HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 99-44 PP CUP 99-2 APN 622-020-069 at 73055 Hovley Lane CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal by the Damone Group to a decision of
the Planning Commission denying a request for approval of a
precise plan/conditional use permit for a 60 bed senior assisted
living complex on 3.77 acres of PR-5 (planned residential five
units per acre zoned property) at the southeast corner of
Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane (APN 622-020-069) 73-055
Hovley Lane.
III. APPELLANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, CA 92262
The Damone Group, LLC
7955 E. Chaparral Road, Suite 15
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
IV. CASE NO: PP/CUP 99-2
V. DATE: May 13, 1999
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Resolution No. 99-44
D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. PP/CUP 99-2
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1917
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 2, 1999
G. Related maps and/or exhibits
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the appeal by the Damone Group to a decision of the Planning Commission
denying an application for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 60
bed senior assisted living complex be granted and that the application be approved
subject to conditions.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
B. DISCUSSION:
1 . BACKGROUND
The applicant seeks approval of a 60 bed senior assisted living complex on
3.77 acres at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane.
March 2, 1999 Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application.
At that time staff recommended and the applicant concurred that the case
should be continued to allow the applicant to revise the plans to address
concerns of staff as delineated in the staff report of March 2, 1999.
At the public hearing Planning Commission heard from 17 area residents who
were opposed to the project. Commission also received written
correspondence from 30 area residents and petitions signed by 70 area
residents. Some of the people submitting written comments and signing
petitions also spoke at the public hearing.
At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission on a 4-1 vote
(Commissioner Campbell voting nay) directed staff to prepare a resolution of
denial to be presented to Planning Commission at its March 16, 1999 meeting.
At the March 16, 1999 meeting the requested resolution was presented.
After considerable discussion, see attached minutes of Planning Commission
meeting of March 16, 1999, commission adopted its Resolution No. 1917 on
a 3-1-1 vote (Campbell voting nay and Beaty abstaining) denying the
application.
March 31 , 1999 the applicant's representative filed this timely appeal.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant seeks approval of a 60-bed senior assisted living facility to serve
persons with Alzheimer's Disease and other memory impairments in a homelike
environment.
The facility provides resident bedrooms which each contain a closet and
separate bathroom (toilet and sink). Common areas provide among other
facilities:
i. A sweet shop
ii. A beauty-barber shop
iii. Two dining rooms
2
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
iv. Libraries (2)
v. TV lounges (2)
The facility also provides two interior courtyards and enclosed patio areas.
a. Description of Site
The vacant site consists of sand dunes along the east side and slopes
downward from Hovley Lane to the south end of the lot some 13 ±
feet. The site is bordered on the north and west with fully improved
streets and sidewalks. Along the south is a tall (20-25 feet high) row
of tamarisk trees. Along the east is a row of 10 single story (16 feet
tall) single family dwellings.
b. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use
North: PR-5/single family dwellings
South: PR-5/Monterey Country Club and CVWD well site
East: PR-5/single family dwellings
West: Rancho Mirage/vacant
c. Site Zoning and Size
The property is a 3.77 acre site at the southeast corner of Monterey
Avenue and Hovley Lane and has 277 feet of frontage on Hovley and
616 feet along Monterey. The site is zoned PR-5, planned residential
five units per acre. The Zoning Ordinance at Section 25.24.025 C
(copy enclosed) permits "institutional facilities" subject to approval of
a conditional use permit.
The project before the City Council is different from that presented to
Planning Commission. Staff had three main areas of concern with the
plan presented to Planning Commission as follows:
A 20-space parking lot was proposed at the south end of the
site. Staff requested that smaller parking areas be dispersed
around the west side of the property to take the noise impacts
away from the neighbors.
ii. The building has been designed to be residential in character;
however, it is 31 ,000 square feet under one roof. Staff was not
comfortable locating the wings of these buildings 20 feet from
the east property line. It is true that a row of residential
3
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
dwellings could be as close as 20 feet to this property line but
such dwellings would have required side yards between the units
which would increase the open feeling. As a result staff
suggested that the building be moved westerly on the site to
provide a minimum east setback of 30 feet.
iii. The height of the building as designed complies with the
ordinance, however, the proposed site grading could result in
excessive impact to residences at the south end of Avenida
Calafia. The site drops from Hovley to its south end from an
elevation of 217 to 204. The applicant proposed to establish the
finished floor at 21 1 . This means that the finished floor would
be several feet below the residences at the north end of Avenida
Calafia, level with the middle of Avenida Calafia and as much as
3 feet above the dwellings at the south end of Avenida Calafia.
