was resident Dave who coordinates their earthquake preparedness or disaster plan who voiced concern over another problem in case of a disaster or power outage. Although the meeting last evening was initially led by Mr. Pratt, Ms. Ferguson took the helm. Ms. Webb didn't believe that the suggestion was to be given serious consideration due to cost. They also discussed the position of the fire truck when making evening and middle of the night calls. They were told that the fire truck would pull into what is now the employee service area. They were still proposing that the south entrance be used, the fire truck would go into the employee service area and that area would be kept clear of employee vehicles and a fire truck would be able to make the turn and there was an exit that would allow them to pick up any patients from the skilled nursing facility and then transport them out as opposed to having the holding area at the south which is what was currently going on. On the south of this small parking lot was the skilled nursing and the ambulance could pick them up there. She didn't know why they hadn't been doing this all these years since that was available to them. Discussion also ensued regarding the elevation of the two story assisted living wing which would be at the southwest corner. It would have the assisted living wing on the southwest with the Alzheimer unit on the southeast corner on the 6.6 acres yet to be developed. The new project and existing facility were divided bythe north-south roadway. Aspointed out on May15, many Y residents on the south, primarily Marin Court, Freedom and Hemingway have incredible mountain views which would be 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 compromised with the construction of a two-story unit going in on the southwest portion. She believed that there was a balloon analysis depicting the placement of the various units in contrast to the neighbors. She thought it was misleading since they depicted a scene from a good distance from what she believed it to be from homes that were ten feet from their south wall. The trees were supposedly those lining the adjacent block wall and the walls were six feet tall. Using that to estimate a 24-foot elevation, it would appear that a great error had occurred and that the roof should appear four times higher than the trees shown on the draft. With regard to the limited compromise offered on the entry/exit and the holding of emergency vehicles, it was apparent a way in which to easily remedy numerous points of significant contention would be to flip the plan north and south. In doing so the Alzheimer unit at the bottom and the two story unit which was obstructing views would be to the north with the casitas to the south. With her experience with skilled nursing and the Alzheimer's patients, there were times they could be extremely agitated, loud and disturbing to those around them, all the more reason to have their unit furthest from the homeowners who wish to enjoy the solitude of their homes. With the designation of the newly created north service entrance, emergency vehicles would have ready access to the patients. They were proposing that emergency vehicles, service vehicles and all employees would be utilizing the north entrance. If the north-south roadway were permitted to remain, they would come in and collect their patients. They wished to keep an existing central nursing center and she understood that so she wasn't as opposed to not flipping the plan and possibly compromising on the views because it was important to have all of the more critical need patients in one area. Any emergency vehicle needing to pick up a skilled nursing patient would still have to enter the south; if they were going to the Alzheimer unit it would go to the north. That didn't bode very well. What she would suggest was that all the service vehicles be required to enter from the north disturbing absolutely no one. The north-south route needed to be maintained and they were very adamant about their link and she understood that they needed access, but instead of it being an enclosed link, it could be an open link where there was secured ground and traffic was allowed to cross it with signal lights or whatever they needed to continue access. With servicing vehicles coming in, they wouldn't be driving all around the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 perimeter. By allowing them the southern access it was complicating things even further for the residents that live there. The applicant also wanted construction times. The residents were adamant that they didn't want construction in their area going on year round for as long as they live there. The nonprofit Good Samaritans was a good friend to their neighborhood for 14-15 years. The Fountains at the Carlotta is a for profit corporation. Instead of coming to them as the new kid on the block, they have attempted to market themselves as the same great guy who has been coexisting with them all these years and she found that action to be deceptive. She wondered what would go on after the fact. There were lots of conflicts in the information provided. One of the things noted in the paperwork reflecting Mr. Steve Smith's investigations for this project, numerous references were made comparing the Fountains with another similar facility, Hacienda de Monterey located on Monterey Avenue. It could not be lost on anyone making decisions on this matter that the Fountains was the only facility of this size that was nestled in a residential neighborhood. Hacienda de Monterey was bordered on the north, south and west by commercial businesses. Manor Care Rehabilitative Center and Rancho Mirage Health Care were located on Country Club, commercial zones. Eisenhower Memorial Hospital with all the recently popped up similar facilities were all on large areas that wouldn't conflict with any residential neighborhood. If the plan could not be flipped, and she understood the constraints there because of patient care, they would like to see new northern entrance be designated as the service entrance for personnel, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles with the same courtesy changes already submitted. They didn't want to have the southernmost gate used for personnel, delivery trucks or emergency vehicles. If they wished to leave the gates open during shift changes that was great. Elevate the link, eliminate it, or put it underground so that they could confine most of their traffic. In the commission resolution presented, on page four line 17 in reference to where they park these service vehicles, the last portion of the statement said as far away from the perimeter as is reasonable. She thought that could be wherever the applicant thought was reasonable. They wanted that section stricken from it. All deliveries should be made from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and the four-way stop and the installation of the signal light. She said they have a wonderful neighborhood, productive and 17 _j MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 financially successful families that contribute daily to support the city and through the proactive approach and diligence Palm Desert was premier which was one of the reasons they purchased in the city and live, work and play here. Should the commission deem that this high density project should continue in its entirety, she asked the commission to protect the families who have invested heavily in this segment of the community by insisting on the revisions. Ms. Webb asked if the commission would like people who concur to come forward and give just their names and addresses for the record. Chairperson Lopez asked for people to raise their hands. Five people did so. MS. ROSALYN MONAHAN, 75-683 Duvall Court, stated that she lives directly across from the main gate. She was on vacation and missed the first meeting. She went to the meeting last night. She wasn't disagreeing with what her neighbor said. She heard all the arguments and thought that the south side people needed to stand firm to what they wanted, but she wasn't a south sider. She is a middle gate person and had some different concerns. She has lived in her house for over ten years. When she bought her house the Carlotta was there. She bought it knowing that the Carlotta was there and the Carlotta residents are wonderful and she said she doesn't have a people problem. She has a two-story house and her master bedroom has a balcony and her balcony has a view of the south Santa Rosas and the west to the parking lot at the Carlotta. She always thought it would be difficult to resell but as it is, maybe the next people would like it too and of course growth happens. Just prior to the Fountains actually coming on board, she spoke to a lady at the Good Samaritan. She said she would be willing to put her own family over there. But she didn't like the view of the parking. A lady told her that when the Fountains came, they were going to redo the facility, would redo the front and it would be beautiful. That came and that happened and the gate changed and the old gate was perfectly fine and she didn't have a problem with it but the parking lot was still there. Even the people who park in the parking lot didn't have any shade or covering - it is just a parking lot. Because her bedroom opens on that side, if they have the slider open during the nice weather, they get to hear the cars coming and going, they get to hear the car alarms, they get to hear the people whose cars won't start. They used to have the 911 calls 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 come through the main gate with lights and sirens and that didn't happen anymore, but even that didn't bother her as much as looking at the parking lot. She informed commission that she's a social worker by trade, her sister is in a skilled nursing facility and she visits her frequently, she was not a foreigner to what goes on in nursing homes, she wasn't a foreigner to the comings and goings, she wasn't a foreigner to the people who scream and yell although that didn't bother her, the cars bother her. If the place was built correctly, perhaps there wouldn't be people noise and she thought that could happen. She said she would be a happy neighbor if they would do something with the current front parking lot, camouflage it a little better with some nice trees like at the Civic Center. She said she wasn't trusting the numbers that had been given on the number of people coming and going. She heard a count of the number of staff and typical residents. When a facility is built, they don't have *typical*. Whatever is typical today, five years from now it completely changes and they had to be realistic. If they build casitas for 55 year old folks, she was almost 55 and was pretty active. She was going to have a lot of friends coming and going unless they had an atypical 55- year old group. She was going to have family. She asked how many visitors they were going to have that they weren't counting. In these facilities they had paid staff and doctors on contract. She didn't know if there were labs on contract or x-rays on contract but she knew from visiting her sister that there are a lot of staff on contract coming and going that aren't part of the total head count. The Carlotta was wonderful to the neighborhood because they have community meetings. That also brought cars. When she comes home and sees the whole neighborhood has cars parked on the outside and the gate is open, there is something going on that is probably community friendly except they all brought their cars with them. To sum it up, she was concerned about the parking and what they were going to do for the current parking. Last night she heard the concern about the south side neighbors and what they were going to look at and how they were going to help it be visually aesthetic for the south side neighbors and what they are going to look at and how they are going to help it be visually aesthetic for the south side neighbors. She asked about the middle gate/east side neighbors. She would like some money to be spent and some consideration to the current existing parking. She didn't trust the numbers projected down the road for parking. If they 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 run out of parking, they are going to park on the street. They already park on the street for open meetings. She said she has lived there ten years, almost 11, and wanted to know the projection for ten or 11 years. Alzheimer's patients that are in a facility like the Fountains, it costs a lot of money to put someone in a nice facility like the Carlotta. If they put someone in the Alzheimer's facility, they might not drive but they would have family coming to visit them, otherwise they would probably be in some facility for Medical. The same for the skilled nursing facility. If they put people in a facility of high class like the Carlotta, they were going to have family. These weren't abandoned people. She asked where all these cars would be. MR. JIM CAESAR addressed the commission on behalf of himself and his wife. He said they live next to the cul-de-sac on the north side by the proposed new gate. About three years ago he went to the City to ask about acquiring that cul-de-sac because they literally have no backyard for their children. So they got an approval and based on that he had some preliminary plans drawn to expand their home. He and his wife had some family matters come up on both ends of the family and didn't get a chance to proceed with their project, but they started the first phase which is doing some improvements to the interior of their home. But they just found out about this whole Carlotta incident today, otherwise he would have gone to the Planning Department to find out if that was going to stop them from proceeding with their plan of putting in their addition and acquiring the cul-de-sac. He believed there were access gates attached to the wall and wasn't sure if the gates were for the Fire Department, but they were access gates to the Lakes golf course. They were going all the way up to that area and the City said they had to allow an easement for fire trucks or whatever the Lakes needed there and they were going to use this dirt pie-shaped lot that belongs to the City to access into those gates. He didn't know if that was going to stop him from proceeding or what the story was there. The second issue was that they have three small children and they have had two close calls on the second gate, possibly the main gate, at the Carlotta. There was a partition between the outgoing and incoming traffic and it was a blind spot. When his son goes down the street on his bicycle, he couldn't see the cars coming out of the Carlotta and he had to fall off of his bicycle one time to avoid the outgoing traffic. Now he wasn't allowed to cross that 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 intersection into the Carlotta. So he goes up there and then turns around and comes back. Now with the new gate they were worried about that especially because Sandcastle the other way is a raceway because both those projects were walled all the way down to Eldorado. He asked if it was going to be a problem for them to acquire that cul-de-sac. Chairperson Lopez asked if Mr. Drell was aware of this. Mr. Drell said he was unaware of any activity to acquire that cul-de-sac. They had always talked about the City taking over and landscaping that pie-shaped piece. He understood that it was a public street right now. Mr. Caesar said it was a parking lot for the three model homes. Mr. Drell said that if it was a dedicated public road, so they would have to go through a vacation process and he didn't believe Mr. Caesar had done that. Mr. Caesar said that the preliminary approval was based on the Lakes not having any objection to them acquiring the property. Mr. Drell asked if that area was now necessary for the functioning of that north gate and if it changed the usefulness of that cul-de-sac. Mr. Caesar said right now there wasn't any usefulness. Mr. Drell clarified that he was asking if that north gate would change it. Mr. Smith stated that it wouldn't impact on the proposed north gate and there was land still available. If they were to project the property line between the Lakes and the Fountains eastward, there was still a considerable distance north of that before getting to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Caesar said that if it was for fire trucks, they couldn't get through on this small entry. They would either have to put in an easement there or widen the entry. Their problem was if they would be able to go through this. Chairperson Lopez informed him that he would have to proceed with the submittal of his plans to the Planning Department. He noted that the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 commission didn't have anything in front of them from him to review and wouldn't until he went through the appropriate process. Mr. Caesar said that more importantly was the safety of their children. The other incident was when the cars were backed up where they came north to turn left into the main entry and the cars were stacked up and his son was trying to go through the cars and there was a close call. Right now they didn't have a backyard. MR. HENRY BUCIER, 41940 Hemingway, said that he has been in Palm Desert 30 years and he had been in his house ten years. When he bought there, he was told the area was a water retention area for the Carlotta for drainage. His house was about four feet below the level of the Carlotta, so if they removed that area for water retention, they would have to drain that water somewhere and he asked where it was going. He knew that his front lawn had holes in it for water retention. He tried to fill them and was cited. The wall is 10 feet from his bedroom so if they started driving around it there would be a lot of noise. The applicants said there was no noise, but if they came to see him at 11:00 p.m., they were out there emptying the trash at 11:00 p.m. every night. The building was supposed to be two stories. He had his house changed and put in a window on the north side so he could overlook the whole area. He could see views of the mountains from his bedroom. Now the new building would be right in the middle of it. He wasn't saying they shouldn't do it, he was just concerned about them doing it right. MR. PAUL BEATY, 75-686 Dolmar Court, said that he is a mid gater. They exit the Carlotta right toward his backyard. He said he has lived there since his home was built 11 years ago and the Carlotta has been a wonderful neighbor. There were a few minor issues such as a problem with some lights shining in the back that was immediately corrected. Since they got to know Mr. Walker and his staff there were a couple of other lights which were shielded and he appreciated that very much. Before they modified the center gate, they did have some issues. He recognized that they were there before them and never complained about it, but they heard the intercom when people were trying to get someone's attention to gain access. That was no longer a problem since they changed the gate so he really had just a few 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 minor issues. He said he wasn't aware of the impact to the residents near the south gate. Now he was and now was an opportunity to fix that. Let the buyer beware didn't work with him. He did check when he purchased his home and the zoning at that time would not permit an expansion of this magnitude. It would certainly permit an addition staying within the zoning requirements. He thought that was one of his major issues. He talked with Mr. Walker yesterday and couldn't make the meeting last night since he was out of town, but the things he was verbally told and the things he saw in the staff report he liked; however, Mr. Walker told him they were going to have fire and emergency vehicles enter the north and he wasn't hearing that tonight. Mr. Walker said it was a viable option. Mr. Beaty said he had understood him to say that was where they would be required to enter and didn't know if that made a lot of sense. He thought it was the emergency vehicles that have caused the most problems. If they adhere to delivery vehicle times that would take care of the delivery vehicle problems and if they fixed the gate that had been a major issue. He said he was told that they were going to have a faster gate and he didn't see the emergency access or the landscaping of the cul-de-sacced property or these things as conditions. He saw them in the report though. He asked if the fact that they were in the report meant that they were stamped in concrete. Mr. Smith said that relative to the landscaping of the triangular area, it was a piece of property not on the site and they weren't in the position of imposing it as a condition if they worked out an agreement with the Public Works Department to do that. Mr. Beaty said that he was still concerned that there were so many conflicting statements and issues. He read in the minutes and also listened to the tape and it was stated at the last meeting that there would be 472 residents. Tonight they were hearing 349 or 379. He didn't know how many it would be. When he purchased his home, they couldn't add this many units because of the zoning and he would like to see the City make them adhere to that. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 MS. SALLY MOSS, 41965 Freedom Court, stated that her concern had to do with the safety of the people walking along Carlotta, specifically the children. She walks her dogs every morning (and cleans up after them) along that way and there are a lot of children who walk there because of the school bus stop at the corner of Dempsey and Carlotta. She was concerned with the additional traffic, trucks and construction vehicles and they needed to be aware of this and it needed to be taken into consideration because kids were kids. Ms. Monahan readdressed the commission. She thought it looked like this matter was going to be continued. She said she works for the government so she knows that within the law the Fountains only had to give so much notice for the neighbors, but because of the magnitude of the changes being proposed and counter proposed, it would be a good will gesture from the Fountains to give notice to the neighbors again. She said she spoke to several neighbors who didn't have a clue about what was going on, maybe because they were too busy to read the notice, maybe because they were going on vacation, but she thought it would be a goodwill gesture to put this information back out to the neighbors and maybe more to the middle and the north side and let them have some say before there was some finalization. Chairperson Lopez asked if the applicant wished to readdress the commission. Mr. Pratt said that they submitted a letter to Mr. Gaugush offering to landscape the City-owned property at the corner. Their civil engineer designed the retention pond to remain as necessary on the property, it just got moved around, so retention would be adequately engineered. He said that when they looked at the view study they took special note of the views from the south side if they were standing on the south side property line where the single family homes were and looked northwest toward the mountains. The profile of the building did not impact the mountain profile to a point where arguably it would be a huge impact. They wanted to maintain their ability to try and help with the overall traffic impact in the neighborhood on Hovley and teenage speeders from the neighborhood that were driving down Carlotta. They would readily 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 participate in fixing that if there was a way to do that. The truck traffic they had were several bread-sized trucks ranging from one to four deliveries per day for a total of 14 deliveries a week and then one semi that was a Sisco food truck. There would be between one and four trucks per day. Ms. Ferguson readdressed the commission. As it relates to the conversation about the connector piece between the two buildings, she wanted to give a little but more background on that design feature of this particular community. The main feature of that was to integrate the entire campus. There would be residents in the town center who have loved ones or friends who were moving to the assisted living portion of the building and this gave them an easy access to go visit them just as they could go visit them in the skilled nursing center any time they wanted under cover and out of the sun. She obviously wasn't 80 years old but worked with a lot of 80 year olds and they really didn't enjoy getting in and out of elevators and their ground floor apartments go first because everyone wanted to live where they didn't have to get into an elevator. As their residents suggested, an elevator was not necessarily the best solution for that. The other reason for that and the other reason they were trying to avoid having that opened up for deliveries was somewhat self-serving the same way it was self-serving to get folks off of Carlotta Drive. There would be a lot of resident walking pedestrian traffic and those trucks would be there and they wanted to protect their residents from potential traffic hazards in the community. Those were some of the other reasons behind that particular design feature. As it relates to the traffic on Carlotta Way, she wasn't saying that her residents were perfect, but she was guessing that they weren't speeding. She has kids, everyone she works with has kids and they obviously wanted to do what is right for the safety of those individuals and were willing to work to make sure the views coming out of their gates were appropriately placed so that the kids could see and their residents and visitors could see. As it relates to some of the misinformation that people kept talking about, there was a lot of terminology in their industry and if they didn't necessarily know the industry it could be misleading, so they did apologize if it had been misleading in any way, shape or form. To give them some numbers, they went through staff records for the third time today to make sure they had all their 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 numbers correct. They basically have three shifts that work at the Carlotta. A 7:00 to 3:00 shift, a 3:00 to 7:00 shift, and a 7:00 to 11:00 shift. The existing number of employees that work on the 7:00 to 3:00 shift are 38, the existing number on the 3:00 to 7:00 shift are 22 and the existing number on the 7:00 to 11:00 are 8. Based upon adding staff to the community to accommodate the expansion, the 7:00 to 3:00 staff would have an additional 15, the 3:00 to 7:00 shift would have an additional 9 and the 7:00 to 11:00 shift would have 4, giving a total of 53, 31 and 12 respectively. In addition to that there are 12 management associates that don't necessarily come and go with shift changes that currently work there and eight management associates that would be added that wouldn't necessarily coordinate with the shift change, so that traffic depended on what shift they are working that day. As it relates to the number of residents living in their community, they have 111 independent living apartments, 22 assisted living apartments and 59 skilled nursing beds. They have approximately 33 of their independent living folks who have a double occupant, so it results in 144 people living in that building. Therefore there was a total of 225 people that currently live in the community. There were 32 new apartments assuming 50% of them are double occupied they increased that to 48 apartments. There were 52 assisted living apartments, 8 two-bedrooms and 60 beds on that one. The Alzheimer's has 21 beds and then the nursing home results in 81 beds. The grand total at the end of the day is 192 independent residents, 82 assisted living, 21 Alzheimer's and 81 skilled nursing residents. That resulted in 354 total residents on the site. That was information that they double checked and triple checked today and she was hoping they weren't being accused of providing misinformation. Those staffing numbers included everyone from a care giver to a housekeeper to a maintenance person to a food server to a cook and it included everyone. They did receive a report from the Captain of the Fire Department indicating the number of emergency vehicle visits to their community in 2000. There were 97 visits for the year, which was basically two visits per week and varying times depending on the need of the emergency and what it is. The Captain also stated that they were on track for the same type of traffic for the year 2001. Unfortunately they didn't keep records as to whether it was nursing home or independent living affiliated, but she could tell 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 them from experienceth at the majorityof the visits were forskilled the sk ed nursing community. Chairperson Lopez said that he did listen today to the tape of the meeting and the number 472 did appear on the tape as well as in the minutes. He Pp asked if that was an incorrect number. Ms. Ferguson said she wasn't at the meeting. Commissioner Finerty said that Mr. Roos was the one who quoted that number as noted in the May 15 minutes. Chairperson Lopez said he was just asking for a clarification - 349 and 354 was close, but not 472. Mr. Smith explained that page five of the May 15 staff report had the number of persons based on the unit count. The Senior Overlay Ordinance was different based on the size of apartment units and the number of bedrooms. It assumed 1.75, 1.5 and 1.25 people. Going through the numbers staff had, staff came up with a count of 472 persons where the ordinance would permit up to 970 persons. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the project would be between 349 and 354. Ms. Ferguson concurred and said that obviously that was based on assumptions of what they know about their population and the double occupancy that would occur in their community based upon what exists today. Chairperson Lopez asked if the current 225 residents was full capacity. Ms. Ferguson said yes, that was 100% occupancy. Commissioner Tschopp noted that someone brought up special events and asked how often they hold special events and exceed their onsite parking capacity. Ms. Ferguson said they hold a special event once a month. Commissioner Tschopp asked if that entailed parking outside the complex. Ms. Ferguson said yes. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp asked if she knew how many cars were there parking outside the complex. Ms. Ferguson guessed maybe 20 cars. Mr. Walker spoke from the audience and said that some people park outside the complex only because it is more convenient. He thought there was adequate parking in most cases. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they were to start construction how they would handle the construction vehicles and workers and if they had a plan to get them onto the site. Mr. Pratt said that due to the sensitive nature of their campus in the residential context, they would require their general contractor to prepare a staging plan that would demonstrate how they would move materials onto the property and observe the construction hours so they weren't working at 5:00 a.m. and would make sure that somebody would be at a gate. If they picked a gate to route all construction through, they would have someone there managing that process so they didn't have a problem. Ms. Ferguson added that the surrounding homeowners would be very critical of them during their construction period. She said she also has 254 people living on her community's campus that would be in Mr. Walker's and Ms. Ship's office every single day if they weren't happy with the way the construction is managed and she could speak to that from experience at other communities. Commissioner Campbell said that she could see from their last meeting in May to the present time that the developer has tried to solve many of the issues that the residents have. Regarding delivery trucks, she thought that 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 was adequate and if they needed anything earlier for breakfast for the next day, they would have the delivery on the previous day to have those supplies on hand. As far as the fire trucks and ambulances having openers for the gate and the employees and the fire trucks and ambulances would enter from the south gate and go all around to the middle area and that entrance, but if that north gate was open, she said she could understand why it would be easier for them to enter at the north gate and do away with the covered walk and maybe in some way arrange it so that it could still be a covered area. She didn't know that older people had a 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 problem with elevators although she knew they have problems with escalators because even younger people have problems with escalators, but not with getting into elevators and going up or down. She thought it would be a good idea to have the fire trucks and delivery trucks enter through the north gate. Another problem with traffic on Hovley that Ms. Webb brought up had to do with the project on the south side of Hovley. Commissioner Campbell didn't think there was anything that could be done about that traffic on Hovley and it wasn't because of the Carlotta. Regarding the view on the two story buildings, there were two story apartments. The bedrooms were upstairs and they would be facing part of the two-story buildings and the casitas, so they would be similar in height and she didn't have an objection to them facing a two-story building opposite them. Regarding the delivery trucks, since there would only be one to four entering the south gate, she couldn't see why they couldn't enter through the north gate just like the emergency vehicles. For the landscaping of the cul-de-sac, she thought the City should be held responsible for the landscaping of that part of the area since it belongs to them. Commissioner Tschopp complimented the Carlotta. It seemed they have made significant progress since the last meeting. It appeared that they were very willing to try and work with the neighborhood to become good neighbors and minimize the impact on the neighborhood which was unique because there were a lot of residences on all sides and cul-de-sacs backing up to the property. He thought they had made some good progress at this point to try and mitigate problems. Some of the things he'd still liked to see worked on was mitigation of some of the traffic through the neighborhoods. The way the gate entries were proposed was an improvement since the last meeting, but by limiting the different delivery, visitors, emergency vehicles and residents to certain gates and then not having through traffic in the compound, they still created an uneven load of traffic in certain areas using what were truly residential streets for the most part. He wanted to see them work with the residents a little more and the City a little more because he understood the limitation of the left and right-hand turns on Hovley and some of the other things that could create down the road even more traffic problems with the increase in traffic. On the internal roadway, he thought there might be a way for them to accommodate their visitors and guests inside and also get a little better traffic flow through the neighborhood by integrating it somehow into the complex. Some of the other things he thought were fairly minor. He wanted to see an agreement that they limit the 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 number of people attending special events to the spaces available or perhaps in looking at the new plan that would accomplish that and keep people from wanting to park outside. They were dealing with residential type neighborhoods and he thought that would be appreciated by the neighbors. He thought they made significant progress and the neighbors for the most part had voiced some good ideas and he wanted to see them study it a little more and meet with them again to see if they could come up with a little bit closer agreement of what might work for everyone. Commissioner Finerty stated that she still had a number of concerns. It seemed they were trying to put too much and too many people in too small of an area and consequently the impact on the surrounding neighborhood was tremendous, especially on the south side. While it was true that the Carlotta was there first, this process requires a change of zone to build out to 100% occupancy and that is why there was a public hearing process for everyone to address these and while everyone bought their homes thinking the Carlotta would basically stay the current size and there was a level of comfort, but increasing it to the proposed size would increase the traffic, the residents, the comings and goings, the delivery times and she too felt that significant progress has been made but she wasn't prepared at this time to give any kind of approval and felt they needed to go back to the drawing board. Specifically on the impact on the south. She didn't understand why they wanted the residents to enter on the north when the residents of Palm Desert are being impacted on the south. It would seem to her that to accommodate the neighborhood character and wanting this expansion that they would be taking the concerns of the residents to the south and therefore require the emergency vehicles and delivery trucks to go in the north. She felt that needed a definite flip flop and deference needed to be made to residents who deal with this day in and day out because the residents of the Carlotta weren't really going to be impacted the way the residents in the City were going to be impacted with the noise, traffic and comings and goings because the people in the Carlotta are already there. She said she would not deviate on the delivery times. She thought 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. was sufficient. As Commissioner Campbell noted, they could just order things earlier and have them delivered sooner if that was an issue. She agreed with Commissioner Tschopp that there did need to be through traffic in the project. That was somethingelse that needed to be worked on. With regard P J 9 to the special events, she wanted to see that limited to the parking available in the Carlotta so that the residents of Palm Desert were not impacted. She 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 thought there was a lot more work to be done and wanted to see more neighborhood meetings. Her concern was that there would be a lot of people away right now and they were hearing that people still weren't aware of the proposed project despite the public notice. She would be in favor of a continuance at this point. Chairperson Lopez stated that in reviewing the information he has heard from the tape, in reviewing the minutes and from the additional testimony given, he thought there had been great progress and he commended everyone for taking to heart the comments of the residents. He thought they really were working toward a solution to these things and that they were on the right road and that the residents were of the opinion that they were on the right road. There were certain things that were out of their hands as it pertains to traffic on Hovley and those items which had been brought up before. There was growth in the community and there would be things that were going to change, more homes being built every day on all sides of where we live and people would be going back and forth between all the communities and it would impact the traffic. They would have to come up with the best plans they could and some of it would be for our own safety. Right turns in and out was a safety measure. Trying to get across two, three or four lanes in a high traffic area was dangerous. Those were things they would have to deal with as they go down the line, but he did think that as they enter into the Carlotta area there was no doubt that everything was right there. They were going down a road that wasn't a tremendously wide residential area although it was very quiet when he visited there three or four times to observe the area. He agreed that they were getting closer to a solution. He thought the solutions needed to include some of the safety things heard tonight. He was concerned about the area children and agreed with the gentleman who spoke that had children and he personally saw the blind spot on the main gate. Public Works might have to review this again because it was a situation where they might need some four-way stops and some slowing of traffic in that area if there was concern about the speed of the traffic through the community. He thought the parking seemed to be fine. There were some landscaping issues that needed to be looked at and some solutions. The point brought up about the landscaping and the parking area in the front was a very valid one because he noticed that immediately when he drove by there. There was a need to "soften" that area. He thought the holding of events within the community that creates an impact on the outside community and he could understand the reasons why because people are 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 used to going to those events and parking as close as they could get. Unfortunately as close as they could get was impacting the residents who live there. He thought that the applicant could have an impact on that. He did believe they were moving in the right direction and on behalf of the commission, he thanked everyone for taking the time to come to the meeting. He said the commission does take the information to heart and reviewed everything they could review to make the decision. This one would be difficult, but he thought they were getting closer to where they wanted to be. He asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Campbell asked if the curb could be painted red. Mr. Drell said if the neighborhood didn't need street parking there, it could be painted red. If no one needed to park there, he asked what the harm was in people parking there once a month. Roads were designed with width for parking. That was why they were 36 feet wide. Commissioner Campbell noted that some of the residents were complaining about the cars being parked there once a month. Mr. Drell said the road was designed with the assumption that cars would park there. If that parking on the street was interfering with the neighbors' ability to park there and was competing with it, there would be a problem if the curb was painted red because then no one could park there. If they wanted to have streets with no parking, they should design them 24 feet wide and then people would drive slower on them. That was something that could be discussed between the neighbors. The fact that there are cars parked on a public street which is designed for parking isn't necessarily a problem. If the goal is informing the guests coming to these events and alleviating that irritation that was something the management of these events could achieve if they inform people. Or temporarily during those times they could put up no parking signs and he didn't really know what that was going to achieve since no one during that period of time could park there. Commissioner Campbell suggested that when they do have these special events, they could have someone direct traffic inside. Mr. Drell said he wasn't sure how much of a problem it was and how much effort was worth going in to solve it compared to the other issues. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would move for continuance to July 17. Action: 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2001 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing this matter to July 17, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. B. Case No. CUP 01-08 - VERIZON; 02 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, Applicant (Continued from June 5, 2001) Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 50-foot high wireless communication tower, camouflaged as a flagpole located at 74-535 Highway 74. Chairperson Lopez noted that there was a request for continuance. Mr. Drell advised that the public hearing still needed to be opened. Mr. Drell explained that the issue was referred to the Architectural Review Commission and they needed additional changes and it wasn't ready to come back yet. Chairperson Lopez indicated that the public hearing was open and asked if P anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. There was no one. Y The public hearing was left open. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue Case No. CUP 01-08 to July 17, 2001 by minute motion. C. Case No. DA 92-3 Preannexation Development Agreement - Noble & Company, Applicant Request for approval of a five-year time extension to the preannexation development agreement originally enacted pursuant to Ordinance No. 696, December 17, 1992. Mr. Smith explained that in the early 1990's the City was anxious to annex the area around Monterey and Dinah Shore, specifically the property at the northwest corner which was Price Club at that point and is currently Costco and the vacant land at the northeast and southeast corner of that intersection. The owners of the vacant land were concerned that certain entitlements which they had obtained through the County might not be 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 MS. JOLEIN PRICE, said she would be located in the Park Center Executive Suites on Country Club Drive, and would like to move into the gym and Abbas Aromas because she would be more visible. She said she liked to offer massage at an affordable price to see how it would impact the health care system and being in that environment would make that more possible. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for commission comments or action. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4- 0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2071 , approving CUP 01-09, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. C. Case Nos. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 - THE FOUNTAINS, Applicant Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR- 1 0 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 - 505 Carlotta Drive. Mr. Smith put the site plan on display and described the layout. He said that the applicant was requesting a conversion of the existing 22 assisted 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 living units to 22 skilled nursing beds and approval to construct 52 new assisted living units, 32 casita units and a 21 bed Alzheimer facility. The existing 111 apartment units and 59 bed skilled nursing units would remain with the skilled nursing being expanded to a total of 81 beds. The casita units at the northwest corner of the site would be single story. There would be four to eight units per building. The buildings were set 94 feet back from the north property line and the west setback ranged from 62 to 90 feet. The units were 935 square feet to 1 ,200 square feet with eight of the one bedroom units and 24 of the two bedroom units. Parking was located around the perimeter of the casita units. The assisted living facility would be a winged shaped building at the southwesterly portion of the site with setbacks ranging from 65 feet to 160 feet and 70 feet from the south property line. The Alzheimer's facility would be single story, 18 feet in height. It had one architectural projection on it, a turret that goes to 24 feet. That building would be setback 70 feet from the south property line. The addition would be served by the existing access points from Carlotta Drive. No new accesses are proposed. There was a total of 320 parking spaces onsite. Staff calculated a requirement of 296. That utilized a minimum age requirement of 55 years in that the parking provisions in the ordinance differ between ages 55 and 62. Less parking was required at age 62. The applicant had an age cut off at 60, so staff applied the age 55 standard. He said there was an equivalent of 247 units in that staff allocated two beds in the Alzheimer's and skilled nursing facilities per unit as done for other projects. The current zoning at PR-10 for 19.4 acres would permit 194 units. Staff was suggesting a need to go to the Senior Overlay designation in order to provide the additional density and the special development standards to encourage the development of the senior housing. There was a development agreement attached to the staff report which provided for the applicant to pay a senior housing mitigation fee of $127,200 which would be used by the city to provide affordable housing. That was based on a rate of $12,000 per unit on the excess units. The $12,000 per unit was also applied in a similar fashion to the Portofino project approved in 1999. He said that staff was recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the General Plan Amendment and Precise Plan to City Council. Mr. Smith noted that a letter was received from a neighbor who lives right across the street, Mr. Beaty, who expressed 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 disappointment that the neighborhood hadn't been advised of the proposal and thought the developer should have met with the neighborhood first. Staff subsequently learned that the applicant had met with some of the neighbors around the south and west, but not with the people to the east. The applicant or a representative of the applicant met with Mr. Beaty on Friday. A letter was distributed to commission from Mr. Pratt which in his mind summarized the meeting that occurred on Friday and indicated that Mr. Beaty's concerns were mainly related to the south entry gate which was squeaky and operates slowly so that inbound cars couldn't immediately turn into the Carlotta. There were also some existing lights on the Carlotta property that might need to be shielded to prevent glare across the street. Staff hadn't heard what happened Friday from Mr. Beaty's perspective. Mr. Smith did confirm that those were the concerns raised when he spoke to Mr. Beaty on Wednesday. Conditions 15 and 16 of the draft resolution addressed the issue of the noisy gate and the stacking of vehicles. In Mr. Pratt's letter dated May 12, he indicated a willingness to install a faster, quieter gate to resolve the problem. Commission could review the merits of that in that basically there was still a need to have the gate open during shift changes so that employees could efficiently move in and out so they weren't stacked and backed up out into Carlotta Drive. If the new gate could be designed to accommodate that so that it could be programmed in, that would be great. He stated that ARC granted preliminary approval. Staff's recommendation was adoption of the resolution recommending approval to City Council. Commissioner Jonathan requested that Mr. Smith show the commission the renderings and identify which elements of the application they were looking at. Mr. Smith did so. He noted that ARC asked the applicant to do some alterations to the roof structures to create some more interest which wasn't reflected in the colored versions. He distributed the material sample board. Regarding the extra employees needed for these facilities, Commissioner Campbell asked if parking would be provided within the compound. Mr. Smith said yes. Condition 15 or 16 reflected that and required that all employees park onsite. Mr. Smith confirmed that they haven't had a problem and would be adding considerable parking with this expansion. 15 1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Commissioner Campbell asked for clarification on the problem lights. Mr. Smith explained that the lights were building-mounted lights. He understood that they would be shielded. Commissioner Campbell asked if this gate was the primary entrance and exit and if they used the other facility. Mr. Smith explained that the southerly gate was the primary access point. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this application includes a General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Development Agreement. With regard to the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, he asked if this had been addressed with any other city committees. Mr. Smith said no. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was an issue with amending the General Plan at this point. Mr. Drell indicated that this would be an inf ill development within an existing project. That issue had come up for when they talk about new development in large vacant areas where it was conceivable that they might want a different sort of use there, but in this particular case he didn't think they would ever conceive of a different use within Carlotta other than senior housing. If this project had been built in the city originally, it would have gotten these designations. It was built in the County and now that they were doing the expansion, they would be giving them the designation they would have had if they had built in the city in the first place. Commissioner Jonathan said he didn't have a problem with the use and personally didn't have a problem with the General Plan Amendment or Change of Zone, but he was asking procedurally if they were getting any indications that General Plan Amendments have to be subject to maybe an additional procedure or approval through other city commissions. Mr. Drell said there is no moratorium. On the other hand, it would now be the recommended procedure for large projects in large vacant areas where there is a question as to future use, that they would be encouraging those property owners to wait or run the plans through the General Plan Advisory Committee. Vice Chairperson Finerty opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS with Mainiero, Smith & Associates representing The Fountains, addressed the commission. He stated 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 that Todd Pratt, the Project Manager, was on jury duty and wasn't able to attend. He said that they concur with the staff recommendation and conditions of approval including the requirements to redo the gates and make sure all the lights are properly shielded. When they came back through with their final plans they would do that. He said that the Carlotta has been there 15 years. For the most part this type of facility is very compatible with low density residential areas in terms of amounts of traffic, etc., that would be generated. There would be some driving with the casita residents. He didn't believe there would be a significant increase in traffic because most of the facility would be assisted and Alzheimer's uses which wouldn't generate traffic. The amount of staff they would expect would be about 12 on a shift maximum; between five and 12. They met with what they thought would be the most sensitive areas, the west and the south, and unfortunately caught up with the east after Mr. Beaty sent in his letter. They did meet with him and they would certainly try to meet with the objections relative to the gate and the lighting. He noted that Mr. Frank Urrutia was also present as part of the project team. Commissioner Tschopp asked how many more individuals would be staying at the Carlotta upon completion, total. Mr. Roos said there would be a total of 472 persons. Mr. Drell noted that condition 16 required that the gates stay open for a period of time during shift changes and asked if he was aware of that and it was okay. Mr. Roos said they could work with that. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that in his letter of May 12, Mr. Pratt said that included as a mitigation measure they would install a faster, quieter gate to resolve this problem. So Mr. Roos wouldn't object to that being condition 17. Mr. Roos concurred. 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if a faster, quieter gate was installed if the gates still needed to be open at change of shift. Mr. Roos said they would accede to leaving it open during changes of shift. The way the project was originally designed they didn't get the stacking distance they'd like to have and it would help keep traffic moving and flowing during those times. He thought the staffing was fairly moderate and there wasn't much of a change each time and that it would be an improvement. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Roos mentioned six to 12 staff at any one time. Mr. Roos said that would be new staff. Commissioner Jonathan asked how many staff members they could expect at any one time. Mr. Bob Walker spoke from the audience and indicated there would be 150 total and guessed 85% on the day shift. Commissioner Jonathan asked if in addition to that they would be looking at outside contractors coming in for housekeeping, landscape maintenance, etc. Mr. Walker indicated that would remain the same. Commissioner Jonathan confirmed that at any one time 85% of 100 to 150 is what they would expect to be onsite on the day shift. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff took that into consideration in calculating not so much the parking ordinance requirements, but the overall parking requirements. Mr. Smith said yes, it was included in the requirement that they provide spaces for the ones living there that happen to be driving and secondly for the staff. It was included in the requirement. Commissioner Jonathan said he heard that there would be as many as 472 residents plus up to 150 staff parking onsite, so potentially they had a potential of 600 people onsite and only 320 parking spaces. He agreed that 600 people didn't mean 600 cars, but in 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 light of that he asked staff if 320 parking spaces would adequate. Mr. Smith said yes and stated that they were adding considerable parking at this point. They haven't had a parking problem there up to now and the units being adding at this time were the Alzeheimers and the skilled nursing. They were adding 32 casita units, but they were adding much more than 32 parking spaces. Mr. Drell explained that in general, staff's experience with the other facilities, Hacienda de Monterey which has 200+ assisted and independent living units, so parked at the 1 :1 started out with plenty of parking and as time goes on there are more and more vacant spaces. Fewer and fewer of the residents drive cars and staff stays about the same. Staff's experience was that amount was adequate. Commissioner Jonathan said he was trying to add up the number of residents, staff and visitors. Mr. Drell thought that less than half of the residents have cars to begin with and that number diminished over time. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the project. MS. ANNA ANDERSEN, 41-945 Freedom Court. , stated that she wasn't worried about traffic going in and out except that during the night when they have ambulances, they were followed by big fire trucks and they couldn't sleep at night. There was heavy traffic on the south road. During the day it was for deliveries, the clean laundry coming in, etc., and there was a lot of heavy traffic. She could only assume that with a lot more residents, there would be a lot more visits by ambulances and that was a big worry. She was waking up at 2:00 a.m. to the beep, beep, beep. It was something she wanted them to consider, how to get in and out of that facility during the night. She said they called over there and were told there was nothing they could do about it. Commissioner Campbell asked how long Ms. Anderson had lived at that address. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Ms. Andersen said two years. She confirmed that she knew the Carlotta was there when she moved in, but if she had known what it was like she wouldn't have bought there. She needed her sleep. Mr. Drell asked for clarification as to what the beep, beep, beep was from. Ms. Andersen said it was from the trucks backing up. The flashing lights were also a problem. Upon questioning by Mr. Drell, she said they came out there once, twice, and three times a week at least. She said that sometimes it was a lot, sometimes not as much. She personally found it a lot. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the ambulances and fire trucks had their sirens on. Ms. Andersen said no, it was only the heavy motors running while they were sitting there and the lights flashing right there in front of her house. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there were any easy mitigations that could be placed required; if there were any walls, landscaping, or some kind of easy solutions to that problem. Ms. Andersen said they have a wall now. Mr. Drell said that the wall could be increased in height. He wasn't sure if it was required by any law that they had to have their lights continually flashing once they're there. That was something they could take up with the paramedics. Ms. Anderson asked if they could slow down the traffic on the south. Mr. Drell said he was sure they didn't like to slow down. Ms. Andersen said that the south street they had was the main delivery route and that mid entrance was a nice gate. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Mr. Drell said that he thought the reason they were stopped there was because there was an entrance to the facility there where they were getting people in and out of. He asked for clarification that they were stopped right in front of her house. Ms. Andersen said yes, they seemed to stop right there. Mr. Drell asked if the representatives had any thoughts as to how to address this issue. MR. BOB WALKER, Executive Director of The Fountains at The Carlotta, stated that the ambulances and rescue vehicles came to their facility first if there was an urgent need because someone fell or whatever the reason might be. They also had to come when anyone ceased to breathe. They were required under State law to call for rescue when anyone passed away. That did occur in nursing homes and in assisted living and in emergencies. Those were two primary reasons emergency vehicles would come to the facility. He couldn't stop either occasion. He wasn't sure about the lights or about keeping the engines running, but they usually did. He didn't think that would stop or diminish, however, he didn't think it would increase significantly either. MS. KIMBERLY WEBB, 75-730 Dolmar Court in Palm Desert, informed commission that the prior owners of The Carlotta had been good neighbors in their community ever since the community was established. She personally has lived in the neighborhood over four years. The residents had been disappointed that the entire neighborhood was not informed even though they stated that they did make some sort of an effort to contact them and they only learned of it as a result of the legal notice from the City. It was her feeling that this project would adversely effect their neighborhood and homes immediately south and adjacent to the proposed construction which included Hemmingway, Marin Court, Freedom Court and Dempsy. These would be mostly impacted and the increase in noise and traffic congestion, and the decrease in views to the mountain scape would compromise their resale value. Those homes were going for between $250,000 to 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 $350,000. The homes on the fairway which were on the immediate west had great views along there. The conversion to the assisted living Mr. Smith indicated that it would be 30 units and there would be 52 assisted and 32 independent. She believed there were a number of discrepancies in the information provided by the management team coordinating this expansion. They were indicating a limited number in increase in employees. Unfortunately the 10 to 12 was not accurate. With the Alzeheimer's units alone for 20 beds it required three people per eight hour shift. That was a minimum. There were also the casitas which also increased just the general care from the kitchen to the housekeeping to the general needs people to the nursing staff. These would have to be increased. For skilled nursing facilities, there were normally five to 30 beds required additionally in a skilled nursing unit, so she believed the numbers were a little bit skewed in their favor when they presented that. The gates were slow, traffic stacked up and they didn't leave the gates open during shift times. They would see one gate open just enough for one car to pass through. That was the southern gate. In reference to the fire trucks, she understood that it was a State law that a fire unit must be dispatched with an ambulance. She asked how any of the staff could revive a deceased patient when a paramedic could designate and transport a body. They didn't need a fire engine. They did continue with their lights on. And the woman who spoke before, she didn't think she was out visiting the neighborhood at 3:00 a.m. prior to her purchase, so in her defense, no she wouldn't have been aware of the frequency until the strobe lights came in. They were very careful not to come down the street with blaring lights on most occasions. The delivery trucks were usually waiting at the gates, sometimes as early as 5:00 a.m. with refrigerated units and they just sit there and sit there. Because they have walls fronting not only their properties but along the Carlotta, the noise just goes on and on which impacts those on Easy Street, as well as those on Carlotta, Dolmar Court and Duvall. Where the ambulance stops and impacts those homes along the south border there, they were getting a tremendous amount of noise. They were thinking that the wall would deafen the noise, but unfortunately it sent it up into their 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 two story homes and normally the bedrooms were located in the upper level. The wall unless it was 15 feet high wouldn't do much to alleviate the noise they were currently under duress about. The other problem they had was with speeding vehicles north and south on Carlotta. She believed it had been approached previously to put a stop sign at Sandcastle and Carlotta to slow down the now teenagers that moved into the neighborhood 10 years ago. It was like a race track and she knew that the City had been putting up speed radar indicators and are aware there is a problem. Unfortunately, they would have people going down the street going 40-50 mph so the seniors were already having to deal with speeders on this avenue as well. The increase of the 32 casitas at 1 .5 bodies per casita for married couples in the two bedroom apartments would have an impact there. It was her understanding that the new configurations in the process for the new project going in by the Sunrise Colony in Indian Wells immediately south of Hovley was currently undeveloped, but they were working on that right now. Hovley Lane would be denying access and limited access and entry to their community as it is. For off of Hovley Lane, if they were traveling east on Hovley Lane they could currently turn left onto Hemmingway to enter homes on Marin Court, Dempsey and Freedom Court. Once the new policy goes in and they revise the traffic there, they would no longer be able to turn left on Hemmingway which would force all of those residents to turn left from the Carlotta drive. They only have two accesses to that community from the south. So now all of that traffic and approximately 100-1 12 homes would be effected and all of that traffic would be coming down Hovley now. In order to exit off of Hovley, those residents off of Carlotta, north Carlotta with over 100 homes in that area, Duvall, Sandcastle, Dolmar Court, Easy Street, Dempsey, Marin, Hemmingway and Freedom Court would now, if they wanted to make a left turn onto Hovley which they do now, that would no longer be available. All of those vehicles would be forced to go north on Carlotta, turn right on Sandcastle, turn right on El Dorado and left on Hovley. Their lives were already going to be compromised by the amount of traffic because of this proposed revision in Hovley when they widen it to four lanes. Now they were throwing in additional 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 delivery trucks, additional vehicles driven by the seniors living there, more frequent visits by the ambulance and fire trucks. Unfortunately with a senior population there was an increase in that which was quite frequent already. There were many different areas impacted here. She hoped that the Planning Commission would look at this further and in greater depth. They were now dealing with a corporation as opposed to a community center which was what it used to be. The Carlotta previously was a nonprofit organization or facility. Now the new owners are for profit so of course they wanted to have it as highly dense as possible because more residents meant more revenue and more money. Unfortunately they didn't have access to their neighborhood as it was. The stacking of vehicles was amazing. They would have five or six vehicles attempting to get into this facility and the majority of them were seniors. They didn't just go to where the center of the median would be, they were all over. She didn't know if they wanted to propose new senior driver safety courses or a better designation of left turn lanes, whatever, but something was needed to alleviate this problem. She hoped the commission would deny the project. She didn't think there was any way, because of the configuration of the neighborhood already, that they would be accommodating to the existing problems that would result from the Hovley project impacted by an increase they are asking for here. So she was asking them to deny it. At the least she was requesting a continuance so that more of their residents would have an opportunity to become aware of what was going on and to become more actively involved. She said she just found out about this from the information and Mr. Beaty had been very active and they tried to get more people to attend, but unfortunately schedules didn't accommodate. She said that if for some reason the commission deemed this to be a worthy project, there were many things in return they would ask for. One would be faster gates and easy accessibility. When they had to call in at the north gate, it took 10, 15 or 20 seconds before someone answered the line, then it was another duration while they were waiting for this gate to open. These cars were stacked up and it wasn't momentarily. They were sitting there. The other thing was an area immediately 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 northeast of the facility. There was sort of a cul-de-sac that had been abandoned. Whatever the idea of the City was when they designed the neighborhood, it was beyond any of them. It was an unfinished area. There was grass along the front of The Carlotta at The Fountains, then they see this wedge just left open and the property is owned by the City of Palm Desert. They had a prior agreement with the owners of The Carlotta previously that they would maintain that area if it were cleaned up and grass seed was put down. Now The Lakes also buts up to part of that property and they exit out through a gate. She proposed that The Lakes put in another entry or exit out through that gate that would allow some of the residents to exit at another end instead of impacting all of these cars coming there. Again, she was very much in opposition to this. She said she realized that there were certain things that they couldn't change, but for financial considerations, it was a good thing for the city because of taxes, but they were also looking at the ones already there paying taxes and supporting the city in a very positive way. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if Mr. Greenwood would like to comment on any of the traffic issues. Mr. Greenwood said he would be happy to answer any questions. There were several issues brought up. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that Ms. Webb brought up the issue of possibly another entrance off the property the City owns and she also talked about when the new construction goes in off of Hovley that would change how the traffic currently circulates. Mr. Greenwood confirmed that the City does own a lot at Carlotta and Sandcastle. He believed there was a block wall at the west end of Sandcastle into one of the country club developments. They had no interest in gaining access at that point. The City did need to do something with that lot and they have tried to dispose of it several times, but found no takers. It occasionally did get into a state of less than adequate maintenance so for now all they could do was take care of it the best they could until they could find a reasonable use for it. As far as the project on Hovley Lane East, left turn accesses at Hemmingway will be prohibited, they will be right-in right-out. There would be full access at Carlotta and left turns would be allowed, so that could change traffic patterns somewhat at Carlotta. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Vice Chairperson Finerty asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. MR. FABIANO stated that he lived at Dempsey and Carlotta Drive and the traffic with the firemen was all the time, day and night, with noise. The impact from the trucks and ambulance was all the time. His house was right on the corner and there was a lot of noise. Mr. Roos readdressed the commission. He stated that they didn't see the intensification of the property as dramatic and there would certainly be more people on the property, but the nature of senior housing traffic wise tended to be considerably less than the normal single family type or apartment type of residence. They could work with the fire department on the lights if that was a possibility, but they knew that unless they changed the law they couldn't change who came to the property on that basis. He said they would be glad to work with management on issues such as truck deliveries and stacking up in the mornings and those kinds of issues. Although some people come from a long distance, it was hard to time exactly when they got there, but they could certainly work toward deliveries not waiting at 5:00 a.m. He said that they did give hand written messages to folks on the south side and four people came to a meeting. Some of what they heard was from residents on the east side, which they didn't canvass and he apologized for that. He said they would try and answer any mitigations and were open to that. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that Mr. Roos said that he didn't think the increase would be dramatic and believed that Mr. Walker said it was not significant, but the best she could tell was that currently there are 192 people when full. The proposal would be to add 105 new to the population. That was a little over 33%. In addition to that 33% there would be 33% more emergency services, 33% more delivery trucks and they didn't see that as dramatic or significant. Mr. Roos said it wasn't in an overall context. The property was master planned originally for additional facilities similar to what is 26 (y. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 there. They built the first phase. In terms of the activity levels, they were adding 32 casitas, which were the more active of the group. The rest were Alzeheimer's and assisted which in terms of traffic, there wasn't an increase in traffic with those. They have 1 1 1 existing apartments which tend to be more of the active. The character of the facility would reverse the active assisted kind of percentages. Yes, while there would be some increase, the fact that they have a food delivery didn't mean they would have 33% more deliveries of food, they would just have more in the truck. That was not to say there wouldn't be some increase in those facilities, but just because they were adding facilities, the gardeners were already taking care of this area and it was already turfed and they had been a good neighbor for all these years. The number of people didn't necessarily increase the number of trips and ancillary uses. Vice Chairperson Finerty said that the number theygiven for were o new employees was six to 12. Mr. Roos said 12 was the maximum on a shift. Vice Chairperson Finerty asked for clarification that there would be 12 employees for 105 people. Mr. Roos said on a shift, yes. Mr. Walker said that the people living in the casitas would be independent living and they really didn't have employees per se other than basic general area cleaning and maintenance to take care of those facilities. They are independent. The people in assisted living required minimal care in terms of staffing. They weren't like the skilled nursing facility. There was not a requirement to provide a certain number of man hours per patient day for independent living or for assisted living. Those things did require minimal staffing. They estimated somewhere between six and 12 during a day shift, the maximum shift, for those additional facilities. They didn't anticipate 33% additional trucks, like Mr. Roos said they would just bring with them larger supplies. 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant was aware of the condition of approval that required that commercial deliveries occur Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. so there wouldn't be any deliveries at 5:00 a.m. She didn't know why they have them right now at that time. Mr. Walker said he wasn't aware of that condition, but the others confirmed they were. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was just one access to the project. Mr. Walker said there were two entrances into The Carlotta. Commissioner Tschopp asked if they were requiring delivery trucks and workers to use just one entrance. Mr. Walker said yes, primarily one entrance. It was because it led to their parking area and to the delivery sites. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there would be any problem with allowing delivery trucks and workers to use either entrance. Mr. Walker said that the other entrance was not conducive to having delivery trucks enter in and out because of the short turn span. Some employees did go into the other entrance now. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a chance now to make some changes so that they could come through the other gates. Mr. Walker said it was their commitment to improve the gates in terms of their quietness and speed. The one gate was extremely large and that was why it was slow because of the weight of that gate and the power train that pulls it. But they would try and improve upon that and make it faster. Commissioner Tschopp said that whether the facility was a country club, nursing facility, etc., when they restricted entrance to workers and trucks to just one area, then they impacted more that side of the development 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 than the other side. He asked if there was any way to take advantage of this now to maybe mitigate some of the problems. Mr. Walker thought that if they were going to leave the gates open during the change in shift, that would eliminate a lot of the problems. He pointed out that it is a gated community and part of the whole marketing is the fact that they are gated and that is a security factor for the people that live there. Therefore, leaving gates open was not in the best interest of The Carlotta, but during a change of shift they were willing to concede to doing that. Commissioner Tschopp said they could stipulate rules that the delivery trucks could only deliver between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and asked if there was any way they could control showing up earlier and just sitting outside the gates. Mr. Walker said he didn't know that. Commissioner Tschopp said it wasn't just them, it was also country clubs, where they back up onto streets of residences and create problems for other people around it. He asked if there was a way they could have a staging area or somewhere in The Carlotta that these delivery trucks could go into at The Carlotta if they were going to be waiting. Mr. Walker said they could look into that. Commissioner Jonathan noted that it wasn't a guarded gate, it was just a mechanical gate. He asked if there was a possibility to create a guard station similar to other country clubs where one lane was open for vehicles to go in because they had stickers and they just go straight through and another entrance lane for visitors to check in. Mr. Walker said they do have cameras and a telephone system between the gate and the reception area in the facility. That was how people gain access to The Carlotta. He wasn't really in favor of adding 24-hour around the clock staff to watch the gate. There was traffic, but it wasn't like a country club or a gated community per se. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 Commissioner Campbell asked if that was at the south gate or both gates. Mr. Walker said it was just on the main entrance. The guests use the main gate as well as the residents to the apartments. Commissioner Jonathan asked why the emergency vehicles stack on the southern road. Mr. Walker said it was the access to the skilled nursing facility and to the assisted living facility. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a turn out area similar to - hospital emergency areas. Mr. Walker said no, there was just a driveway that goes past the two entrances to specific facilities. Vice Chairperson Finerty closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments or action. Commissioner Campbell stated that she would be in favor of a continuance to allow more of the neighbors an opportunity to come before the commission as suggested by Ms. Webb. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would also be in favor of a continuance. He liked the concept and the use. He thought it was a needed facility and if designed properly they could end up with something that would benefit the community without adversely impacting the neighbors. When he looked at open dirt, he tended to put into perspective the realization that something would be developed there. He contrasted the application with not what existed there now, but to what could be there, so there were some benefits to this. On the other hand he thought the concerns they heard tonight were valid and as commissioners they had thrown some things at the applicant asking if certain things would work and he wasn't very happy with the response. So from his perspective, they applicant had heard the problems and should fix them. If they could fix them he would be in favor. If they 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 couldn't, he wouldn't. It was that simple. He was particularly concerned about the potential for a lack of parking. By the time they added up the residents, the visitors, the variety of maintenance type vehicles for food, cleaning and everything that he couldn't think of that goes into that plus the staff, there was a huge demand on the parking. He would like to see that addressed adequately. There were concerns about that southerly road. There were mitigations and the applicant had a team of experienced people that have heard this for years. These weren't new problems and there were solutions to them so they should be fixed. The gate, whether it would take a guard so that the gate could remain open and half the traffic could go straight through and the other half had to check in, if that was what it was going to take, that is what it would take. If there is a better solution so they didn't have stacking, or creaky gates, or slow gates, that is what it would take. He thought the good news was, was that they identified the issues and the problems and he thought they were valid and he thought there were solutions to all of them so he urged the applicant to put together their creative forces and come up with some solutions. Commissioner Tschopp thought the overall concept was compatible to what is out there and if done properly it could be a good use of the land. The problems they saw in other parts of the city, it wasn't just endemic here but also in other areas, Portola in the morning had trucks backed up onto the street trying to get into the Vintage Club which created a traffic hazard for everyone else. The loud truck noises then impacted people across the way. He was not in favor of forcing maintenance trucks and heavy traffic to use just one entrance and cause that then to put undue hardship on people who live in that area. He thought that when building a project they should look at how they get the traffic quickly into their facility so that the problem was theirs, not the neighborhoods. He said it was a good time now to look at ways of doing that whether it was a staging area inside The Carlotta that these trucks could pull up into so that if they showed up early, it was their problem and they would go inside and sit on their property. They were right about the Riverside County Fire Department, there was nothing they could do about the lights or the big heavy diesel engines, but it would be nice to look at ways to direct that traffic or direct them closer to the source of the problem in the property as opposed to one side. He wanted to see them 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2001 looking at mitigating some of the traffic concerns to insure a smooth flow of traffic through the neighborhoods to get them off the streets into The Carlotta where they were trying to service the people there. Gate guards could be expensive, but they could sometimes keep traffic moving a little quicker. He would be in favor of a continuance to allow the applicant an opportunity to review some of those issues. Vice Chairperson Finerty agreed with her fellow commissioners although right now she wasn't seeing a compelling reason to change the character the neighborhood by increasing this by 33%. They heard that there is horrendous traffic now and it would just get worse. With just one entrance, basically, unless they could creatively design it so that they could move a lot of the traffic away from the people on the south side so that they weren't awakened in the middle of the night and they were able to get sleep and didn't have the loud diesel engines running and the lights flashing. They were entitled to have a good night's sleep. She said she would entertain a motion to continue. Commissioner Jonathan asked the applicant how long of a continuance they would need. Mr. Roos thought a month would allow them to get these problems addressed. They thought there were solutions and they would work with the commission and the community to do that. Vice Chairperson Finerty noted that date was June 19. Commissioner Jonathan said he would make a motion to continue and Commissioner Tschopp said he would second it. Vice Chairperson Finerty reopened the public hearing. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, continuing Case Nos. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03 and PP 01 -07 to June 19, 2001 by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. 32 Dale and Judy Barbat 75 714 Dolmar Court Palm Desert, CA 92211 August 9, 2001 Palm Desert City Council Re: Case Nos. C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 We strongly object to the above referenced zoning change and construction to be done at The Fountains. This is an area of single family homes and the streets are not designed to handle all of the additional traffic. Hovley.Lane has too much traffic as it is and at times is almost impossible to turn onto Hovley from Carlotta. August is not an ideal time to schedule this hearing as we, along with others in the area will be on vacation at this particular time so is a little difficult to attend the meeting to voice our objections. Yo s ly, I // 20/24 - P ale t: Judy Barbat IS I (Ad CI @UU I0. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: May 15, 2001 CASE NOS: GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovey Lane, 41-505 Carlotta Drive. APPLICANT: The Fountains 2020 West Rudisill Road Tucson, AZ 85709 BACKGROUND: The Fountains at The Carlotta has existed on Carlotta Drive for many years. The facility currently offers 1 1 1 residential apartments, a 59 bed skilled nursing facility and a 22 unit assisted living facility on a 19.4 acre site. The westerly side of the property is currently used for greenbelt purposes. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-5 / Lakes golf course South: PR-5 / single family dwellings East: PR-5 / single family dwellings West: PR-5 / one and two story condos B. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned PR-10 and has a general plan designation of high density residential (10-18 dwellings units per acre). STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 MAY 15, 2001 II. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The project consists of four components: skilled nursing, assisted living units, independent living casitas and an Alzheimer unit. Each product provides progressive levels of senior care, meal services, social and recreational amenities ranging from active independent living to supervised medical care within a relatively low density resort environment. The applicant seeks approval to convert the existing 22 assisted living units to 22 skilled nursing beds. The applicant also requests approval to construct 52 new assisted living units, 32 casita units, and a 21-bed Alzheimer facility. The existing 111 apartment units and 59 bed skilled nursing units will remain with the skilled nursing expanded to 81 beds. A. THE NEW FOUNTAINS UNIT MIX: Independent Living Apartments (existing) 111 units Independent Living Casitas (new) 32 units Skilled Nursing (59 existing / 22 converted) 81 beds Assisted Living (new) 52 units Alzheimer Facility (new) 21 units 1 . Casitas: The 32 single story casita units will be located in 19 foot high structures (four and eight units per building) which will be located at the northwest corner of the site. The buildings are setback 94 feet from the north property line and have a west setback that ranges from 62 feet to 90 feet. The units range in size from 935 square feet (one bedroom/one bath) to 1 ,200 square feet (two bedrooms/two baths). The unit mix provides 8 one bedroom and 24 two bedroom units. Parking is located adjacent to the units on all four sides. A detailed parking analysis will be provided later. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 MAY 15, 2001 2. Assisted Living: This facility is designed for those that require a small degree of help in their daily lives. The 52-unit assisted living complex will be in a wing- shaped two-story building 24 feet in height located at the southwest corner of the site with a setback from the west property line that ranges from 65 feet to 160 feet and a setback of 70 feet from the south property line. 3. Alzheimer Facility: The single story 18 foot high (24 feet to top of turret) Alzheimer facility is to be located on the south side of the property between the assisted living facility and the existing building. The building is setback 70 feet from the south property line. B. CIRCULATION AND PARKING: The addition will be served by the existing access points from Carlotta Drive. No new accesses are proposed. The existing perimeter driveway system will be extended westerly and will extend along the west property line (10 feet setback for a landscape planter). A minor driveway will run south from the existing north driveway between the existing apartment units and the proposed casitas then turn west to connect to the west driveway. Parking spaces (94) are shown on all four sides of the casitas with 12 additional spaces east of the Alzheimer building. This parking, coupled with the existing parking, results in a total 320 spaces of which 209 spaces are covered. Required parking is calculated as follows: Existing Apartments 1 1 1 units 1 space/unit* = 139 spaces Casitas 32 units 1 space/unit* = 40 spaces Skilled Nursing 81 beds 1 space/2 beds = 41 spaces Assisted Living 52 units 1 space/unit* = 65 spaces Alzheimer Unit 21 beds 1 space/2 beds = 11 spaces Total Required 296 spaces Parking will be adequate. *based on age 55 years minimum project 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 MAY 15, 2001 C. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The project as designed and proposed has the equivalent of 247 units where every two beds in the Alzheimer and skilled nursing units are considered one unit. The 19.4 acre site is currently zoned PR-10 which would permit up to 194 units. The project will require a general plan land use amendment to senior housing, change of zone adding the Senior Overlay, and a development agreement. The senior housing designation was designed to provide increased density and special development standards to encourage the development of specialized forms of senior housing. When the Senior Overlay was created, it was anticipated that senior projects would be requesting densities in excess of 20 units per acre. Due to the significantly lower traffic and other impacts of senior housing, the overlay allows these densities based on a population per acre land use intensity formula. The overlay also requires that senior housing projects include up to 25% affordable housing in exchange for these large density bonuses. For example Hacienda de Monterey, the first project approved under the overlay, received a density increase from R-1 10,000 (three units per acre) to 23 units per acre. Total allowable units increased from 31 to 233. For projects over 100 units the affordable housing inclusionary requirement mandates 10% moderate income units, 10% low income units, and 5% very low income units. Since high end congregate care and assisted living projects provide a wide range of services (meals, recreation, maid service, medical care, etc.) beyond basic housing, it has been nearly impossible to determine an appropriate affordable housing cost. As a result, the City and developer of these projects have historically agreed through a development agreement to substitute an in-lieu fee which would be used by the City to subsidize senior housing. In the case of Hacienda de Monterey (approved in 1985) an $8,000 per required affordable unit was assessed totaling $460,000. In this case the applicant is requesting a density bonus far smaller then previous projects which have historically ranged from 10 to 20 units per acre 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 MAY 15, 2001 over the base zone density. The proposal is requesting 247 equivalent residential units (Alzheimer and skilled nursing facilities are counted at two beds per unit) or 12.73 units per acre. This is only 53 units over the 194 units allowed by the base 10 units per acre zoning. The requested 2.73 units per acre density bonus is a small fraction of the 10 to 20 units per acre bonuses previously approved under the overlay. It is therefore recommended that the 20% inclusionary requirement only apply to the 53 additional bonus units. Also, the per unit assessment should be increased from the 1985 $8,000 level to $12,000 per unit accounting for inflation. The $12,000 per unit was also applied to the Portofino project in 1999. Based on this recommendation the development agreement contains an in-lieu affordable housing fee of $127,200 (53 units x .20 = 10.6 x $12,000 = $127,200) payable at a rate of $1 ,200 per unit at Certificate of Occupancy issuance for assisted living, skilled nursing facilities, Alzheimer facility, and at permit issuance for casitas (based on 106 new or converted equivalent units). DATA SUMMARY Project Ordinance Site Area 19.4 acres N/A Project Mix : Apartments 1 1 1 units* Casitas 32 units** Skilled Nursing 81 beds Assisted Living 52 units*** Alzheimer Facility 21 beds Senior Overlay Intensity 472 persons 970 persons Open Space 43% 40% Parking 320 spaces 296 spaces * 22 - 1 bedroom 89 - 2 bedrooms * * 8 - 1 bedroom 24 - 2 bedrooms *** 40 - 1 bedroom 8 - 2 bedrooms 4 - studio 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 MAY 15, 2001 III. CEQA: The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared and is recommended to City Council for certification. IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff received a letter (copy enclosed) from the Beatys, residents directly across the street from the Fountains which among other matters expresses disappointment that "The Fountains didn't contact neighbors to get our reaction to their plans." The applicant advises that they did hold a meeting with some residents to the south and west. They did not meet with the people to the east. We made the applicant aware of Mr. Beaty's concerns and he indicated he would attempt to meet with Mr. Beaty over the weekend. If the issues cannot be resolved, then staff recommends that the matter be continued. If the issues can be resolved, then staff is prepared to proceed and we have enclosed a draft resolution and conditions. The project as designed is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone and the Senior Overlay. It will continue to provide a unique combination of life services, social, recreational and cultural amenities within a resort environment normally associated with high end country clubs. It will also make a significant financial contribution to the city's low income senior housing program. The project has been designed to be sensitive to the concerns of each of the adjacent residential developments. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 MAY 15, 2001 C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD "SENIOR OVERLAY" TO THE EXISTING PR-10 ZONING AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY INTO A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY AND ADDITION OF 52 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, 32 INDEPENDENT LIVING CASITAS, AND 21 ALZHEIMER BEDS. SAID ADDITIONAL UNITS WILL BE LOCATED ON 6.6 ACRES ON THE EXISTING CARLOTTA SITE ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLOTTA DRIVE, NORTH OF HOVLEY LANE, 41 -505 CARLOTTA DRIVE. CASE NOS. GPA 01 -02, C/Z 01 -03 AND PP 01-07 AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA 01 -02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of May, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of The Fountains for approval of a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "senior overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 -505 Carlotta Drive; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of said request: 1 . The site is suitable for the general plan amendment. 2. The zone change is consistent with the general plan amendment. 3. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone and Senior Housing Overlay. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 6. 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, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 01-02, Change of Zone 01 -03 and Precise Plan 01 -07 are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is recommended for certification. 4. That approval of the development agreement DA 01 -02 (Exhibit B attached) is hereby recommended to City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1 5th day of May, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Each casita unit shall have designated a parking space under a carport. 7. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. 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. 9. That commercial deliveries shall only occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 10. That parking lot lighting and lighting mounted on the building exteriors shall be mounted below the top height of the adjacent perimeter wall to the west and south. All lighting shall comply with Ordinance 826 which regulates outdoor lighting. 11 . That trash collection shall occur only Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 12. That all delivery vehicle engines be shut off if a truck is parked more than five minutes. Post accordingly inside receiving area. 13. That horn blowing for all delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 14. That loud talking and radio playing associated with delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 15. That the applicant shall maintain the entry gates to minimize noise created when the gates open and close. 16. That all employees shall park on-site and that the entry gates shall remain open during employee shift changes so as to minimize the number of gate movements. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. Any storm drain/retention basin construction associated with 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. 4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 6. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 7. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 8. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC 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. 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 gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 a 3,000 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 UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 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 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). 12. 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". 13. 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. 6 PLA NNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14. 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. 15. 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. 1 6. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses or contrasting colors of a size approved by the City. 17. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 18. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or wh en building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: 1 9. Fire Marshal needs some type of secondary access. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 01 -07 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: The Fountains 2020 W. Rudisill Road Tucson, AZ 85709 PROJE CT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A general plan amendment and change of zone to add "senior overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 -505 Carlotta Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. May 15, 2001 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOUNTAINS SENIOR PROPERTIES OF CALIFORNIA INC. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of , 2001 , between Fountains Senior Properties of California Inc. (hereinafter "Property Owner") and the City of Palm Desert, (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. RECITALS This Agreement ent is predicated upon the following facts: 9 A. Governme nt Code Sections 65864 -65869.5 65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property; B. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit 1 , attached hereto and made a part hereof (here inafter "PROPERTY"). DEVELOPER has applied for and been granted approval of a precise plan (PP 01 -07) to convert the existing 22 bed assisted living facility to a 22 bed skilled nursing facility, to construct 32 casita units, 52 bed assisted living facility, 21 bed Alzheimer facility, and zone change to senior overlay; C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan approval pursuant to Chapter 25.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, Senior Housing Overlay District which allows for significant density increases in return for building specialized housing designed and restricted to residents over age 62 years; D. The City Council of City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Senior Overlay; and 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1 . Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "City" is the City of Palm Desert. (b) "Project" is the development to be constructed in the City pursuant to Precise Plan 01-07. (c) "Property Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property as described in paragraph (3) and includes the Property Owner's successor in interest. (d) "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraph (2). (e) "Useful Life of the Project" is the greater of thirty (30) years or the period of time which the Project remains habitable, with reasonable care and maintenance, as determined by City. (f) "Senior Citizen Household" means a maximum two person household of which all members are 55 years of age or older. 2. Description of Real Property. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. 3. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner represents that he has a full legal and equitable interest in the Real Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by the Agreement. 4. Assignment. The rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned; however, Property Owner will remain responsible for all obligations under this Agreement unless the written consent of the City is first obtained, which will not be unreasonably withheld. 5. Binding effect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors in interest to the parties to it. 6. Relationship of parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between the City and Property Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of the City. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7. Agreement by Property Owner and City. (a) Property Owner has been conditionally granted permission by the City to construct 32 casita units, 22 bed skilled nursing facility to be added to the existing 59 bed skilled nursing facility, 52 bed assisted living facility, 21 Alzheimer facility, and zone to change senior overlayon the PROPERTY by Precise Plan 01 -07 Planning Commission Resolution No. . Chapter 25.52 requires senior projects to set aside 20% of total project units as units affordable for very low, low and moderate income senior households. in exchange These affordable units are required for substantial density bonuses (project units in excess of base zone density) which have historically ranged from 10 to 20 additional units per acre. The project is receiving a density bonus of 2.73 units/acre or 53 of the 247 total project units. In consideration for the relatively small density bonus being granted, the 20% affordable requirement shall be applied only to the 53. The project's affordable housing requirement shall therefore be established at 10.6 units. (b) Due to the unique range of services provided by the PROJECT, in-lieu of the requirements above the Property Owner shall provide: 1 . Payment of $12,000 per affordable unit totaling $1 27,200 to the City to be used for the purpose of providing very low, low and moderate income senior housing. Payment shall be made in increments to the City prior to obtaining a building permit(s) for the project at the rate of $1 ,200 per unit. Fees shall be paid at time of Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted living, skilled nursing and Alzheimer facility. Fees for the casitas shall be at time of permit issuance. (c) Property Owner shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color or creed, sex, or national origin. (d) Age limits. The minimum age for all PROJECT occupants shall be 55 years old. (e) Change in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the approved precise plan without review and approval by those agencies of the City approving the plan in the first instance. A change, modification, revision or 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RES OLUTION NO. alteration in the approved precise plan in not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (f) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the PROJECT. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operation referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the PROJECT. Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (g) Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. City Planning Commission shall review this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT whenever substantial evidence exists to indicate a possible breach of the terms of this AGREEMENT. (h) Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code, Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. (i) Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in paragraph (j), this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is enforceable by any party to it 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications. (j) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. (k) Procedure upon default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or successor in interest as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon receipt of notification to take remedial actions. If Property Owner fails to take remedial action within 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. thirty (30) days, the Planning Commission of City shall recommend to the City Council of City that this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT be modified, terminated, or that the remedies set forth in this paragraph be exercised by the City. If the City Council of City concurs with the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission, the City Council may modify this Development Agreement, terminate this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, or may employ one or more of the remedies set forth in this paragraph. Proceedings before the City Council shall be by noticed public hearing pursuant to Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code of the City of Palm Desert. In the event of a default, City may employ one or more of the following remedies, in its sole discretion: City may revoke all previous approvals, entitlements and permits granted by the City to Property Owner with respect to this PROJECT and the subject Real Property. ii. City may pursue all other legal or equitable remedies City may have under California law or as set forth in this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and City shall be entitled to specific performance and enforcement of each and every term, condition and covenant set forth herein. (I) Damages upon Cancellation, Termination of Agreement. In no event shall Property Owner be entitled to any damages against the City upon modification, termination of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT or exercise by City of its rights under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (m) Attornev's fees and costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this AGREEMENT or to enforce a provision of this AGREEMENT, theprevailing pre ailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (n) Notices. All notices required or provided for under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepared. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Notices required to be given to Property Owner shall be addressed as fol lows: 2020 West Rudisill Road, Tucson, AZ 85709. A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. (o) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. ii. If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. iii. If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their obligations are joint and several. iv. The time limits set forth in this AGREEMENT may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of an agreement. (p) Duration of Agreement. This AGREEMENT shall expire only upon total destruction of the project which is the subject of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (q) Applicable Law. This AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. (r) Severability. If any portion of this AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (s) Authority. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to enter into this AGREEMENT contained herein, that each AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY OF PALM DESERT A Municipal Corporation By: City Attorney Attest: FOUNTAINS SENIOR PROPERTIES OF CALIFORNIA INC. By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of , 1998, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 16 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 01-07, THE FOUNTAINS AT CARLOTTA DATE: May 8, 2001 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. (2) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. (3) Any storm drain/retention basin construction associated with 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. (4) All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (5) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. (6) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. (7) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (8) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. (9) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. JOSEPH S. GAUGUSH, P.E. C\PubWorks\Joe Gaugush\WPDOCS\PPLANS\PP0107SS.wpd RIVERSIDE COUNTYo90, � �IfCgkU FIRE DEPARTMENT oEF ae"vAorfc�o4 y IN COOPERATION WITH THE C U.vTY r , fi CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION li.t'•l.. ' RIVERSI� e.r , „ t\ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE COVE FIRE MARSHAL Z IC WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE 70.801 HWY III PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 9257C RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 9227C TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900 TELEPHONE: (760) 346.1870 FAX: (760) 328.1071 TO: -,1%,,^c J11-1 I 5— 7/> REF: 0 / — L 7 If circled, conditions apply to project ,7 ,-� ��; (, n41 KaA—, c, A--� C.° -4G 14- With0respect 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, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or F construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. (2) 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 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings al 3000 gpm for commercial buildings LIN The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", 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 l_i) 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. 'l. 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 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. p nz on rOC/C I p-Om All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 0Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 0 ' U Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less that one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. .),,k 15. 