If this site were developed with a row of single family units, the
pad heights would generally mirror the existing adjacent pad
heights to the east. Therefore staff suggested that the finished
floor of the proposed building be lowered so that no point of the
finished floor is above the finished floor of the adjacent
residential units to the east. This could be accomplished by
lowering the entire pad to 209 or by stepping the building.
The revised plans have addressed these issues as follows:
The 20-space parking lot has been moved to the west and the
nearest parking space is now 160 feet from the east wall. Also,
the delivery area at the north end of the building has been moved
further away to provide 90 feet of separation.
ii. The building has been moved to provide a minimum east setback
of 30 feet at the nearest point.
iii. The finished floor height has been lowered from 211 to 209. The
floor height will be equal to southerly most adjacent residential
unit. The southerly most two residences on Avenida Calafia,
which are not adjacent to the building, have floor elevations of
208.7 and 208.2.
4
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
aa. Access and Circulation
The single story complex takes access from Hovley Lane
with an entry driveway aligned with Glenwood Lane to the
north. The two-way entry driveway extends southerly and
around the west side of the building. Two other smaller
parking lots (two spaces and four spaces respectively) are
located adjacent to the driveway west of the building.
bb. Parking
As noted parking areas are delineated with a total of 26
parking spaces. The code requires a minimum of one
parking space for every four beds (i.e., minimum of 15
parking spaces required).
cc. Architecture and Height
The building has been designed to resemble an upscale
home with six wings. Each wing houses seven to eight
bedrooms. The building design includes a series of hip
roof sections to lower the building appearance. The main
building, while it is single story, has a ridge height of 20
feet and a tower element facing Monterey Avenue which
is 30 feet. Tower elements comprising less than 10% of
the floor area may be as much as 25 feet above the zone
district maximum (i.e., 24 feet plus 25 feet = 49 feet)
(Municipal Code 25.56.300 B). This tower qualifies under
that provision.
The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary
approval to the building architecture subject to landscape
plan modifications to increase landscaping density along
Monterey Avenue and adjacent to the single family
dwellings to the east.
5
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
dd. Development Standards
TYPICAL SINGLE
PROJECT ORDINANCE FAMILY DWELLING
Building Height 20 feet-1 story 24 feet-2 stories 18 feet-1 story
30 foot tower 49 foot tower* 24 feet-2 stories
Front Setback (Hovley) 160 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Street Side Yard (Monterey) 36 feet*** 32 feet 15 feet
Side Yard Setback 30 feet ** 5 feet
Rear Setback (South) 135 feet ** 15 feet
Parking Spaces 26 15 2 covered spaces
Maximum Coverage 19% 40% 30% (2,400 square
foot home on 8,000
square foot lot)
* Tower elements comprising less than 10% of the building area may be as high
as 49 feet
** Unspecified: "shall be approved on the development plan" Code Section
25.24.250 A
*** Arterial street setback requirement
3. ANALYSIS
The plan as submitted complies with all requirements of the Municipal Code.
The facility will be owned and operated by Alternative Living Services which
is the nation's largest and most experienced provider of assisted living
services. ALS caters to the needs of frail older adults with memory
impairment.
The applicant indicates that market research concludes that this segment of
the elder care market is under served in Palm Desert.
A residential care facility is a permitted conditional use in the PR zone
(institutional facilities). This is consistent with such other uses as churches
and public and private schools. Generally these uses are located on the edge
of residential areas and they serve as a buffer for single family residential units
from arterial street impacts.