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 UFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. (CI All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending in 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 vertical clearance of 13'6". Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, 0 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". , A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no (-7 circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted. h 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 2 e plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. 2. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses or contrasting colors 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. 24 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 Office at 760-346-1870: 70801 Highway 111,Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Other: 4-^NiS- 1-- 6 (2- (1�d.tL 1,0 v\\ �!z� =`` Sincerely, Mike Wilson Fire Marshal Cove Communities ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST F( i CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 AESTHETIC Project design includes perimeter landscaping to enhance the residential development. Buildings are single story residential scale consistent with existing neighborhood. Two story structures have been located with setbacks ranging from 46 feet to 70 feet. Overall quality of architecture and landscaping will be equal to or higher than surrounding area. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project is within the historical habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. Pursuant to CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan and the recently approved MOU with the California Department of Fish and Game, a $600 per acre mitigation fee will be paid unless it is shown that the project paid the fee previously when the site was graded. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE With both physical and operational mitigation measures, all identified impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FVrsivl 1 . Project Title: The Fountains 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 Department of Community Development (760) 346-061 1 ext. 486 4. Project Location: 6.6 acres on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, Palm Desert, Riverside County 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: The Fountains 2020 W. Rudisill Road Tucson, AZ 85709 6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential 7. Zoning: PR-10 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) Addition to senior citizens residential community. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) NORTH: GOLF COURSE SOUTH: HOMES WEST: CONDOMINIUMS EAST: SINGLE FAMILY HOMES 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality El Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning • ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise El Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic Cl 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. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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. El 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 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. 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 un/ppon['the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature_ —• j Date 1 , Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "r' Page 2 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, ant!'briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). • 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Ins Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ° SOURCE(S): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies • adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? � souRCE(s): , 2 c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? SOURCE(s): t , 2 . CITY/1 997/1 3 9904 FORM "J" Page 3 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? soURCE(s): I , a D ❑ ❑ �' e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? SOURCE(S): l t D D ❑ II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official relgional or local population projections? soURCE(S): I l D D D b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? SOURCE(s): I r 2 t 3 D ❑ D c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ D soURCE(s): 3 , III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? SOURCE(S): I / g 0 0 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(S): 1 0 ❑ D c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? SOURCE(S): 1,2 ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? soURCE(S): I , Z ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? SOURCE(S): ( 0 ❑ D D f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? soURCE(s): 10 ❑ D D CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 4 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Signiftont • Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact g) Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S): b 0 ❑ ❑ ,� h) Expansive soils? SOURCE(S): '0 ❑ ❑ ❑ .Er- i) Unique geologic or physical features? sOURCE(S): 1 , 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?`SOURCE(S): 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? SOURCE(S): (v , ❑ ❑ ❑ ,� c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or • turbidity)? soURCE(S): 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ • d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? SOURCE(S): 2 / ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? SOURCE(S): l i I D D ❑ ❑ ,ET f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations pr through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? SOURCE(s): 11 ❑ 0 0 g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (( ❑ ❑ ❑ souRCE(s): CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J Page 5 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impart h) Impacts to groundwater quality? SOURCE(S): /( i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? SOURCE(S):/I ❑ ❑ ❑ V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? SOURCE(S): rJ ❑ ❑ . b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? sOURCE(s): ❑ O ❑ f� c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? soURCE(S): �f ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create objectionable odors? sOURCE(s): 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: - a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? SOURCE(s): 13 / ❑ ❑ ,� 0 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? SOURCE(S): 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ ffi c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ � ❑ soURCE(s): I d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ y� SOURCE(s): e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ SOURCE(S): , CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J• Page 6 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? soURCE(s): tl (9 11 3 D D D g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? SOURCE(S): i,3 ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? sOURCE(S): (W D D D b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ SOURCE(s): 1. 1 5 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(S): /1 D D D d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ O D souRCE(S): I, /o, 3 , e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? SOURCE(S): P7 ❑ ❑ ❑ VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ D ❑ SOURCE(S): .j b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? SOURCE(S): /_ 0 D D CITY/1997/139904 FORM "3" Page 7 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Impact incorporated Impact c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? SOURCE(S): ❑ IX. HAZARDS. Would the involve: proposal a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? SOURCES K b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or i emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(S): i 2 c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health P hazard? SOURCE(S): l , 2., ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? souRCE(S): , 3 0 ❑ ❑ Pr e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? SO RCE(s): a 3 ❑ 0 0 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(s): I, 2 ❑ ❑ 0 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? SOURCE(s): 13 ❑ ❑ 0 • XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? sOURCE(S): /If 0 0 0 CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 8 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Police protection? SOURCE(S): II f ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? SOURCE(S): _I-- ❑ El ❑ 0 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ El SOURCE(S): /_ e) Other governmental services? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑ i. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the j proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? SOURCE(S): 7 a ❑ ❑ 0 b) Communications systems? SOURCE(s): 1 , 1 0 0 ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? SOURCE(S): (' El ID ❑ ' d) Sewer or septic tanks? soURCE(s): 1 1 0 CI 21 e) Storm water drainage? SOURCE(S): ID 0 ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S): I ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 g) Local or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S): (I ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S): (, 2,3 ❑ El ❑ Er CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 9 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant , Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Create light or glare? SOURCE(s): 2 ❑ ❑ 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(S): $ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? SOURCE(S): 5 ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? SouRCE(s): s ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? SouxcE(s): 5 ❑ ❑ El fg e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? SOURCE(S): s ❑ ❑ ❑ XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ soURCE(s): 2 ❑ b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ SOURCE(S): ❑ 3 - CITY/1997/139904 FORM w J. Page 10 of 12 /3' XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this case a discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The North Sphere Specific Plan and EIR was prepared for the City and adopted/certified by the City Council. The plan included this property. The North Sphere Specific Plan and its appendices are available for review between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department at City Hall at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. 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. All impacts were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the North Sphere Specific Plan and EIR. Identified effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe, on attached sheets, 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. CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 11 OF 12 FORM "J" Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant gn No Impact w Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major proceeds of California history or prehistory? ti 0 ❑ 0 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 0 c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directlyorindirectly? B ❑ • CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 12 of 12 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. Cultural Resource Identification and Recommendations for the North Sphere Specific Plan for the City of Palm Desert 6. Palm Desert Northern Sphere Area Specific Plan Circulation Report 7. Northern Sphere Specific Area Plan Technical Studies 8. (Intentionally not used) 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. North Sphere Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report 14. Riverside County Fire Department 15. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch 1 6. Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed lizard Conservation Plan 17. Palm Springs Unified .School District PAUL AND SUE BEATY 75-686 Dolmar Ct. Palm Desert, CA 92211 May 7, 2001 Philip Drell, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: We were surprised to receive the notice regarding the dramatic expansion of The Fountains at Carlotta. We have lived across the street from the facility for eleven years and are disappointed management from The Fountains didn't contact neighbors to get our reaction to their plans. When we bought our home. I inquired about this very issue and was told the general plan and zoning would not allow the type expansion now being requested. We already have traffic problems during shift changes at the Carlotta. There are cars lined up, sometimes blocking the street waiting for their antiquated, squeaky gate to open. Ambulances and fire trucks frequent the property and have to wait for access. Refrigerated delivery trucks wait at the gate at 5:00AM. How many more employees will be required to serve the addition of 84 more living units and 21 Alzheimer's patients? We are opposed to this plan! Please realize that our relationship with The Carlotta has been extremely cordial to date. You have heard me compliment them when I sat on the Planning Commission during hearings for other similar facilities. I have only called the facility once to ask them to change the direction of a spotlight that was shining into my backyard. The problem was corrected immediately. There are a few other issues that impact my neighbors to the north significantly that I am sure you will hear about during the hearing. Unfortunately, we will be out of town May 15 and cannot attend the Planning Commission hearing. Please don't allow this dramatic increase in traffic and noise to impact our neighborhood. Sincerely, Sincerely, i4V-141-/ Paul R. Beaty, PhD Sue Ann Beaty cc: Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert City Council CITY Of PU DESLUT 'pf� �, . 1' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE •`. wI _ ,t / PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 9 2 260-2 5 7 8 + - I/// G TEL: 760 346-0611 Z 1' FAX:760 341-7098 InIo p.Im-d .oq CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO.:GPA 01-02,C/Z 01-03,PP 01-07 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by The Fountains for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a General Plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay"to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units,32 independent living casitas,and 21 Alzheimers beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive,north of Hovley Lane,41-505 Carlotta Drive. L. l yy �1 FI�IM �1 �s.1111IHM 'MINI: ..ill; y.: t ram` m; mae4 „ °,, subject I! i •" t; PropertyPi• ` 1/ ME. M I~ II _ • d \ Au" ivaaui■■' JJ ® pLJj : . 0..., .. 111111 li ..,..,.. is• • / , \ ,_. .. „, am . , brit 4E., . . W-11E1111111111 -• -62■ iiis —I HOVLEY LANE EAST SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,May 15,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at 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 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 April 30,2001 Palm Desert Planning Commission i - 05/10/2001 17:12 13232F7Q790 T PRATT PAGE 01/01 HE FOUNTAINS Fountains Retirement Communities,Inc. 821 Rollin Street South Pasadena,CA 91030 Tel;(33)257-9500 Fax:(323)257-9700 May 10,2001 VIA FAX Phil Drell,Secretary CC' Steve Smith.Frank Urrutia,Marvin Roos Palm Desert Planning Commission Bob Walker 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Dcscrt,CA 92260 Dear Phil: I am in receipt of Paul Besty's letter,and spoke with Paul today. I invited him to come over and view the plans at the Carlotta on Friday before his trip. I mentioned that we canvAcee1l the neighbors directly adjacent to the project and met with several of them already. I also stood in the master bedroom of the only neighbor that has a window facing the project, and while they favor green grass they were accepting of the design. It is my fault we did not sock out every nssident on all streets not directly impacted by the physical presence of the buildings,but since those adjacent neighbors were supportive, we felt it was a"no brainer"and did not pursue everyone in the area. Paul did not feel it necessary to have me come out from Los Angeles for a meeting on Friday, but did mention the neighbors want to review the project and discuss frustration with the entry gate being slow and squeaky. To mitigate the concerns of the entry gate,we can study a"swinging vs.rolling gate"and use a faster,silent operator at the south entrance which is used by staff and deliveries. Bob Walker, our new administrator will try to meet with Paul tomorrow to mend any feelings of being "excluded" which was definitely not the case. I am confident that we will be able to resolve these issues with.Paul and our neighbors at the entrance side of the Carlotta. Infonnationally, the proposed project will add between 5-12 staff during the peak A.M. shift, with some carpoolers_ There will be no cars from the additional Assisted Living or High Acuity(alzheimers included) residents. There will be residents in the 32 proposed Independent Living units who drive three days per week. The ambulances do not use sirens. Fire and delivery trucks visits will not significantly increase from current levels. As a result of our proposed project,there will be a negligible increase in traffic or noise to the neighborhood. As you know, the Carlotta has operated quietly for 15 years (prior to any single family homes in the arca) and has been a long-standing good neighbor. We intend to maintain our good status in this neighborhood. We will work with Staff and our neighbors at Tuesday's hearing to resolve these issues. Sincerely, FOUNTAINS RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES,INC. Todd Pratt Managing Director—West Coast Development Received May-10-Z001 05:08pm From-13Z3Z578700 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 00l THE FOUNTAINS Fountains Retirement Communities,Inc. 821 Rollin Street South Pasadena,CA 91030 RECEIVED Tel:(323)257-9500 Fax:(323)257-9700 `PRY 1 4 ''L 01 Cci„fl NI71 L;4'ELCPfi=`f?DEPAR'i NEN' May 10,2001 VIA FAX CITY Or PALM DESERT Phil Drell, Secretary CC: Steve Smith,Frank Urrutia,Marvin Roos Palm Desert Planning Commission Bob Walker 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260 Dear Phil: I am in receipt of Paul Beaty's letter,and spoke with Paul today. I invited him to come over and view the plans at the Carlotta on Friday before his trip. I mentioned that we canvassed the neighbors directly adjacent to the project and met with several of them already. I also stood in the master bedroom of the only neighbor that has a window facing the project, and while they favor green grass they were accepting of the design. It is my fault we did not seek out every resident on all streets not directly impacted by the physical presence of the buildings,but since those adjacent neighbors were supportive, � PPo e, we felt i t was a"no brainer"and did not pursue everyone in the area. Paul did not feel it necessary to have me come out from Los Angeles for a meeting on Friday, but did mention the neighbors want to review the project and discuss frustration with the entry gate being slow and squeaky. To mitigate the concerns of the entry gate,we can study a"swinging vs.rolling gate"and use a faster,silent operator at the south entrance which is used by staff and deliveries. Bob Walker,our new administrator will try to meet with Paul tomorrow to mend any feelings of being "excluded" which was definitely not the case. I am confident that we will be able to resolve these issues with Paul and our neighbors at the entrance side of the Carlotta. Informationally, the proposed project will add between 5-12 staff during the peak A.M. shift, with some carpoolers. There will be no cars from the additional Assisted Living or High Acuity(alzheimers included) residents. There will be residents in the 32 proposed Independent Living units who drive three days per week. The ambulances do not use sirens. Fire and delivery trucks visits will not significantly increase from current levels. As a result of our proposed project,there will be a negligible increase in traffic or noise to the neighborhood. As you know, the Carlotta has operated quietly for 15 years (prior to any single family homes in the area) and has been a long-standing good neighbor. We intend to maintain our good status in this neighborhood. We will work with Staff and our neighbors at Tuesday's hearing to resolve these issues. Sincerely, FOUNTAINS RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES,INC. ► rt----- Todd Pratt Managing Director—West Coast Development 1 'THE FOUNTAINS Fountains Retirement Communities,Inc. 821 Rollin Street South Pasadena,CA 91030 RECEIVED Tel:(323)257-9500 Fax:(323)257-9700 MAY 14 1'001 COMMUNSTY CE!'ELM:_f,'T DEPA i MDT May 12,2001 VIA FAX C'�'O. PALMDESEF" Phil Drell,Secretary CC: Steve Smith,Frank Urrutia,Marvin Roos Palm Desert Planning Commission Bob Walker 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260 Dear Phil: A note to let you know Bob Walker, Executive Director of The Fountains at Carlotta, met with Paul Beaty on Friday May 11,2001 to review the Carlotta Expansion Plans and discuss the project. Bob Walker is a very experienced healthcare administrator and has directed large healthcare expansion projects. He said his meeting with Mr. Beaty was very warm, productive, and that Mr. Beaty did not have a problem with the proposed project. Mr.Beaty's concerns were mainly related to the south entry gate that is squeaky and operates slowly so that inbound cars cannot turn immediately into the Carlotta. There were also some existing lights on the Carlotta property that may need shielding to prevent light glare across the street. We will include as a mitigation measure of our project installing a faster,quieter gate to resolve this problem. We do not see any open issues raised by Paul that cannot be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Bob also mentioned to Mr. Beaty that we welcome the opportunity to show the project plans to any interested neighbors. Mr. Beaty mentioned that his neighbors had mostly the same concerns about the gate and traffic into the Carlotta. We remain open to further discussion with all our neighbors to resolve these types of issues, and will strive to complete our campus addition to the benefit of the community. Sincerely, FOUNTAINS RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES,INC. Todd Pratt Managing Director—West Coast Development 11 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 19, 2001 continued from May 15, 2001 CASE NOS: GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41- 505 Carlotta Drive. APPLICANT: The Fountains Mainiero, Smith and Associates 2020 West Rudisill Road 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Tucson, AZ 85709 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Todd Pratt 821 Rollin Street S. Pasadena, CA 91030 BACKGROUND: This matter was continued to allow the applicant to meet with and address concerns raised with neighbors. Staff has been advised that the applicant met with the neighbors and has been working on satisfying the concerns which were raised. Specifically we have been advised that the applicant is proposing to create a third access point at the north end of the site and landscape the triangular area to the north. The south access point will be redesigned to move the gate back further from Carlotta Drive to create additional stacking along with a new gate system. The entry gates will be redesigned and have rubber wheels added. The south gate will have new gears to make it operate more quietly. In order to improve traffic flows, the south gate will be left open during shift changes. The applicant prepared a traffic count (copy enclosed) which shows the traffic counts through the day. At the peak a.m. hour 15 vehicles enter the south gate. With respect to emergency vehicles, the applicant advises that in contact with the Fire Department they confirmed that three to four emergency vehicles respond per week. STAFF REPORT GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 JUNE 19, 2001 The applicant advises the Fire Department will dispense with emergency lights once they arrive at the site and instead of parking in the south driveway will park toward the center of the site in the service area. In response to concerns with truck deliveries the applicant proposes to limit delivery to the same hours as construction activity (i.e., October 1 - April 30: 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and May 1 through September 30: 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Deliveries would be prohibited on weekends. The applicant indicated that by having earlier hours that trucks would be out of the area before children head off to school. Without knowing the neighbors' position on this staff prefers to stay with the previously suggested hours of 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. In order to assess the impact of the buildings and their heights, balloons have been placed depicting the perimeters of various buildings. In concert with the balloons the applicant has prepared a view analysis. With respect to parking, the applicant notes that 290 spaces are required by code. The new facility will have 320 onsite parking spaces. Staff has been advised that existing lighting which was a concern has been shielded. The applicant will be holding another neighborhood meeting on Monday, June 18, 2001 , to present the above information. The results of that meeting will be reported at the Planning Commission meeting. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the findings and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the City Council approval of GPA 01-02, C/Z 01- 03, and PP 01-07, subject to conditions. III. ATTACHMENTS: A. May 15, 2001 Staff Report B. Traffic Count Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: - t ( ( — Steve Smith Phil Drell Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 2 06/14/2001 09: 36 1323257g700 T PRATT PAGE Cr6r rt ttlisQr Neefs {Min v1 REQUE ST SOLUTION Add rubber wheels and faster gears on south gate. Rubber wheels have been added to both gates. New gears have been ordered and should be in the cnd of June. by Add 3`1 entry gate at north end with room for stacking. Agreed. This will be incorporated into the plans for the expansion per updated site plan. Rebuild and setback south entry gate to allow for Agreed.This will be incorporated into the plans for the stacking expansion per updated site plan. All staff and residents use clickers to open the gates; Agreed. The Fountains at The Carlotta will re-key the repeat vendors should also have code or clicker. card reader and issue new cards. This will be completed by August 31. Turn off or shield light poles. Agreed. Already completed by The Fountains at The Carlotta. Keep gate open at shift change. Agreed. As of July 1, the south gate will be open during shift changes. Agreed that The Fountains at The Carlotta will limit truck deliveries and trash pickup to occur during the same hours as the construction traffic schedule established by the City of Palm Desert. October 1 —April 30,Monday through Limit trucks deliveries. Friday 7AM to 5:30PM and May 30—September 30, Monday through Friday 6AM to 7PM. The Fountains will also notify vendors that horn blowing and loud radio playing are prohibited. Vendors will also be notified that delivery vehicle engines must be shut off if parked for more than five minutes. Agreed. The Fountains at The Carlotta has contacted the No fire truck flashing lights at night; fire truck and City and the Fire Marshall and agreed that night ambulance parking at rear kitchen at night while idling. ambulances or fire trucks will park in the rear yard near the kitchen. Lights will be turned off. Agreed. The Fountains at The Carlotta will design a Landscape the"triangle". zeroscape landscape plan and will perform landscaping work at time of construction. l�L Received Jun-14-2001 09:34am From-13232579700 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 06/14/2001 09: 36 13232579700 T PRATT PAGE 02 CONCERN RESPONSE The total required number of required parking spaces Adequate parking given the number of residences i3 296. With the existing parking plus the new proposed parking with the expansion, The Fountains at The Carlotta will have a total of 320 parking spaces. The"link"is a key element of the Fountains expansion. Deleting the"link"to allow fora continuous road from This covered walkway will allow residents from the Town thc north access road to the kitchen. Center to easily and comfortably walk to the new common areas and the new assisted living building and will provide for integration of the entire community. We have studied the view impacts and have determined that the expansion will have minimal view impacts on View obstructions by the two-story building, homes to the south. We are providing a view study for your review. f Z Received Jun-14-2001 09:34am From-13232579700 To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE TO ADD "SENIOR OVERLAY" TO THE EXISTING PR-10 ZONING AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY INTO A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY AND ADDITION OF 52 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, 32 INDEPENDENT LIVING CASITAS, AND 21 ALZHEIMER BEDS. SAID ADDITIONAL UNITS WILL BE LOCATED ON 6.6 ACRES ON THE EXISTING CARLOTTA SITE ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLOTTA DRIVE, NORTH OF HOVLEY LANE, 41 -505 CARLOTTA DRIVE. CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01 -03 AND PP 01 -07 AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DA 01 -02 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 5th day of May, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to June 19, 2001 , to consider the request of The Fountains for approval of a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "senior overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 -505 Carlotta Drive; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of said request: 1 . The site is suitable for the general plan amendment. 2. The zone change is consistent with the general plan amendment. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone and Senior Housing Overlay. 4. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 6. 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, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 01-02, Change of Zone 01-03 and Precise Plan 01-07 are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is recommended for certification. 4. That approval of the development agreement DA 01-02 (Exhibit B attached) is hereby recommended to City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of May, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Each casita unit shall have designated a parking space under a carport. 7. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. 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. 9. That commercial deliveries shall only occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 10. That parking lot lighting and lighting mounted on the building exteriors shall be mounted below the top height of the adjacent perimeter wall to the west and south. All lighting shall comply with Ordinance 826 which regulates outdoor lighting. 1 1 . That trash collection shall occur only Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 12. That all delivery vehicle engines be shut off if a truck is parked more than five minutes. Post accordingly inside receiving area. 13. That horn blowing for all delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 14. That loud talking and radio playing associated with delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 15. That the applicant shall maintain the entry gates to minimize noise created when the gates open and close. 16. That all employees shall park on-site and that the entry gates shall remain open during employee shift changes so as to minimize the number of gate movements. 17. That the applicant shall work with the County Fire Department to assure that emergency vehicles turn off their emergency lights when they arrive at the location and that emergency vehicles will park toward the center of the site as far away from the perimeter as is reasonable. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Any storm drain/retention basin construction associated with 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. 4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 6. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 7. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 8. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC 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. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 gpm 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 a 3,000 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 UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. Install a hood/duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 1 1 . 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 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). 12. 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". 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses or contrasting colors of a size approved by the City. 17. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 18. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: 19. Fire Marshal needs some type of secondary access. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 01-07 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: The Fountains 2020 W. Rudisill Road Tucson, AZ 85709 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A general plan amendment and change of zone to add "senior overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 -505 Carlotta Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. June 19, 2001 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOUNTAINS SENIOR PROPERTIES OF CALIFORNIA INC. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of , 2001 , between Fountains Senior Properties of California Inc. (hereinafterOw ner")"Property and the City of Palm Desert, (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Califo rnia. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property; B. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit 1 , attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). DEVELOPER has applied for and been granted approval of a precise plan (PP 01-07) to convert the existing 22 bed assisted living facility to a 22 bed skilled nursing facility, to construct 32 casita units, 52 bed assisted living facility, 21 bed Alzheimer facility, and zone change to senior overlay; C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan approval pursuant to Chapter 25.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, Senior Housing Overlay District which allows for significant density increases in return for building specialized housing designed and restricted to residents over age 62 years; D. The City Council of City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Senior Overlay; and 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1 . Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "City" is the City of Palm Desert. (b) "Project" is the development to be constructed in the City pursuant to Precise Plan 01-07. (c) "Property Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property as described in paragraph (3) and includes the Property Owner's successor in interest. (d) "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraph (2). (e) "Useful Life of the Project" is the greater of thirty (30) years or the period of time which the Project remains habitable, with reasonable care and maintenance, as determined by City. (f) "Senior Citizen Household" means a maximum two person household of which all members are 55 years of age or older. 2. Description of Real Property. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. 3. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner represents that he has a full legal and equitable interest in the Real Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by the Agreement. 4. Assignment. The rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned; however, Property Owner will remain responsible for all obligations under this Agreement unless the written consent of the City is first obtained, which will not be unreasonably withheld. 5. Binding effect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors in interest to the parties to it. 6. Relationship of parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between the City and Property Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of the City. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7. Agreement by Property Owner and City. (a) Property Owner has been conditionally granted permission by the City to construct 32 casita units, 22 bed skilled nursing facility to be added to the existing 59 bed skilled nursing facility, 52 bed assisted living facility, 21 Alzheimer facility, and zone change to senior overlay on the PROPERTY by Precise Plan 01-07 Planning Commission Resolution No. . Chapter 25.52 requires senior projects to set aside 20% of total project units as units affordable for very low, low and moderate income senior households. These affordable units are required in exchange for substantial density bonuses (project units in excess of base zone density) which have historically ranged from 10 to 20 additional units per acre. The project is receiving a density bonus of 2.73 units/acre or 53 of the 247 total project units. In consideration for the relatively small density bonus being granted, the 20% affordable requirement shall be applied only to the 53. The project's affordable housing requirement shall therefore be established at 10.6 units. (b) Due to the unique range of services provided by the PROJECT, in-lieu of the requirements above the Property Owner shall provide: 1 . Payment of $12,000 per affordable unit totaling $127,200 to the City to be used for the purpose of providing very low, low and moderate income senior housing. Payment shall be made in increments to the City prior to obtaining a building permit(s) for the project at the rate of $1 ,200 per unit. Fees shall be paid at time of Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted living, skilled nursing and Alzheimer facility. Fees for the casitas shall be at time of permit issuance. (c) Property Owner shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color or creed, sex, or national origin. (d) Age limits. The minimum age for all PROJECT occupants shall be 55 years old. (e) Change in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the approved precise plan without review and approval by those agencies of the City approving the plan in the first instance. A change, modification, revision or 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. alteration in the approved precise plan in not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (f) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the PROJECT. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operation referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the PROJECT. Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (g) Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. City Planning Commission shall review this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT whenever substantial evidence exists to indicate a possible breach of the terms of this AGREEMENT. (h) Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code, Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. (i) Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in paragraph (j), this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is enforceable by any party to it 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications. (j) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: i. If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. (k) Procedure upon default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or successor in interest as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon receipt of notification to take remedial actions. If Property Owner fails to take remedial action within 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. thirty (30) days, the Planning Commission of City shall recommend to the City Council of City that this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT be modified, terminated, or that the remedies set forth in this paragraph be exercised by the City. If the City Council of City concurs with the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission, the City Council may modify this Development Agreement, terminate this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, or may employ one or more of the remedies set forth in this paragraph. Proceedings before the City Council shall be by noticed public hearing pursuant to Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code of the City of Palm Desert. In the event of a default, City may employ one or more of the following remedies, in its sole discretion: i. City may revoke all previous approvals, entitlements and permits granted by the City to Property Owner with respect to this PROJECT and the subject Real Property. ii. City may pursue all other legal or equitable remedies City may have under California law or as set forth in this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and City shall be entitled to specific performance and enforcement of each and every term, condition and covenant set forth herein. (I) Damages upon Cancellation, Termination of Agreement. In no event shall Property Owner be entitled to any damages against the City upon modification, termination of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT or exercise by City of its rights under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (m) Attorney's fees and costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this AGREEMENT or to enforce a provision of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (n) Notices. All notices required or provided for under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepared. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Notices required to be given to Property Owner shall be addressed as follows: 2020 West Rudisill Road, Tucson, AZ 85709. A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. (o) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. ii. If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. iii. If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their obligations are joint and several. iv. The time limits set forth in this AGREEMENT may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of an agreement. (p) Duration of Agreement. This AGREEMENT shall expire only upon total destruction of the project which is the subject of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (q) Applicable Law. This AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. (r) Severability. If any portion of this AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (s) Authority. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to enter into this AGREEMENT contained herein, that each AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY OF PALM DESERT A Municipal Corporation By: City Attorney Attest: FOUNTAINS SENIOR PROPERTIES OF CALIFORNIA INC. By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of , 1998, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 16 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: July 17, 2001 continued from May 15, 2001 and June 19, 2001 CASE NOS: GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for a general plan amendment and change of zone to add "Senior Overlay" to the existing PR-10 zoning and a precise plan of design for conversion of the existing assisted living facility into a skilled nursing facility and addition of 52 assisted living units, 32 independent living casitas, and 21 Alzheimer beds. Said additional units will be located on 6.6 acres on the existing Carlotta site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41-505 Carlotta Drive. APPLICANT: The Fountains Mainiero, Smith and Associates 2020 West Rudisill Road 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Tucson, AZ 85709 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Todd Pratt 821 Rollin Street S. Pasadena, CA 91030 BACKGROUND: This matter has been before Planning Commission on two previous occasions. Between the May 15 and June 19, 2001 meetings the applicant responded to several concerns which had been raised (i.e., shielding of lights, installation of soft wheels on south gate to reduce noise and worked with the Fire Department to get emergency flashing lights shut off once the vehicle arrives on site). At the June 19, 2001 meeting, several area residents spoke expressing concern with: A. Traffic volumes B. Project magnitude, density and height C. On-site circulation D. Lack of landscaping on existing parking lot adjacent to Carlotta Drive E. Number of employees F. Blind spot around main entry gate G. Number of persons attending special events and parking outside STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 JULY 17, 2001 II. CURRENT PROPOSAL: Note: As of the writing of this report staff had not received copies of the revised plan. We have been verbally advised as to the direction which the project is taking. As a result of community input at the last hearing, the applicant has amended the request. The new units will all be single story (i.e., the casitas, assisted living and skilled nursing). The second story on the assisted living building has been deleted as has the entire Alzheimer's building. The revised plan will retain the proposed new north access gate and simplify the existing south gate. It (south gate) will remain open during shift changes. The total number of new units will be 82 units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living). The existing 22 assisted living units will be converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building. III. DISCUSSION: July5 2001 we received a letter (copy enclosed) from the Fountains Resident Council. This group of 141 residents feels that their position in this matter has been ignored and under represented. The letter notes that adjoining residents to the south and east have privacy walls and landscape areas buffering them from the impacts. If the internal circulation is altered, the impacts will be transferred to the Fountains residents whose units existed before the adjoining neighbors and who will have no landscape buffer or walls to separate them from the impacts. Also, they note that with respect to street parking they use it very seldom (i.e., maximum of 12 special events per year) and that the streets are designed to accommodate vehicle parking. We have also received a petition, copy enclosed, signed by 32 residents located north and east of the proposed new north access gate. These people oppose the proposed new gate. They feel it will bring commercial traffic further into their residential community and thereby endanger children and pedestrians. IV. ANALYSIS: The 19.4 acre site has 7.7 vacant, unused acres across the west section of the site. This property has always been set aside for future development. The question is how large should the addition be. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 JULY 17, 2001 The applicant is not requesting to add units on the existing 11 .7 easterly acres. This is the area of the plan which the city inherited from the County. Staff will suggest that we look only at the existing vacant 7.7 acres and apply the 10 units per acre zoning to it for a permitted total of 77 new units. This new section will need to stand on its own with respect to setbacks, parking and other code provisions. This will mean that the applicant will need to delete an additional seven units from the casitas, assisted living or combination thereof. V. CONCLUSION: With the elimination of five units, we will have a project which complies with the existing density limits of the PR-10 zone and complies with the General Plan. In attempting to appease a portion of the neighborhood and mitigate their concerns related to access, the applicant has proposed to add a new north gate. This solution to one problem serves to spread out the impacts over a larger area and to more residents. These residents purchased their homes with the reasonable expectation that the circulation and access points to the facility would not be altered. Staff agrees that we should not encourage traffic serving the facility to proceed further into the residential community. We would also note that three access points onto one street for a project of this size would be overkill. One Quail Place with 384 units has two access points (one each to Fred Waring and Park View) and Whitehawk with 276 single family units has one access to Country Club with an additional emergency access point. Staff is prepared to recommend approval of the revised proposal without the north access gate, without reversing the on-site circulation, and with deletion of five units which would reduce the number of new units to 77. With this recommendation the change of zone, general plan amendment and development agreement are not necessary. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the findings and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. approving PP 01 -07 as revised, subject to conditions. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 JULY 17, 2001 V. ATTACHMENTS: A. May 15, 2001 and June 19, 2001 Staff Reports B. Correspondence Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: A. 2(4.“ Steve 'Smith Phil Drel Planning Manager Director of Community Development /tm 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A 77-UNIT ADDITION TO THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA TO BE LOCATED ON 7.7 VACANT ACRES ON THE EXISTING FOUNTAINS SITE ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARLOTTA DRIVE, NORTH OF HOVLEY LANE, 41 -505 CARLOTTA DRIVE. CASE NO. PP 01 -07 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of May, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to June 19 and July 17, 2001 , to consider the request of The Fountains for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact for a precise plan of design for a 77-unit addition to the Fountains at the Carlotta to be located on 7.7 vacant acres on the existing Fountains site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 -505 Carlotta Drive; and WHEREAS, following the June 1 9, 2001 hearing the applicant did revise the request reducing the requested number of units to $4 units; and SZ WHEREAS, staff has recommended approval of the project with a maximum of 77 new units; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: 1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone. 2. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Precise Plan 01-07 as revised is hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1 7th day of July, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 01-07 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Each casita unit shall have designated a parking space under a carport. 7. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. 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. 9. That commercial deliveries shall only occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 10. That parking lot lighting and lighting mounted on the building exteriors shall be mounted below the top height of the adjacent perimeter wall to the west and south. All lighting shall comply with Ordinance 826 which regulates outdoor lighting. 1 1 . That trash collection shall occur only Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 12. That all delivery vehicle engines be shut off if a truck is parked more than five minutes. Post accordingly inside receiving area. 13. That horn blowing for all delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 14. That loud talking and radio playing associated with delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 15. That the applicant shall implement the redesign of the south entry gate to minimize noise created when the gate opens and closes and make the gate operate in an efficient manner. 16. That all employees shall park on-site and that the entry gate shall remain open during employee shift changes so as to minimize the number of gate movements. 17. That the applicant shall continue to work with the County Fire Department to assure that emergency vehicles turn off their emergency lights when they arrive at the location and that emergency vehicles while serving the facility will park in the service area parking lot area. 18. That delivery vehicles shall park only in the service area parking lot. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19. That the applicant shall work with all delivery vehicle owners/operators to assure compliance with Condition No. 9 above relating to commercial delivery hours. 20. That the project shall comply with all requirements of the planned residential (PR) zone requirements. 21 . That the site plan be revised to delete the proposed north access gate. 22. That the curbs on either side of the mid site entrance gate be painted red for a distance of 80 feet in each direction to improve sight lines. 23. That the maximum number of special events shall be limited to 12 per year and that attendees shall be encouraged to park onsite. Applicant shall limit the number of invited outside guests to the number of on-site parking spaces typically available during the time of the event. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Any storm drain/retention basin construction associated with 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. 4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 6. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 7. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC 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. 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 gpm 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 a 3,000 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 UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 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 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). 12. 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". 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses or contrasting colors of a size approved by the City. 17. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 18. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: 19. Fire Marshal needs some type of secondary access. 7 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP 01 -07 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: The Fountains 2020 W. Rudisill Road Tucson, AZ 85709 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A precise plan of design for a 77-unit addition to the Fountains at the Carlotta to be located on 7.7 vacant acres on the existing Fountains site on the west side of Carlotta Drive, north of Hovley Lane, 41 -505 Carlotta Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. July 17, 2001 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 `I I' THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA RECEIVED JUL 1 0 2001 COMMUNITYDEVELOPWEN'DEPAR1 CRY OF PALM July 6, 2001 RE: The Fountains at The Carlotta Expansion GPA 01-02,c/z0 1-03 Honorable Commissioners: Please find enclosed a copy of a letter I received today from The Riverside office on Aging. Thought you would find this information helpful to making your recommendation for our expansion here at The Fountains. If I can be of assistance to you,please don't hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, Diane Shipp Sales &Marketing Director Fountains Senior Properties of California, Inc. .,.,,. 