This proposed facility meets all of these criteria and is generally well designed
and laid out.
6
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
The revisions to the plan lowering pad height, dispersing the parking and
moving the building further away from the residences to the east has made a
good project better.
4. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Planning Commission and City Council received considerable written
correspondence from area residents (copies enclosed).
Concerns expressed by residents of the area are wide ranging and include:
a. The project is an inappropriate use in this zone resulting in negative
economic impact on the single family homes.
Response:
The proposed use is a conditionally permitted use in the PR zone. The
process permits the city to impose appropriate conditions on the design
and operation of the project to mitigate identified impacts on nearby
properties. The City has approved other assisted living facilities in
residential districts (i.e., Hacienda de Monterey on Monterey Avenue,
Manor Care on Country Club Drive) and The Carlotta operates in a
residential district (it was approved and developed under the County).
The code has determined that this use should not be relegated to an
industrial, commercial or office zone.
The project has been designed with large landscaped areas and
generous street setbacks which will present an attractive entry to
Hovley Lane and the building will help to buffer the residences to the
east from noise generated by traffic on Monterey. The vacant lot
provides no buffer.
The facility has been designed as one story to maintain a residential
scale and will be maintained at a very high level.
In the written correspondence to Planning Commission was a letter from
Kim Oleson which included a letter from Michael A. Scarcella, MAI,
discussing The Affect of an Assisted Living Facility on Residential
Property Values.
Mr. Scarcella indicates that his opinion is based on limited research. He
also notes that "there appears to be limited residential market sales data
that shows a particular change in direction of value for residential
homes in proximity to assisted living facilities." Mr. Scarcella notes that
7
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
Primrose development "had an initial absorption rate that was well
below market. Additionally, values in this project appear to be lower
than similar quality units of a similar size, in other locations." Mr.
Scarcella also notes that "it is unclear to me how much of a differential
may be attributed to the proximity of these homes to the assisted living
facility, and what other factors (if any) may be involved."
Staff had hoped that a letter of this type would provide a definitive
response to the claim that this project will lower property values. At no
point does Mr. Scarcella say that. He does say that "any use that
generates 24 hour traffic and lighting, such as an assisted living facility
will not serve to increase adjacent residential property values."
Staff would note that condition no. 9 requires that all parking lot
lighting fixtures be no higher than the perimeter wall on the east.
From this letter by Mr. Scarcella staff is unable to conclude that the
project in question will lower adjacent residential property values.
b. Security. Neighborhood residents expressed concern that residents of
the facility will wander off and become a danger to themselves and to
traffic in the area.
Response:
The applicant advises that the facility will include a state of the art
security system within the building perimeter. The building also
includes two courtyard areas and two fenced exterior gardening areas
immediately adjacent to the building (sole access from within the
building). The building security system is designed to prevent patients
from wandering off yet afford reasonable access for staff. All persons
entering and exiting the building are required to enter a designated
numerical code into a key pad. Opening the door without the proper
code rings an interior alarm and results in a staff response. Panic
hardware on fire escapes operates on a time delay.
The applicant advises that at a similar facility in Tempe Arizona over a
period of 18 months they experienced one elopee.
The perimeter of the site will be enclosed by a six foot tall wall system
(wrought iron). The access driveways will be gated. This should
preclude the few patients who exit the building from wandering into
traffic. Residents will not be allowed outside without one on one
supervision.
8
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
c. Lack of legal notice. Residents expressed concern that the legal notices
were not distributed to a wide enough area.
Response:
Legal notices for the planning commission hearing were mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the subject site
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 25.86.010 C. A total of 108
notices were mailed.
Correspondence to the Planning Commission concerning this item was
received from residents well beyond 300 feet (2,800 feet).
For this city council hearing notices were mailed to 282 property
owners. Notices were sent to property owners within 300 feet and to
all property owners, on streets on either sides of Hovley Lane as far
east as Via Fonda, 2800 feet east of the site. (That was the location
of the most distant written correspondence to the Planning
Commission.)
d. Residents expressed concern that employees and visitors to the facility
will park in front of their homes.
Response:
The plan provides for on-site parking well in excess of the code
requirement (26 spaces versus 15 required). The applicant indicates
that the maximum number of employees at one time will be 15
(weekdays during the day). Other shifts and weekends will be 9-10
employees. This means that when all 15 employees are present there
will be 11 spaces available for visitors. On weekends there will be 15-
16 spaces available for visitors. The residents of this facility do not
have access to vehicles.
e. Existing traffic problems in the immediate area will be exacerbated by
additional traffic created by this use.
Response:
The Public Works Department advises that a traffic light will be installed
at the Monterey/Hovley intersection and be operational by Labor Day.
This should improve the existing traffic condition. As well, Southwest
Community Church will be relocating in the future which should lessen
traffic congestion in the area. This project will create more traffic than
the existing vacant lot.
9
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
The Transportation Engineer prepared a trip generation analysis dated
April 29, 1999, copy attached, which compared the anticipated traffic
for the project versus a single family tract of 19 lots (i.e., a minor image
of Avenida Calafia).
The trip generation analysis concludes that this project will produce 25
fewer weekday trips (a 13.88% reduction) and 50 fewer weekend trips
(a 26.14% reduction) than would a single family tract of 19 lots. This
report will be addended to the Environmental Checklist and Initial Study
dated February 24, 1999.
f. Noise problems from ambulances, fire trucks, visitors and employees
cars, delivery vehicles and trash trucks.
Response:
This facility will have fewer service vehicles over the course of a week
than would a 19 lot tract development (i.e., Federal Express, UPS, pool
service, security firms, U.S. Post Office, cleaning personnel, yard
maintenance crews, moving vans, furniture store deliveries and persons
operating home based businesses generate significant traffic in
residential areas).
Trash collection could pose a problem it were collected in the very early
morning. A condition will be imposed that will limit trash collection to
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays.
Staff was concerned that visitors and employees vehicles and
conversations could be heard from the south (main) parking lot. We
requested that that parking lot be eliminated and those 20 spaces be
dispersed throughout the west side of the property further away from
the residents. This has been done.
With respect to ambulance and fire truck sirens the applicant indicates
that this is a concern of the operator also because the sirens tend to
disturb the residents.
Manor Care is a 180 bed skilled nursing facility on Country Club Drive
across from Marriott. The Fire Department advises that in 1998 it
responded into Manor Care 14 times. This project is one third the size
of Manor Care. This project will cater to generally healthy persons with
memory impairment while Manor Care is a nursing home which houses
older more frail persons. We conclude that this facility should have
10
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
fewer emergency responses per bed than Manor Care and this should
be five or less per year.
The delivery area on the revised plan has bee moved further away from
the residences. It is now 90 feet from the property line wall.
Delivery hours will be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
g. Health concerns relating to trash collection.
Response:
The applicant will be required to provide adequate timely trash collection
and will be subject to Health Department regulations and inspections.
h. Air pollution concerns with respect to diesel vehicles making deliveries.
Response:
The project will be conditioned to post and enforce rules for delivery
vehicles on the site longer than five minutes to shut off the engine.
At the meeting held by the proponent February 25, 1999, people
expressed concern that air conditioning equipment be adequately
screened and not create a noise problem.
Response:
City code requires that all roof mounted equipment be screened from
view. In this project the roof mounted equipment is to be located
within wells on the roof of the building. Those wells are located behind
the main roof structures and the tower element. The screen walls will
be of sufficient height to screen the units. The working drawings will
be examined for complete compliance with this requirement.
These equipment walls are located in excess of 100 feet from the east
property line. The screen walls and roof structures will tend to deflect
noise upward. This coupled with the distance from the property will
assure that noise from air conditioning equipment will not be an impact.
j. Concern was expressed that residents or visitors may peer over the
existing property line wall.