41-505 Carlotta Drive • Palm Desert, California 92211 • (760) 346-5420 • 1-800-949-4001 • Fax (760) 341-7768 www.thefountains.com 1 RIVER Df COUNTY Of � E ON AGING ...empowering Older Persons for a better life. July 2, 2001 Diane Shipp The Carlotta 41-505 Carlotta Road Palm Desert, CA. 92211 Re: The Fountains at Carlotta (GPA 01-02,C/Z01-03) Dear Ms. Shipp: I am writing in support of your proposed redesign and expansion plans for the Fountains at Carlotta. Your proposed project is consistent with projected housing, assisted living, and support service needs of seniors in the Coachella Valley based on a recent countywide community assessment completed by the Riverside County Office on Aging. Longevity coupled with the high perc entage of seniors in the Coachella Valley makes it imperative that organizations such as yours are postured to meet the future demand for service that is emerging, while at the same time being sensitive to the changing desires and expectations of the "new senior market" as it ages. The stellar state and national reputation of the Carlotta together with your track record of past quality service makes your organization an ideal candidate to implement the innovations you propose. Your project will assure ongoing quality if service for residents, and will also achieve increased efficiencies and flexibility in providing service that can respond to unique individual needs. The Office on Aging is pleased to support your project and wishes you well in bringing it to a successful completion. Sincerely, Lu Verne M. Mol rg Director � West County Office Lu Verne M. Molberg, Directory East County Office 6296 Rivercrest Drive, #K 73750 Catalina Way Riverside, CA 92507-0738 For Information/Assistance, Call: Palm Desert, CA 92260-2906 Administration 1-800-510-2020 Administration (9091 697-4697 T.T. # (909) 697-4699 (760) 341-0401 (909) 697-4698 - FAX Se Habla Espanol (760) 340-9585 - FAX Equal Opportunity Employer / � ✓ RECEIVED PROTEST PETITION FOR PROPOSED NORTH GATE ENTRY AT THE J U L 6 2001 CARLOTTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY Oi-PALL+,DESERT We the undersigned object to the proposed new entrance on the north end of the Carlotta! Putting the new entrance in would cause nothing but a severe traffic problem on the corner of Carlotta & Sandcastle, it would also create a potential danger to our children. Many mothers with their young children walk to the corner on the north side so the kids can play and ride their bikes, when we purchased our homes we felt this would be a safe family environment, somewhere we could raise our children where they could be safe and be able to play outside and where there would not be a lot of traffic! The proposed new entrance for delivery trucks, fire engines, ambulance and supply vehicles etc. would change this nice family environment into a commercial work area and that was not in any of our plans when we all purchased these homes. We feel the entrances that are already there and have been there from the beginning are sufficient. The homeowners on the south end of the neighborhood purchased their homes knowing the Carlotta was they're also knowing exactly where the entrances are! Their homes on the south side are all inside cul-de-sacs and not even facing the Carlotta! To put an entrance on the north side would be putting an entrance right in front of our homes, which again was not in any of our plans. Putting this entrance in would allow heavy traffic deeper into our family neighborhood, which is a non-outlet street; these commercial vehicles should be entering off of Hovley onto Carlotta Hovley being a commercial street, not off of Sandcastle, which is deep into a residential area. Sincerely, Primrose Homeowners (North End) Nave e-t n'1>°S F (A PlieEcct Pe Name ZD}1J Address (4 Leis- 6.Cc.e o Address lc Su,c\��- Sigtiatur Signature V,„-,guz Name /t• ,,, reL I3eYLT � s p��✓ S�" rev«�Name�r�rd b � i C�9- r�� �}� Address 9/5/Se> Ceprze.07779 Address l--&& o CA} r Signature ii_ Signatur Name [ J d-bflf( Th/\)Name d • T>c_kykeg's Address - ddress 75� k(e- L - _. Signature Signature age l of tr-s1 PROTEST PETITION FOR PROPOSED NORT GATE ENTRY AT THE CARLOTTA Name / c Name ,ee4ti Address v ( 9 "oti/,Address (' 4 Signatur � 1 Signa Name O Name U Address lI — efF4LoTTA Address 11-(3-5 dicaltia>/- Signature Signature � -n�ik —77. •Name &,e(:) /,(-) Name S y_D ' �- Address ' ail0 Address S y C Y Y 9D Signature Signature Named!(,ate ti ��(-�► �� v ZName W A 1 41-P d W, l—L Address " I / J 3 q D C 0-f -0 -Address t4 j ('1'`1" CR(LLm L. Signature Signature Signature c)�L _o— v Name K L A N Name d Pry-Fnr-f_D Address 9 C4-44 \\A be . Address T--)A-T-C L. T z PS Signature V___--kLh-k- - Signature}., c3C/1:V Name 7keCtil Name LUA.7 c,QJ Address ' S Offic6 . Address Lh00D (ado L PA 011\ Signature Signature� � �- Page 2 of if l{ 1 PROTEST PETITION FOR PROPOSED NORTH GATE ENTRY AT THE CARLOTTA Name 3C% ee_ C 1 v1 Name 644-z Address °°Q C_.4h Iot}'q Dr Address % '~' ('. _o TT-4 t-e4-1, ea V W. . 9a.a Signat Signat Name Name`s - Address ¢/- ! feat-a Address 411 ets 04-42,-- 1 ,&. Signature 7 t' i 'Z2 Signature IN-N O (I /v -Name Name e Il n ;5 u Address ( 0 ,p,ea_ 41, , Address `) 1 170 Caf L o Dr. • Signature c, ,,,z j � Signature Name Name 12 e_v(.e3 Address `e ekk - Address g t.l D 0_.%% it L o Signature SignaturefiVV c Name, !!d /---(2) � Name ! �1 (/�, (1�t�/ � p ►V, Addressy/y10 Z N f�,� ,k--Address 4 c-5a v �. i Signatur (,eA_ Name drh3rd f-eGi` , Name � (2 IBC Address 9/33 Cd.r-10 a r, Address es Si aturer � l Signatur Page 3 of 3 y �� Name Name Address (- Address Signature Signature Name / „,,i,44a&. Name Addr- . O.,Ing _ Address Signature � , _ _ '� Signature Name Name • Address Address Signature Signature Name Name Address Address Signature Signature Name Name Address Address Signature Signature • Name Name Address Address Signature Signature RESIDENT COUNCIL THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA 41-505 Carlotta Drive Palm Desert, California 92211 July 6 , 2001 Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert City Hall 73-370 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Honorable Commissioners: At the second Public Hearing regarding The Fountains ' Application, Item No. GPA 01-02 , C/Z 01-03 , held on June 19 , 2001 , (continued from May 15 , 2001) , you heard that The Fountains management had revised its plans to meet the concerns of our neighbors. What you did not hear was a rebuttal to the arguments of the op- ponents to the project by The fountains Town Center residents. The residents of The Fountains Town Center also have an important and vital health, safety, financial and environmental stake in this project, and we respectfully request full consideration of our position at your July 17th meeting. We, the Resident Council and an ad-hoc committer , representing 141 senior citizen residents of The Fountains at The Carlotta, are responding to the negative oral arguments of the opponents presented at the June 19th Public Hearing, as follows: 1 . The five neighborhood homes on the east side of Carlotta Drive, directly across from The Fountains , are protected by an eight- foot (8 ' ) high block wall sound barrier. 2 . The six homes on the south side, from Carlotta Drive to and including Maryn Court, are also protected by a six-foot (6 ' ) high wall sound barrier. Trees and shrubs are also adjacent to both sides of the wall on the south side of The Fountains ' property. 3 . Ten resident occupants in the eight south side perimeter units located adjacent to the kitchen, maintenance shops , warehouse and garbage dumpsters suffer the inconveniences created by the necessary commercial delivery and waste management trucks , de- liveries and pick-ups . Nevertheless, these occupants like the southern neighbors outside our south block wall had the op- portunity to accept this location or wait for a better location to become available. Regardless of which entry gate is used by the emergency and service vehicles , our south perimeter Fountains residents will always live with this necessary inevitable inconvenience as there can be no sound barrier protection for them. 4 . Our own Carlotta residents on the north and west perimeter have no sound barrier protection, nor will the proposed Casitas on the northeast side. They face an open lawn and a 24 ' wide driveway to get to their parking spaces . Moving the emergency Planning Commission P. 2 and commercial vehicle entry from the south gate to a proposed north gate will create a safety hazard to resident drivers backing out of their parking spaces and to the pedestrians . Currently, 59 residents occupy 44 units on the north and west perimeters, and we estimate 15 future occupants for the Casitas on the northeast side. NOTE: The unencumbered north side golf course argument is a smoke screen, illogical and unreasonable. The opponents ignore our north perimeter residents who directly face the driveway and parking area. They also ignore the additional inside perimeter occupants who walk to this parking area. No pedestrians use the south driveway. There are only 16 parking spaces on the south side for patients ' guests . 5 . We do not rent, lease, or use time-shares . All current and pro- posed residents have an entrance fee investment of up to $100 , 000 . 00 per unit, for an aggregate of approximately $10 , 000 , 000 . 00 . In addition to the original investment, there is a monthly service fee averaging $2, 000 . 00 per unit. Our residents ' average length of stay is almost 8 years . All but a few are year-round residents and many have made extensive and expensive physical alterations to their units. 6 . Once the neighbors ' complaints (few of which dealt with the pro- ject directly) were finally aired, The Fountains ' management eliminated most of these concerns at considerable expense . (See the list of revisions submitted at the hearing on June 19th. ) Of the concerns , already completed or agreed to are: Shielded lights, rubber gate wheels, south driveway humps , gates opened for shift changes, schedule times for commercial deliveries, no emergency lights, and plans for new gates with stacking capability, etc. 7. We further find that The Fountains ' management has submitted plans which provide more parking spaces than required by Code for our present and future employees, residents and guests . 8 . There are about 12 major/special events at The Carlotta each year. Like our neighbors whose friends/guests sometimes park on the street rather than in their driveway, we offer parking within our walls, but some prefer to park on the street. Further, it should be noted, our events in our auditorium are already limited by a seating capacity of 135 . 9 . We also find that The Fountains ' management buses in groups of performers when possible, thereby decreasing the need for on- street parking. 10 . The south neighborhood homes from Carlotta Drive through Maryn Court were constructed in 1992 and 1993 , six to seven years after The Fountains at The Carlotta was opened as a Senior Retirement Community. Planning Commission Page 3 11 . The original buildings were constructed according to the plans approved by the Riverside County Planning Commission in 1986 . In 1989 , the City of Palm Desert Planning Department approved plans resulting in the construction of the south gate, the Assisted Living wing near the south wall driveway and a new Skilled Healthcare entrance. This south gate was designed to provide entrance for service -- deliveries -- and employees , at that time. Also, a sign using BOLD letters was attached to the center of the new south gate. Since 1989 employees, emergency vehicles and deliveries have used this gate. Residents and guests were directed to the main gate by said sign. SUMMARY Our neighbors who oppose The Fountains ' application are requesting The Planning Commission to solve certain grievances including re- versing the submitted layout of the campus, eliminating the covered walkway, and transferring the emergency and service entry to the newly proposed north gate, although they purchased their homes several years after The Fountains began using the south gate. We find that The Fountains ' management has addressed and corrected most grievances, but we cannot in good conscience for safety, environ- mental and efficiency reasons accept any reversal of the facility layout, the elimination of the walkway, or the entry/traffic re- arrangement. Said reversal of plans and entry would create an extremely inef- ficient and time-consuming operation for the medical/nursing staff, the patients, the ambulatory residents, the culinary and housekeep- ing staffs. Furthermore, an estimated 100 plus residents would face safety and environmental hardships . THEREFORE: The Town Center residents of The Fountains at The Carlotta, for vital health, safety, financial and environmental reasons, do hereby respectfully request that the Palm Desert Planning Commission approve the planning and zoning as recommended by your competent staff and as submitted with changes by The Fountains ' management on June 19 , 2001 ; and furthermore, that the present arrival and departure of emergency and commercial vehicles continue as planned, approved by the Planning Department and utilized since 1989 . Respectfully yours, :24-(17/-- EDS1 HUBERT SCOTT, President ' arold Schoen_e , Chairman Resident Council Ad-Hoc Committee Attachments : (1) Resident Council list and Ad-Hoc Committee list (2) Town Center Resident list. cc: The Honorable Jim Ferguson, Mayor Palm Desert Council Members Fountains Retirement Communities, Inc. Planning Commission Page 4 RESIDENT COUNCIL LIST Hubert Scott, Pres . Kinkade, Thos/Ruth Darb Palmer, V. P. Klein, Bert/Martha Mary Jane Holing , Secy Kratky, Elizabeth Betty Kalyvas, Treas . Langer, Barbara Elmer Huling, Parlia. Langston, Jane Wilma Williams , Bd Mbr Loewen, Lee/Elvira Jeannette Yoxsimer " " Lovejoy, Jean Dottie Bickerdike , Alt. Lowe, Florence * Richard Thurber, Alt. McRoberts , Lorraine AD-HOC COMMITTEE Marks, Marie Martin, Patricia Harold Schoenfeld, Chmn Marty, John & D . * Harry Armstrong Meredith, D . & M. James Kalyvas Mire, Caryl * Dave Oberlin - Jack Palmer Mooney, Larry * Lowell Vandervort Nelson, Irene OTHER RESIDENTS O'Mullen, Mildred Ackerman, Erich & K. Orme, Fenton Bantel, Lorraine Parrett, D & G Benedetti, Mary Paul, Dorothy Blackstone , Beth Payn, Mary Alice Blackstone, Jean Peterman, B . & A. Blaikie, Rachel Phillips , J• aiie Blake , Pauline Pickett, Jean Bolster, Helen Randen, Aina Bowman, Vivian Raynesford, K & H Case , Jackie Redman, John & Neva Coffman, Jeanne Regin Marie Coleman, Hazel Reynolds , R. & G. Coman, Lucille Rogers , Doris Conley, Kim Rosenberg, Carl & J. Cooper, Helen Rossler, Beulah Crockett, Charlotte Samson, Doris Cromwell, Ann Sanders , G & Z Daugherty, William Schubert, Eleanor Dickinson, Ben/B . Schweitzer, B & B Edwards, Doris V. Scrogham, Helen Farmer, M. & P. Sheffet, June Florance R. & J. Shehyn, Adelaide Forman, A. & J. Simonds, Wayne Friesen, Walter Smith, Louis Gallagher, Ruby Straw, Richard Giddings, Margaret Thomas, John Gill, Gerald Thomas , Owen Gilmartin, Doris Thompson, Arthur Gottrick, Margaret Thornburg, Dorothy Haller, Helen Tice, Alan & Jean Hansen, Mary Tribell , Eileen Harrington, E & V Tummers , Joyce Hempy, Louise Ulberg, Ingeborg Hopper, Ruth Veihmeyer, Betty Jenkins , Bill/Jayne Walton, Dawn Jensen, John M. Wangerin, Dorothy Jewett, Mildred Wilson, Mary Beth Johnson, Elda Woodson, Phil & Chris I Kempf, Walter Yeager, Norma Reynolds, Myrtle Zeiss , Dr. Fred R. * Wife also a resident i rr itt • \- ft ,.."-eelci• ..... _ _ ....,„ .., 4.1 4. _ ,t .._ 1101 __ _ . .... ,., . , _ ,,. _,.... ._ _. ‘ .. _ , ..... . ,.. 1 i ......._. .. _ . , . , _ _...., ..._ ____ i gm, k •• --, �.� Pi- .:6,11K wart imit (%-i't'r` 't 1) €t,Y.l.lf OPEN `, "_' • (...- ea 5 t— --u? 5 (3 f� r �ti--t ti Ca (��a- 00 vlC„�..d tk) .St 'a s-#- r ck, d k-lva or b re 4 .114 )1111 111 tro'--;1; —0 • +. . . .. -----1--S.' (0 c'41r, I t motdi - 1J _. . m�`6o) e3.A- tx `-51.1€J. 1 6/i ?.AC ,A94 Z kik -i - - - - rt.,tr7 °i;I'M N )1( ° Pi (14,4 OA( a 147-.)400) -3n%-k'cr Y. 4 W ' , —3 tufv-p __)-5?111) irk- 'I liE ..• - - c.- THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA REVISED SITE PLAN: ❑ 32 New Casitas ❑ 50 Unit Single-Story Assisted Living Building ❑ Deletion of the stand-alone Alzheimer's Building ❑ Conversion of the 22 existing Assisted Living beds into 22 Alzheimer's beds TOTAL NEW UNITS: 82 (32 casitas+50 Assisted Living) TOTAL CONVERTED UNITS: 22 (22 ALZ in existing Assisted Living space) Expansion Issues & Proposed Resolutions 1) South gate is too slow and too noisy. RUBBER WHEELS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDED TO THE GATE. NEW GEARS HAVE BEEN ORDERED AND WILL BE INSTALLED BY THE END OF JULY. WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, SOUTH GATE WILL BE REDESIGNED TO A FASTER, SWING GATE. FURTHER, ALL REGULAR VENDORS WILL BE GIVEN CLICKERS TO AUTOMATCIALLY OPEN THE GATE UPON THEIR ARRIVAL. THIS GATE IS ALSO USED AS THE ASSOCIATE ENTRANCE—AS OF JULY 1, THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA HAS LEFT THE GATE OPEN DURING SHIFT CHANGES. 2) Too many cars use the main (center)gate and there is no room for stacking. This gate is slow and very often visitors'cars stick out into the street. OVER A FIVE DAY PERIOD,THE NUMBER OF VISITORS WHO CAME THROUGH THE MAIN GATE AND WERE BUZZED IN TO THE CARLOTTA BY THE FRONT DESK, RANGED FROM 15 PER DAY TO 49 PER DAY. EACH DAY,BETWEEN 2 AND 8 ADDITIONAL DELIVERIES ARE MADE TO THE CARLOTTA—INCLUDING UPS, FEDEX,PHARMACY DELIVERIES, FLOWERS, ETC. THESE DELIVERIES ARE BUZZED THROUGH THE MAIN GATE. WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION,THE CARLOTTA WILL ADD A NORTH GATE. THIS WILL ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE MAIN GATE BY REDIRECTING ALL RESIDENT TRAFFIC THROUGH THE NORTH GATE. THE MAIN GATE WILL THEN ONLY BE USED BY VISITORS. THE NORTH GATE WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR STACKING OF APPROXIMATELY 3 CARS. FURTHER, THE NORTH GATE WILL BE ONLY FOR RESIDENT USE, AND ALL RESIDENTS HAVE AUTOMATIC CLICKERS WHICH OPEN THE GATE. 3) With the addition of new units,parking will not be adequate. THE CURRENT NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AT THE CARLOTTA IS 246 SPACES. UPON SURVEYING THE PARKING LOT AT THE CARLOTTA,WE FOUND THAT AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE DAY,BETWEEN 89 AND 145 SPACES WERE OCCUPIED,REPRESENTING ONLY 36%- 59% OF CAPACITY. (Please see attachment"A"). WITH THE NEW PROPOSED UNITS, WE ESTIMATE THE FOLLOWING PARKING NEEDS: u 32 Casitas Resident cars: assume 1.5 cars per unit=48 spaces needed Staff cars: only 2 staff persons added TOTAL=50 spaces total ❑ 50 Assisted Living units Resident cars: assume 3 cars for all 50 units (currently 1 car for 22 AL units) Staff cars: 9.5 people added on day shift, 5.5 people added on evening shift, and 2 people added on night shift TOTAL= 12.5 spaces at any one time ❑ 22 ALZ(conversion of existing AL to ALZ) Resident cars: none No additional staff over what is already in place. TOTAL=0 new spaces TOTAL NEW PARKING NEEDED = 63 spaces at any give time TOTAL NEW PARKING PLANNED = 119 spaces Number of parking spaces required by code including the expansion: Existing apartments— 111 units @ 1.25 spaces per unit 139 spaces Casitas—32 units @ 1.25 spaces per unit 40 spaces Skilled nursing—59 beds @ 0.5 spaces per bed 30 spaces Assisted Living—50 units @1.25 spaces per unit 63 spaces Alzheimer's—22 beds @ 0.5 spaces per bed 11 spaces 274 Units 283 SPACES Number of parking spaces The Fountains at The Carlotta will have once the expansion is complete: 365 SPACES (246 existing+ 119 planned) UPON COMPLETION OF THE EXPANSION, THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA WILL HAVE EXCESS PARKING OF APPROXIMATELY 82 SPACES. ,> 4) Expansion will result in increased frequency of emergency vehicles and delivery trucks. DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1999,THE CARLOTTA HAD 97 VISITS BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES. THIS 97 VISITS FOR A TOTAL OF 192 UNITS TRANSLATES TO AN VERAGE OF 0.51 VISITS PER UNIT PER YEAR OR 1.87 TOTAL VISITS PER WEEK. THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA HAS CONTACTED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE AGREED THAT ALL EMERGENCY VEHICLES WILL TURN OFF THEIR LIGHTS ONCE THEY GET TO THE CARLOTTA AND WILL PARK IN THE"INTERNAL" SERVICE AREA. BY LEAVING THE NUMBER OF SKILLED NURSING BEDS AT ITS CURRENT LEVEL OF 59, WE ARE REDUCING ONE OF THE HIGHER INTENSITY USES ON THE PROPERTY FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE TRAFFIC. THE CARLOTTA CURRENTLY HAS 14 DELIVERIES PER WEEK,RANGING FROM DAYS WITH ZERO DELIVERIES TO DAYS WITH 4 DELIVERIES. WITH AN ADDITIONAL 82 UNITS,THE NUMBER OF DELIVERIES WILL NOT INCREASE,ONLY THE AMOUNT DELIVERED WILL INCREASE. DELIVERY TIMES WILL BE LIMITED. (See schedule of deliveries in"Attachment B") 5) Concern about increased density. BY ELIMINATING THE STAND-ALONE ALZHEIMER'S BUILDING,WE HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF REQUESTED UNITS FROM A TOTAL OF 297 AT FULL EXPANSION TO A TOTAL OF 274. WE ARE ONLY PROPOSING TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL 82 UNITS. THE NEW UNITS WILL INCLUDE 32 CASITAS AND 50 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS. 6) Concern about increased number of staff on site. AGAIN,BY DELETING THE ALZHEIMER'S BUILDING AND REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF NEW UNITS ADDED, WE HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STAFF BY 9 EMPLOYEES. THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES ADDDED PER SHIFT WITH THE EXPANSION WILL BE AS FOLLOWS: DAY(7am—3pm) 10.5 staff persons+7 management/supervisor positions Evening(3pm— l 1pm) 6.5 staff persons Night(11pm—7am) 2 staff persons ATTACHMENT B THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA GENERAL DELIVERY SCHEDULE VENDOR DAY TIME VEHICLE TYPE Waxie Tuesday 8:30 AM Diesel, Single Axle Ecolab Tuesday or Wednesday 11:30- 1:00 PM Diesel,Single Axle Diesel, Single Axle or semi- Medline Medical Supplies Wednesday or Thursday 11:00-2:00 PM trailer Apria HC Supplies(Oxygen Supplies) Wednesday or Friday 11:00-2:00 PM Gas,Single Axle Ross Swiss Dairy Monday and Thursday 8:00-8:30 PM Diesel, Single Axle West Central Produce Monday and Thursday 9:00- 11:30 PM Diesel,Single Axle Crown Meats Monday and Thursday 8:00-8:30 AM Diesel,Single Axle Sysco Foods Monday and Thursday 9:00- 1:00 PM Semi-trailer Bread Truck As needed Monday-Saturday 8:00 AM Gas, Single Axle -- — Tuesday,June 26th,2001 - .. Parking Counts Area"A" 1 of 4 spaces occupied (25%) ��_S�y=-- =— a' Area"B" 10 of 19 spaces occupied(53°%) 12 of 34 spaces occupied(35/o) +.o 1� � _ OP` ' Area"D" 20 of 37 spaces occupied(5%) 7t , ....*+." ° �} 5 °o ��•_____.--------- 22 of 43 spaces occupied(51/o ° F. -----_- rtO. * 0; ,! r,= Area"E" aces occupied(74%) ° ° °' `l' __ ; Area"F" 26 of 35 spaces ) ° l �* ° � Area"G" 30 of 30 spaces occupied(100%)° + ° + + _* I''i° Area"H" 13 of 44 spaces occupied(30%) `i• _- TOTAL 134 of 246 spaces occupied(54%) 0 4 . +0 , 6 1 4., k 0.;x°6-9- 'Ir, ?, '6- iiA- Ilt- -CiiI • ° III ; .ro `'Q' � so°i° ° 4� �� t {{ IRIS, 2 of 4 spaces occupied ( ) o Area"A" _ o "� � 1 'O �01.1.51.108�`�'0"'� **; '�"LL= Area"B+' 14 of 19 spaces occupied(74%) 0 * + ' + �' {�T Area"C' 21 of 34 spaces occupied(62%) 7. 9 0 0 o i II + ��, r *_ _�_ ii � �'; Area"D" 24 of 37 spaces occupied(65%) _' ° M1,. _J ' �Y •' ' `1 Area"E" 26 of 43 spaces occupied(60%) " -- "'�" ° ��+ O . 111E111 '- 25 of 35 spaces occupied( /o ° o 0 0 ° ° O r . Area"F„ ,),, d — - a w Area„G„ �� 19 of 30 spaces occupied(71%) o -;- ♦ III I, �:'°:. q '= Area"H" 14 of 44 spaces occupied( 3%) iti 1" ''{ �� 1 ` ' I 145 of 246 spaces occupied(5'. t� 1p O o 0 o ;OO* ' Z `'r•-sr� • TOTAL * �I q`�o r CJ', `�;Q 0 1.J 'tom=9 ;, :I .i�I... 9 50 PM • + o 3 ° 111 Area"A" 1 of 4 spaces occupied ( ) A.P.• R .-... 1 of 19 spaces occupied(5%) Z.,i �' ►'11'9111I,i= �. Area"B„ + °° ' .� � ��''.•'�I 6 of 34 spaces occupied(18%) + + o -� r { Area"D" 23 of 37 spaces occupied(62%) i " ''1='' ! ! pi'' Area"E" 25 of 43 spaces occupied(58%) • "'«••° . 'r — ! y�y 27 of 35 spaces occupied(77%) I, •- ! -.w ! ,1a NO MOO ls- Area"F„ spaces occupied(17%) AJ ^:.s4'R6>. :, ., gi.x I Area 5 of 30 P �9 ,A •=�:t� 1 1,1 Area"H" 1 of 44 spaces occupied(2%) 3 ;i�. �:�" .°.,"«. — — — — �y; TOTAL 89 of 246 spacesoccupied 36%) — _ _ i a IL Ad Hoc Committee and the Resident Council of THE FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA 41-505 Carlotta Dr. Palm Desert, California 92211 August 1,0, 2001 Mr. Steve Smith, Planning Manager Re : Modification to Planning Department Conditions GPA 01-03 . City of Palm Desert C/Z 01-03 73-370 Fred Waring Drive Conditions of Approval Palm Desert, CA 92260 Case No. PP 01-03 Specifically Conditions #21 and #23 Dear Mr. Smith: Now that you have available verifiable factual information from Mark Diercks , Transportation Engineer; Michael Wilson, Fire Marshal, and Traffic Sergeant Rich Waltch of the Sheriff ' s Department, we are hereby respectfully requesting that you restore the original staff re_ eommendatiat urn Condition 21 the proposed recessed north (third) gate for ingress and egress of the Fire Department and the residents ; and Furthermore, we request reconsideration of Condition 23 -- We want Special Events to be unlimited. The criteria of traffic volume site vision and accidents , accord- ing to Mark Diercks indicate no site vision problem, only an average of 42 vehicles per 8 hour period with the highest period containing 63 vehicles in the projected intersection gate area. Sgt. Rich Waltch stated tip no accidents have been recorded in this Carlotta Drive area _ We must conclude no hazardous , dangerous traffic problem exists or will exist even with our 141 residents ' 68 vehicles plus the future Casitas residents' anticipated 28 ve- hicles and the present staff ' s 100+ vehicles . Regarding our request for Unlimited Special Events -- Condition 23 : The Fountains , in addition to its residents , invites guests and neighbors to our special events . No more over seating capacity of 135 are invited. The fact that vehicles overflow our parking spaces onto the street is not unusual. Our neighbors have two-car garages and driveways . When they have guests , they also park on Carlotta Drive . Parallel parinc: on both sides of the strew. is LEGAL. Why should we he dented the same right 2 - ,)VER - (�1 Mr. Steve Smith 8/14/01 - P. 2 Denying us unlimited special events results in decreasing our op- porunities for important therapeutic activities that are vital to our mental alertness and social , emotional and physical health in our twilight years. Limiting these events obstructs our right to longevity, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Limitation also denies us our full contractual services . ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT FACTS Each year, the main and south gates have experienced periods of malfunction and/or gate accidents by careless drivers . These problems have occurred 4 to 6 times per year. On weekends, we have no maintenance staff. Every effort is made during these periods to keep the gates open; Luckily we have had only one gate down at a time when repairs are made. However, if the South Gate becomes inoperable and cannot be opened, the Fire Department is denied speedy access. The North Gate is critical to our safety, protection and health. It will be closest ._to all apartments (present and future) . The N x.th Gate wig relieve: the fain_:Gate of it=s-Toad:: of xesidehts. Therefore, visitors, guests, medical providers, applicants (job and future residents) , performers., lecturers., saleRmen, . outside conLiacLural labor, et he only ones using the Main Gate. Therefore , for our mental health, safety, as well as liberty and peace of mind, we ask that you approve and restore the North Gate-- Condition 21 , and give us Unlimited Special Events -- Condition 23 . Very truly yours, a 060 Harold Schoenfeld 1 , Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee Hubert Scott, President Resident Council P. S. At 2PM today there was a memorial service for Mrs. Diven Meredith, formerly legal secretary to Judge Marsh, who attended along with retired fellow Judges Cologne and Moore. Diven Meredith was CEO of Meredith & Simpson, internationally known contractors. The auditorium was full of guests and residents which resulted in an overflow of parking. Are we to be denied these services because of special events limited to 12 per year? I -.. t ' L V� 1 S th , _ C. *s --C) -' 1 V-.0 � Gam` �n � � �— � C © '� a. Bch • .&. ► 1 I d y; 1 -- .......d,r,.►.a...a..." ... r—. I pn o J)A4 --J., � (J tilY Alir ((( n'V L.7 _0 - - ° 'II - = � ( d O .. O a O o1 - ,� . . o . v V / 1 EL X. I. p ( . ,I F----,---). 00 \ . ' ' sr I0 , I I\: �IDI 1 o pL ,"1 Imo,i Fo �I# I g . ;� g qi vA— -`T ,, ,I,:. ....II / p e,18e 0** LI 0 o .-, g . r k.5..); &. 0 tn,i2 .u• .1.1:1 , I o iro1 f I ),_,:u 4. "C io �I T u 1 1 I p iD ° •)1 • 1III1 � O O VS OC� L M� ''C b, 4 ° gIIac I �g ,:. . .. n [mn 4 am o0 1 t- yv1 O • , U71 O * IN & e (OrlisejA_eviNvr(cf--14Altiyi_, / 1111, ` S` o # � nil r` . �Uck....\_:: c ii , __, ciimiti-o % g c `�'� —s JL Uffi 1>72:22 _ !