11
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
Response:
The existing east wall is six feet tall masonry. The residents of the
facility are frail elderly people who are only permitted outside when
accompanied by an aide. If there is a concern that visitors might climb
over or peer over the wall, we could require that the applicant install an
appropriate thorny landscape material along the west side of the wall.
This should preclude this activity.
k. Concern was expressed that kitchen odor would be a problem in the
down wind residential area.
Response:
Staff have visited other similar facilities (Manor Care and Hacienda de
Monterey) over the past few weeks. No odor was evident in any of our
visits. Planning staff talked with Code Enforcement staff and there
have been no complaints filed with respect to odor problems at
Hacienda de Monterey. In the case of Manor Care there are no nearby
residences.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Community Development has determined that this project will
not have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
Traffic projections show that the project will generate fewer ADT than a 1 9-lot
subdivision. Incremental impacts to the regional circulation system will be
mitigated through payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF). The project is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe
Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and will be assessed the $600 per acre
to mitigate destruction of dune habitat.
The site may contain other dune species which are of statewide concern (i.e.,
Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A multi species habitat conservation plan is
being prepared by CVAG which will establish preserves and conservation
practices to insure the future survival of these dune species.
6. CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission denied this application, based on a review of the
earlier site plan, stating:
12
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MAY 13, 1999
"That the project's intensity, inherent institutional operational
characteristics and building scale would not be compatible with
the adjacent single family residential community."
The site plan has been revised to lower the building height by lowering the pad
height by two feet, move the nearest point of the building 30 feet from the
east wall (formerly 20 feet), relocate 20 parking spaces to the west side of the
site (the nearest parking space is now 160 feet from the east wall and moved
the delivery area further away from the east (90 feet of separation).
Even with the revisions there is still a significant level of opposition in the area
(see enclosed letters urging that the project be denied). April 27, 1999 staff
spoke with a property owner in Sonata Court (4,900 feet from the site) who
expressed concern with the traffic this project would create and the impacts
the project would have on property values.
Perhaps with more time the proponent could better educate the community as
to the operation of the facility (if residents were open to meeting with the
applicant), however at this time it appears that the area residents just don't
want this project in their community.
Staff does not have the option to just say we don't want this project. Staff
must assess the project based on relevant land use and design issues. The
facts available for staff review say that this project, as revised, complies with
the ordinance (i.e., parking, traffic generation, setbacks, height, land use, site
circulation, architecture, landscaping, grading and access) and addresses the
land use and design issues raised at the Planning Commission hearing.
Consequently, staff will recommend that the appeal be granted, and that the
application as revised be approved subject to conditions.
Prepared by:
-teve Smite
Reviewed and Approved COUNCIL ACTION:
Philip rell 'ROVED DENI$D
/tm ' 71"' OTHER
TR _17 -99 _
Crites, _ e1-1y, Spiegel
" J
6 SENT:_.None
,LESTAIN:, rguson_
t40'VERIFIED BY:
13
rina.l on File with C y erk's Office
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AN APPEAL TO A DECISION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING A PRECISE
PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 60 BED SINGLE
STORY SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING COMPLEX AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES
THERETO ON 3.77 ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
MONTEREY AVENUE AND HOVLEY LANE, 73-055 HOVLEY
LANE.
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the above noted case by its Resolution
No. 1917; and
WHEREAS, a timely appeal was filed to the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th
day of May, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of THE
DAMONE GROUP LLC for the above noted project; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find
the following facts to justify its actions, as described below:
1 . That the proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use is in accord with
the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is
located.
2. The design of the precise plan/conditional use permit and the conditions under
which it will operate will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed precise plan/conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this title.
4. That the proposed precise plan/conditional use complies with the goals,
objectives and policies of the city's general plan.
5. The precise plan/conditional use permit will not unreasonably interfere with the
use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful
purposes.
RESOLUTION NO.
6. The precise plan/conditional use permit 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 Council in this case.
2. That the appeal by The Damone Group LLC is hereby granted.
3. That Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 99-2 is hereby approved, subject to
the attached conditions.