` c* O^ Y O 1 �� 11 \/ O 1,- rt• •,gariboit d Ik o.d. �rT� /I �'' (k o o I 1 7 (� v 1 �l o aoo. i 1� •� �� f � o O ��p1 eTwn � __ ' �'r , , ,,,... ,.... m r--'4 e-, (J. # ... + ��/ - lur I -- C w. n- laJ.Me I T IQ —� 1 , : � I o ° , I II L F 0 lI N T A I N S AT1II1:CARL0FFA rAu I IsrRT,CtIInRNIn k QEkitrlPEricblSilliki The Fountains at The Carlotta August 13, 2001 From: Harold Schoenfeld, Chairman Ad Hoc Committe To: Steve Smith, City of Palm Desert Project Manager Subject: A. Ffnding of the Traffic Safety Questionnare B. Sunday Concert - Special Event 8/12/01 A. Following are the answers that describe the directions that drivers most generally use when exiting the gate to Carlotta Drive. In all, 45 out of 68 drivers responded, a return of 66%. How often do you drive . . . South North Once a month 0 1 Occasionally 0 1 Once a week 1 0 Two times a week 12 12 Five times a week 19 8 Seven times a week 8 0 More often than above 5 1 Twice a year 0 1 Totals: 45 24 Do you park in the Sand Castle cul-de-sac? Yes No 0 45 Do you drive along Carlotta north to the dead-end cul-de-sac? Yes No 1 to see 44 Christmas Decorations Conclusion 1. Fountain drivers do not park in the Sand Castle cul-de-sac. 2. Said drivers do not drive North on Carlotta Drive to the dead-end cul-de-sac. 3. Only 24 out of 45 drivers drive North to Sand Castle then East to Eldorado Drive. An analysis of the traffic engineer's study of the intersection traffic at Sand Castle and Carlotta shows an average of 42 vehicles. over a number of 8-hour periods. This traffic questionnaire reveals that we do not contribute much traffic to this intersection nor to any traffic to the 2/10 mile of street from Sand Castle to the dead-end cul-de-sac. B. Special event- During today's Sunday 8/12/01 concert, one of a series with a full auditorium, there was only one auto parked parallel on Carlotta Drive. Cc: City Council, Resident 'ouncil/A Hoc 'ommittee Respectfully submit 1`11j Harold Schoenfeld, hairman Ad Hoc Committee Ad Hoc Committee and the Resident Council of The Fountains at The Carlotta '01 J L345 41-505 Carlotta Dr. 1 P� S Palm Desert, California 92211 August 1 , 2001 Palm Desert City Council City Hall 73-370 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Modification to Conditions GPA 01-02, C/Z 01-03 Conditions of Approval Case No. PP 01-07 Honorable Members: The Special Ad Hoc Committee and the Resident Council, representing 141 residents who live in the independent facilities of The Fountains at The Carlotta, a senior citizen community, have vital health, safety and environmental stakes in The Fountains ' July 17, 2001 approved Application and its Conditions; namely: Condition 21 - "Delete the proposed north access gate. " , and Condition 23 - "Limit special events to 12 per year. " We hereby present pictorial evidence, facts and logic to substantiate The Fountains ' request for modification of Conditions 21 and 23 . Based on our facts, we respectfully request that the City Council at your August 23, 2001 meeting: (1) Approve the North Access Gate for residents only or at least an added By-Pass to the middle gate, and (2) Allow us to hold an unspecified number of major special events per year. CONDITION 21 - PROPOSED NORTH ACCESS GATE Following is a careful, detailed analysis of some 41 neighbors' positions as stated to the Planning Commission in their Petition titled "PROTEST PETITION FOR PROPOSED NORTH GATE ENTRY AT THE CARLOTTA" . 1 . THE GATE WOULD CAUSE A SEVERE TRAFFIC AND DANGER PROBLEM, ON THE CORNER OF SANDCASTLE AND CARLOTTA DRIVES. REBUTTAL - The proposed recessed gate will be located approxi- mately 153 ' from said corner and its cul-de-sac. The present stop sign on the southwest end of Sandcastle re- duces hazards or dangerous conditions . A proposed 3-way stop will reduce it further. It would slow down those North Carlotta drivers who exceed the speed limit. (over) 11 City Council 8/1/01 - P. 2 2. THE FAMILY ENVIRONMENT WOULD BECOME A COMMERCIAL WORK ARE A. REBUTTAL - The Family environment from the corner of Sandcastle and Carlotta to the north non-outlet cul-de-sac, 2/10 mile, should never have heavy traffic as said traffic flows from Hovley Lane to Sandcastle, then it goes East to El Dorado, or it comes West from El Dorado onto Sand- castle to a Stop Sign at the intersection with Carlotta-- then south to Hovley Lane. Carlotta Drive is a DEAD END STREET. It is signed, "NOT A THROUGH STREET" . 3. TWO ENTRIES ARE SUFFICIENT AND WERE THERE WHEN THEY PUR- CHASED THEIR: HOMES. REBUTTAL - The approved Application will enable The Carlotta to house 328 residents and patients in 278 living units . These residents and guests will be served by the equiva- lent of 140 full-time employees. The residents, performers, applicants , guests and selected services, etc. , sometimes stack up at the middle gate. The North Gate would remove all Independent Living traffic from the main gate. Furthermore, it would facilitate our emer- gency and disaster exiting time. 4 . THE ENTRANCE WILL BE IN FRONT OF THEIR HOMES. REBUTTAL - The proposed recessed North Gate will be in front of only two homes approximately 90 ' from the proposed recessed gate, directly east across Carlotta Drive. The gate is not near the 39 North Carlotta Drive homes or the four Sandcastle homes. The nearest west side Carlotta at Sandcastle home is approximately 293 ' from the proposed recessed North Gate. Sandcastle homes (4) are more than 300 ' from the gate and are east of Carlotta Drive. 5. PUTTING._IN THIS ENTRANCE (GATE) WOULD ALLOW HEAVY TRAFFIC DEEPER INTO THEIR FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS A NON- OUTLET STREET. REBUTTAL - See Rebuttal No. 2; also, why would traffic enter a street signed "Not a Through Street"? Residents of The Fountains seldom, if ever, have any reason to drive into the Sandcastle cul-de-sac or the north Carlotta Drive area. ADDITIONAL FACTS 1 . There is more than adequate street and sidewalk play space in front of the 39 homes on Carlotta Drive from Sandcastle north to the non-outlet cul-de-sac. . 2 . Eight homes in the Petition area have basketball back-stops, hoops, and standards in their driveways -- NOT in the street. )HH / City Council 8/1/01 - P. 3 3 . One home, approximately 230 ' from the proposed North Gate and adjacent to the Sandcastle cul-de-sac at the corner of Carlotta Drive, has placed a basketball hoop and standard in the street cul-de-sac (which does not appear to be a safe or legal practice. ) 4 . Since 1989 , all The Fountains' employees, commercial vehicles, and emergency -vehicles have been directed to use the South Gate. 5 . All guests, lecturers, non-staff medical specialists, voters, salesmen, job and resident applicants and entertainers, as well as residents have been directed to use the main gate. 6 . The proposed North Gate will be scheduled for "Town Center" and Casita residents only, and will have 3-deep vehicle stack- ing room off Carlotta Drive. It will not be a hazard as it will eliminate stacking at the main gate. 7 . In an emergency or disaster, a By-Pass Gate and the South Gate would contribute to panic because of the loads of people directed to only TWO EXITS . . people on stretchers, using walkers and canes, as well as wheel chairs, plus their oxygen tanks . 8 . The main gate area is not conducive to recessing and stacking. It could be re-built as a By-Pass Gate. It would not be as EFFECTIVE as a THIRD gate for the North and West Town Center residents. 9 . The only School Bus Stop for children is on Carlotta Drive at Dempsey St. , approximately 200 ' north of Hovley Lane. The northern-most homes on the North Carlotta Drive cul-de-sac are 1/2 mile from the Bus Stop. Sidewalks are on both sides of the street. CONDITION 23 : SPECIAL EVENTS LIMITATION Following is a rebuttal to the one east-side neighbor' s complaint. There are 35 homes in her area from Hovley through and including Easy St. , Dolman Court and Duval Court. The neighbor complained about overflow parking onto Carlotta Drive during some special events . None of these neighbors signed the PETITION: 1 . For mental , physical, emotional and social therapeutic reasons , as well as for marketing reasons , The Fountains provide ex- cellent major special events open to the residents and the public. Our neighbors and our guests are invited to these outstanding activities; i.e. , community concerts , speakers, lecturers, holiday activities, etc. In addition, our audit- orium becomes a polling precinct for city, county and federal elections. 2 . Limitations on these activities may hinder our growth and de- velopment as a community and our therapeutic goals for Senior Citizens. (over) ; )1 City Council 8/1/01 - P. 4 3 . When certain special events are held, our invited guests and performers park on our campus and a few on the street, just as neighbors do when they have guests. Parallel parking is legal on both sides of Carlotta Drive. 4 . Our auditorium' s seating capacity of 135 already limits our guests and neighbors' attendance. 5 . Some of our residents no longer operate their own vehicles. These special events may provide their only opportunity to attend live events . ADDITIONAL FACTS 1 . Children have adequate, safe play space, up to 2/10th of a mile in the North Carlotta area. 2. Heavy traffic does not and will not enter a signed dead-end street. 3 . Only 2 homes front the proposed North Gate on Carlotta Drive. 4. Commercial, staff and guests will not be scheduled to use the proposed North Gate. 4a. Emergency traffic for Town Center and Casitas residents will have North Gate access. 5 . The local school bus stop satisfies requirements of the State Legislature and the State Board of Education. They require children to walk along busy streets to the assigned Bus Stop. 6 . The 1986 application to the County Planning Commission indi- cated future expansion of The Fountains. 7 . The City approved the application in 1989 that established the South Gate and additional structures . This application also showed future expansion. 8 . Special activities are essential to the well-being and the emotional, social and therapeutic health of Senior Citizens in their twilight years. 9 . The Fountains can install Stop Signs for vehicles exiting each gate, thereby increasing pedestrian and vehicle safety. CONCLUSIONS Accurate, precise, detailed information was not provided to the Planning Commission on July 17th in our North Primrose neighbors ' Petition, as you may glean from our pictures and the facts before you, and furthermore, how can a recessed North Gate possibly affect / iLi City Council 8/1/01 - ) . 5 the family environment of the 33 petitioners living in the dead- end portion of Carlotta Drive from Sandcastle on the south to the cul-de-sac on the north? THEREFORE: We respectfully request that: (1) The City Council approve the installation of the North Gate, or at least a By-Pass gate added to the existing Main Gate; and (2) The City Council remove the number restriction on the major/special events held each year. Respectfully yours, -c" Harold Scho n eld, C man Ad Hoc Committee 2 Hubert Scott, President Resident Council cc: City Manager Carlos Ortega Planning Director Phil Prell Planning Manager Steve Smith Transportation Engineer - Mark Diercks Fire Department Chief - Mike Wilson Traffic Sgt. Vern Jaksch The Fountains at The Carlotta: Executive Director - Bob Walker Resident Council Members Ad Hoc Committee Members HSjy 54. h, .-- arm' ,- - ,� - ' ` . --, _ �,,__ ,„_-,rr ;. .4„' _ . � _* a. e �, ca = t- r - _ it* s .a L3.�t"'..y • r t 3 , . -----_-------:::__----____,—___,_-- - -z-____—____------a___-__—_---- -- r- - _ ----:. - - - _.T — - r II -- _ � -- - vim._ -- _ _ _ - _ $ -- - t . - N... _ i i --,.__ _ '-�— _ —=- �JF f ter. (, 1 . I - .1,-.2 i - -47J.-ki J,- • - r __-_-__- _=_--__-___-„ V -- „.....-- _ _---,--- - - ----.:±--- -- - - - _-- -__--__, --L-----_-___-_-__7_- --A___,-,-- -____•-,7,__-=___:-_-__- . if .1+,91,...,9 -_ ---,..'.7--,7-7=-7_00:_:4_ p/v/ , .11 .-%.0-_,..4., AN...I '.. •• 4- . -j /Ill ----' \I_---.,•:------ - -,_,L5(13(5 315 4 )‘ -- - ---"--- 4.-". 4 ; s.,-- 1 -. - _- _--_---_---_-=- - -- '` - -- ---------- ---- I A , 0 AL - „...-- --- ----- ---,-_- - -4 A _--i V,. - ''41%"',• ,L #,, ---2- .ft-J*.-__ .:-.... B - 1 --- , -, - -- ; - - ,- -----.- ,al =A• -.-+•, -L -:- - ' .. ..2Z._ y. ik r ...,_- .:. Now• - - ---i-'7,..•'''-- -'.-;- 1 , „ • ,, _.....,1 ---. i ,.. , .. - ; .. _ . _ - • -.7--_-_,R ----,,---.., _ -,,,..,• 1 v-TC--r.47=e•.„_ _ ,,-----,- -- , -,,_,-, ..,;_ ..i.,,. i , . -1-_,-,,, •-vi;.:. ''.,Z.:Z.,,,-.17`1„- _,-------_,,----L- r- i 'ft-t-`----f. tr.. ..,; __ , _...„,_: .,..„4.,..,.: ..„.„,...„... .„,_,,,::„.,,,... . _. ,. r _..,..,,., , „*. ,..v..A..W.7.-..*.*•-.^-`t-.474 i.....4- .s. . 7.=*_m.--?.-. -7,-..---- _ .- '..V.'i,Titir0 .7-3-_---- -- ,-•.,-,1 „4, ..1; r.r:t -=--- r- ,' :f-.,. --0-*- tii,-'* -, -n--- - •V-,--,-4,K.,F, ---___-_,----- -:_,4-:_. - •-`,- , -- ,,,,, ---- -4Y.-7-.---------,=-,--!..7, - ---.---.. ,1 __-.--,-_,,_ ___,-,--,0 .,, .l,- , '''',_-.7. =1 C., -.:, ---: -., -____T,-= - - _-: ---'------"----,_=-__--- -_,-- ,. -,----i.,--=----_ -' - -_--Ii= :•;.".';- --x-r --=.,---.__---_- ---A =-- :t ','-,.1........7--- I---',--4.-----=-_'--7- '1,..' ''--I 1 ---=.--.,- _---- , ' 1--_--'2'-'..„2-. _--J--1--,------ =- -'- =-. - .1/c _--_-r----___ - k- --7-- '' ' lairplIgfr--- J K. ,--• 'Ifillgr:-7- - --I"ftillli-- 4.1*i $ 1111 It Ilia - f:-_-1-- --A. t - ilk - - -- '-'1-4--',`F.-,:-_- ,=-_-.-_-,___-__-_------.17- __=__,-_-_- ----f- ---1-W,__'_-*---,--4:=-- -------'------ ----=------_-_------7-- - 'a. -=-=----- -,==.='-,-----=- -s .. .... -----=:_-,-M._--,-----`-- ---=------------- --.---=- ----.----------------:-1:-=-1-----_--:-__-----_,=_------_---=-------7-7,-- --- -- --:_:;„=_-________,__---_-_,_----- ==_-,- _.-_---------- _ ------ - - -------------:------- -----=--- --_,-= _____ _____-_ -- =:-------------------= == _ _J,,-_-. — ----ZH-_,--_ ---------t----____ _ - _-_--_- -- ------,-------------------------- - _---_-_-------__-_-_-___=____ ____,--_,- -_:_____._.___.,_ ___----- ---_.-_- ------- -__ -______. ...... - - - - - - ,- *-Z---- - t .!s 7111J.i41.1 _ _air I�I 4 i l...ail _ %-d,=.-/ .'' ;: �e # 5 '-J !,Z ' ` t` t_ r-- 17110 r,-7 , • :;iW: S4: -s ,t..�er. - - • iL. , : f. 1�1��ci • j -.- -I 1_ . - ---. - z),„ ,._ _ ______„.„ ,_. _ . . .. _ ,_,_, %... \ • , _ __= ...„ - gi - - :„.,__..._. . _=4.- , . r A.=,----. _--f--7-='----. 3 • €- . 4FE 7 _,_:___,__,==__s_______________ .. ______________________ . . = _______„_______ p A , . --_--4_,V_%,.'-,t---_'_,..-'4,--...-'i,-:.3—,,---3-.1,.. , _"_--•--,=Q—t—`._.—-7Z--I-_-1 R r 1 -T=\_ cut_.,------_--.---f___ j _-=..a„;,--_-_.-.-_.A__..1y'.: - -1A...I___l I..a_I.,I,i.IIi,..I_,_ o,,1---- 7:=.--_---,_l-r_,t.-_-"7.i--r-.-i._.---,..-.f..,,---.--_---:-.,,_- -' -•.-,r_— '_ —^eras tf ...—✓ - F ;'_ _= _ --...- .Z4.-' — — ---"7E.-----—-----__ —_---------_----__V - � — 1 e -..• JTk i _ • srl _L �� i e v_�. ai _, ___ _ , ')L?S -bp -),..r13. - -- -,. ... ..:..„,sr..... ..,_ ......,... _....t.. _ , . ,(.3 0 J _ •. • ..Y t ft • - _ •.ram • • �' �' v.44 el lt-,*- - • • } d t n - =- 1fj # l � t a . n t „'§. t i ce" •. r(;. ru p m, jr„ ���//✓ w ,.„..p.„.., ..„ • ; k i ' . ..... , : 1 ii,‘ , I:\,,,i 4 qil . .. „,,, , . I .... Srt F 11 IA OV , {__. .. N' Imo Mill ()Iit I't . r W W �ry •400 J PLEa\I µ �N IIN `I.."' it: 1 l a` ti 34e, 1 e'I h,:I I..., ,' � gyp' 'I (� r+. I 1T * a4irr _ t N la ....f '..".... • w I = s - z� 4I76 _ i ' ' fe -l Sys tfl f ft _ - - Y _ Ail SF t _ - _ — _- f Fi • --1 __. ,--.,:: _,:_,_,- .._,_____=_,_____ f P-------- ___ - -__--,---'-=---=-'---7-,-.=---71--,_r--__=_= _________ , _ . -# _, 4,.. 7, v ; 8i= 1 e t s - fir= = 08/03/2001 10: 08 13232575700 T PRATT PAGE 01/01 • 821 Rollin Street,South Pasadena,California 91030 Tel:(323)257-9500 Fax'. (323)257-9700 Iruunli8in,Retirement(_'ommunilies.Itic. Fax To: Steve Smith and Phil.Drell From: Todd Pratt Fax 760 341-7098 Pages: 1 Phone: 760 346-0611 Date: 08/03/01 Re: Fountains at Carlotta CC: Marvin Roos,Bob Walker,Julie Ferguson ❑Urgent ❑For Review 0 Please Comment ❑Please Reply Cl Please Recycle VIA FACSIMILE&MAIL Dear Steve Smith and Phil Drell: We request the council be notified to consider a minor adjustment to Conditions no. 9, 11, and 23 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2080 for the Fountains at the Carlotta project. At its August hearing, we would like to request the Council consider a minor adjustment to the hours of deliveries and trash service,as well as an increase in the number of special events per year. We will also request the existing "middle gate" be modified to include a"resident-only bypass gate". Marvin Roos should be submitting the revised Site Plan that includes this gate revision. Please advise me of anything further I need to do in order to include these requests in the Council hearing agenda. My office phone is:(323)257-9500. Thank you very much. Regards, Todd Pratt Fountains Retirement Communities,Inc. This facsimile transmission is CONFIDENTIAL and may contain PRIVILEGED attorney-client information intended only for the person or company named above. Ifyou have received this facsimile transmission to error,please destroy It and natify Todd Pratt rmmediorety at(323)257-9500. Received Aug-03-2001 10:07am From-13232572T00 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 OpLIFORNIq� RIVERSIDE C( NTY �QPpSMENT of FOREST p dE\RE PR07ECT� 9y FIRE DEPARTMENT (` F9RESTEY °F In cooperation with the [FIRE p510F�O�M California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 210 West San Jacinto Avenue • Perris, California 92570 • (909) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910 LLB®77 FIRE DEPARTMENT Tom Tisdale August 1, 2001 Fire Chief RECEIVED Proudly serving the City of Palm Desert unincorporated areas of Riverside 73510 Fred Waring Drive AUG y 1 2001 County and the Palm Desert CA 92260-2578 cities of: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Banning Attention: Mr. Steve Smith, Planning Manager Beaumont Re: The Fountains at The Carlotta, PP01-07 Calimesa Canyon Lake Dear Mr. Smith: Coachella Desert Hot Springs It is my understanding that the Planning Commission recently removed a staff condition in regards to The Fountains at The Carlotta, PP01-07. Specifically, Indian Wells I am responding to the deletion of Condition 21, a new northern access gate. • Indio In my opinion, the staff recommendation of a new northern access gate is and Lake Elsinore was appropriate. With the addition to this existing facility to the rear of the La Quinta property and the current access points I feel it is in the best interest of the Public Health and Safety to encourage the City Council to look into the recommended Moreno Valley deletion of this condition and support the original staff recommendation. Palm Desert I have taken the opportunity to tour the project site. I feel that there are some Perris • reasonable solutions to accommodate the project and its ingress and egress as Rancho Mirage well as satisfy the residents in the surrounding neighborhood. At the very least San Jacinto we should add an additional point of access and restrict the use to emergency vehicles only through the Knox Box System in use today within the Cove Temecula Communities. Board of Supervisors Yours in Fire Prevention, Bob Buster District 1 John Tavaglione District 2 Jim Venable Michael H. Wilson District 3 Fire Marshal Roy Wilson District 4 Tom Mullen District 5 CITY Of PM DESrr• T �a • 73-5[O FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 2 60-2 5 7 8 i4 TEL: 760 346-061 I ♦. FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03, PP 01-07 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request byTHE FOUNTAINS for approval of a Negative Declaration q of Environmental Impact for a change of zone from PR-10 to PR-11 and a precise plan of design for a maximum addition of 82 new single story units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living) with the existing 22 assisted living units converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building. New units to be constructed on the westerly 7.7 acres of the existing Fountains at the Carlotta site at 41-505 Carlotta Drive. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, August 23, 2001, 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 SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk August 8, 2001 City of Palm Desert, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2080 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 FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR- 10 TO PR-11 AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A MAXIMUM ADDITION OF 82 NEW SINGLE STORY UNITS (32 CASITAS AND 50 ASSISTED LIVING) WITH THE EXISTING 22 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS CONVERTED TO AN ALZHEIMER FACILITY WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING. NEW UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE WESTERLY 7.7 ACRES OF THE EXISTING FOUNTAINS AT THE CARLOTTA SITE AT 41-505 CARLOTTA DRIVE. CASE NOS. C/Z 01-03 AND PP 01-07 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of May, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to June 19 and July 17, 2001 , to consider the request of The Fountains for approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact for a precise plan of design for a change of zone from PR-10 to PR-1 1 and a precise plan of design for a maximum addition of 82 new single story units (32 casitas and 50 assisted living) with the existing 22 assisted living units converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building. New units to be constructed on the westerly 7.7 acres of the existing Fountains at the Carlotta site at 41-505 Carlotta Drive; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of said request: 1 . The zone change is consistent with the general plan amendment. 2. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone. 3. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSIC IESOLUTION NO. 2080 4. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 5. 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, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That Change of Zone 01-03 (Exhibit B attached hereto) and Precise Plan 01-07 are hereby recommended for approval to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 17th day of July, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, TSCHOPP, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE JI PEZ, h erson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION OLUTION NO. 2080 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 01-07 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Each casita unit shall have designated a parking space under a carport. 7. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 3 PLANNING COMMISSIC.. ..ESOLUTION NO. 2080 8. 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. 9. That commercial deliveries shall only occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 10. That parking lot lighting and lighting mounted on the building exteriors shall be mounted below the top height of the adjacent perimeter wall to the west and south. All lighting shall comply with Ordinance 826 which regulates outdoor lighting. 11 . That trash- collection shall occur only Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 12. That all delivery vehicle engines be shut off if a truck is parked more than five minutes. Post accordingly inside receiving area. 13. That horn blowing for all delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 14. That loud talking and radio playing associated with delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly. 15. That the applicant shall implement the redesign of the south entry gate to minimize noise created when the gate opens and closes and make the gate operate in an efficient manner. 16. That all employees shall park on-site and that the entry gate shall remain open during employee shift changes so as to minimize the number of gate movements. 17. That the applicant shall continue to work with the County Fire Department to assure that emergency vehicles turn off their emergency lights when they arrive at the location and that emergency vehicles while serving the facility will park in the service area parking lot area. 18. That delivery vehicles shall park only in the service area parking lot. 4 ZIA PLANNING COMMISSION F )LUTION NO. 2080 19. That the applicant shall work with all delivery vehicle owners/operators to assure compliance with Condition No. 9 above relating to commercial delivery hours. 20. That the project shall comply with all requirements of the planned residential (PR) zone requirements. 21 . That the site plan be revised to delete the proposed north access gate. 22. That the curbs on either side of the mid site entrance gate be painted red for a distance of 40 feet in each direction to improve sight lines. 23. That the maximum number of special events shall be limited to 12 per year and that attendees shall be encouraged to park onsite. Applicant shall limit the number of invited outside guests to the number of on-site parking spaces typically available during the time of the event. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. Signal' , i�i accorda� with£ity of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79 17-and 79- 55, shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Any storm drain/retention basin construction associated with 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. 4. All private driveways and parking lots shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee paid prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 6. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 7. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 5 7 PLANNING COMMISSIO1v nESOLUTION NO. 2080 8. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at time of building permit issuance. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust (PM10) Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC 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. 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 gpm 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 a 3,000 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 UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION OLUTION NO. 2080 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. Install a hood/duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 1 1 . 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 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). 12. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "KnoxBox" 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. 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 _d 1300' be accepted. — 14. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate frorn an adjoining development. 15. 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. 16. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses or contrasting colors of a size approved by the City. 17. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 18. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. OTHER: 19. Fire Marshal needs some type of secondary access. 7 2 , PLANNING COMMISSIC._ ..ESOLUTION NO. 2080 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: C/Z 01 -03 AND PP 01-07 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: The Fountains 2020 W. Rudisill Road Tucson, AZ 85709 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone from PR=1U to-PR=11 and a precise plan of design for a maximum addition of 82 new single story units (32--casitas and SD assisted living) with the existing 22 assisted- living units converted to an Alzheimer facility within the existing building_ New units to be constructed on the westerly 7.7 acres of the existing Fountains at the Carlotta site at 41- 505 Carlotta Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. 2----- -t:/)\- 41-A--at+L17 2001 PHILIP DREII L DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 ZMy _,__________�, ' ��- - P.R.-4, S.P. i , / _3 _ _____ ______ .__ __ __________// ,.....uo.ayv.....oie..„r Tr:__ �/ P.R.- ', ► .• . P.R - , S.• . 111. a P.R.-5 P.R.-4, S.P. s .� ,. L..,�. 02 . 8 ,,09* 4fr g ., L....dA: 0101111110 J kif QS?, 0 i 1.21SIE.o. _ r, • A.,, 4.„ ,.. .,,,,,v t♦ � •. �,N P.R.-10 qutiaQ .4,u... n aki.- 0 � \\\ I —' wintv��o�v.r tareiourivls' uili IWO Pill&.., m akicirtw. ___ _. ._ -.1--avi--- ! h-J=- . , _ . . _ r ME*a.---:: -,----; MM.__. a7SDI. TD FMP a .0111,�L ► �l R�� [,��.P1 .B.- J D R , HOVLEY ILANE EMIL Proposed Zoning Change P.R.-10 to P.R. -11 - en?,ct/9a6n ideoei Case No. C/Z 01-03 PLANNING COMMISSION °"L`°` Change of Zone RESOLUTION NO. 2080 .; ' '` Fall' 1111 IT B Date: 7-17-01 - ZI