4. 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 , 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 99-2
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, 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 which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state
and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Applicant shall participate in a recycling program as determined by the City
Environmental Conservation Manager and applicable waste disposal company.
Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of
Community Development.
6. 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.
7. 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
3
RESOLUTION NO.
to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and
the approved landscape plan.
8. Project shall be subject to the $600/acre Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard
mitigation fee.
9. That parking lot lighting and lighting mounted on the building exterior shall be
mounted below the top height of the adjacent perimeter wall to the east. All lighting
shall comply with Ordinance 826 which regulates outdoor lighting.
10. That if kitchen/cooking odor complaints become a significant issue in the future then
the applicant shall be required to mitigate the odor problem.
1 1 . That the landscape plan be amended to account for the changes to the site plan to
the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission.
12. That the roof tile for the proposed building be consistent and complimentary with the
residences to the east.
13. That the finished floor elevation of the proposed building shall not be higher than 209
as shown on the revised site plan.
14. That trash collection shall occur only Monday through Friday between the hours of
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
15. That trash collection shall be maintained at a sufficient frequency to prevent odor
problems.
16. That the interiors of trash dumpsters be cleaned regularly to prevent odor problems.
17. That the site be enclosed with a wrought iron gate and fence system to assure
security for patients.
18. That all delivery vehicle engines be shut off if a truck is parked more than five
minutes. Post accordingly inside receiving area.
19. That horn blowing for all delivery vehicles is prohibited. Post accordingly.
20. That loud talking and radio playing associated with delivery vehicles is prohibited.
Post accordingly.
21 . That commercial deliveries shall only occur Monday through Friday between hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
22. That the maximum number of commercial delivery trucks shall be limited to 6 two-
axle vehicles per week.
4
RESOLUTION NO.
23. That along the west side of the existing wall on the east property line the applicant
shall plant an appropriate thorny landscape material to prevent patients and staff from
climbing on the wall or peering over the wall.
Department of Public Works:
24. 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 permit issuance.
25. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
26. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to permit issuance.
27. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards.
28. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before construction
of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by
the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of
required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. Such offsite improvements
shall include, but not be limited to, main project entry and emergency access
improvements.
29. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and
a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
30. Landscaping maintenance on all street property frontages shall be the responsibility
of the property owner.
31 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, 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.
32. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of a valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
33. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
5
RESOLUTION NO.
34. Pad elevations, as shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan are subject to
review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code.
35. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and
Discharge Control.
Riverside County Fire Department:
36. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check,
Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized fire
protection standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.301C.
37. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
38. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon
per minute flow of 3000 gpm for commercial. The actual fire flow available from any
one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 gpm for two hours
duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure.
39. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x4"x2-1/2"x2-
1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' commercial from any portion of
the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed
below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type.
40. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction
that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange
field inspection by the Fire Department prior to request for final inspection.
41 . Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and
fire department connection shall be located to the front, not less than 25' from the
building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. This applies to all buildings with
3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint,
including overhangs which are sprinklered per NFPA 13. The building area of
additional floors is added in for a cumulative total. Exempted are one and two family
dwellings.
42. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code 3803 for
sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler
systems.
6
RESOLUTION NO.
43. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be
clearly marked by painting and/or signs approved by the fire marshal.
44. Install a fire alarm as required by the Uniform Building Code and/or Uniform Fire Code.
Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler system per NFPA
71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems,
systems where any interior devices are required or used. (U.F.C. 14-103(a))
45. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1 OBC
in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75 feet walking distance. In addition
to the above, a 40BC extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens.
46. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive.
47. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers,
guard houses or similar means, provisions shall be made to facilitate access by
emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled
access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system
capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency
vehicles. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be
approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a
minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
48. Contact the Fire Department for final inspection prior to occupancy.
49. This project may require licensing and/or review by State agencies. Applicant should
prepare a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage to facilitate case review.
Contact should be made with the Office of the State Fire Marshal (818-960-6441 )
for an opinion and a classification of occupancy type. This information and a copy
of the letter of intent should be submitted to the Fire Department so that proper
requirements may be specified during the review process. Typically this applies to
educational, day care, institutional, health care, etc.
50. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
51 . All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should
contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements.
7
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/CUP 99-2
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: The Damone Group, LLC
7599 E. Pleasant Run
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 60 bed senior assisted living complex on 3.77
acres of PR-5 (planned residential five units per acre zoned property) at the southeast corner
of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane (APN 622-020-069) 73-055 Hovley Lane.
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
...... • ,.. 3/91
AlIC CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORgA
m
yVat •- obde
,7 APPLICATION TO APPEAL CP 7
...?'7 DECISION OF THE 1. 5/0 -
(r ame of Committee/Commission)
Case No. f� C_OP Meeting Date: / / Cf/ ��- /1 ,
Name of Appellant /,JE
Address (7/' / Z1( j'1. 7 Phone: _?.,)jE,j-L�2�
ciS)-Yj, )-e a�25 602 -- 481 -36e
Description of Application: D2 $ f2g. 4 L/L A 4
Reason for Appeal: 4/TPA/ £r\)(4 ( Or //- 441
C -f
Signature of Appellant _ Date
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Esc,
Date Appeal Filed: :3 Fee Received: I,3i,�
Treasurer's Receipt #: (-1 2. Received by: \
Public Hearing Set For:
Action taken by the City Council:
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
CITY OF PALM DESERT Ft CFAI
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM APR 2 81999
e`'' ''''Cd CE1'ui OP?:iT 0"EP:1TME T
TO: Steve Smith, Planning Manager crrYo�P�;�r��Es��r
FROM: Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: PP/CUP 99-02 TRIP GENERATION
DATE: April 23, 1999
The following trip generation analysis was performed to determine the anticipated effects on
traffic, from a proposed senior assisted living complex (PP/CUP 99-02) versus single family
homes on the same site. The project is located on 3.77 acres on the southwest corner of
Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane West.
SINGLE NURSING DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE SOURCE
FAMILY HOME (TOTAL TRIPS) (PERCENT)
DETACHED
NUMBER OF UNITS 19 60 PLANNING DEPT.
WEEKDAY TRIP RATE 9.57 2.61 ITE
WEEKDAY TRIPS 182 157 -25 -13.88% CALCULATED
PEAK HOUR TRIP RATE 1.02 0.36 ITE
PEAK HOUR TRIPS 19 22 3 15.48% CALCULATED
WEEKEND TRIP RATE 10.09 2.36 ITE
WEEKEND DAY TRIPS 192 142 -50 -26.14% CALCULATED
As the chart above indicates, weekday and weekend trip generation is expected to be less
with the proposed project than with the 19 single family homes which may otherwise be
permitted. Weekday peak-hour trips would be expected to be increased by the project as
compared with single family homes. With over 30,000 vehicles per day through Monterey
Avenue and Hovley Lane East, the variation in traffic from the proposed project versus single
family homes is expected to be imperceptible. The existing street system can accommodate
the increased peak-hour traffic without adverse impact to levels of service and completion of
the proposed traffic signal at Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane West is expected to improve
access at this intersection.
ITE Land Use Code 252, Congregate Care Facility, was also studied and was found to
produce fewer trips in every category therefore, the Nursing Home use was used to represent
the worst expected case. The San Diego Traffic Generators Report was also reviewed for
this analysis however, it does not contain any data for an assisted living facility.
As always, trip generation studies are an attempt to predict traffic generated by a proposed
project, based on past experience. There are many factors which can affect the actual
volume of traffic which will be generated by a project. This analysis is based on the limited
data which is available to us, if a more detailed analysis is desired for his project then the
developer should provide that analysis.
MARK GREENWOOD, P. .
MG
cc: Richard J.Folkers,ACM/Director of Public Works
Joseph S.Gaugush, Engineering Manager
File
PP99o2.wpd
Land Use: 620
Nursing Home
Description
A nursing home is any facility whose primary function is to care for persons who are unable to
care for themselves, for example rest homes (which are primarily for the aged) and chronic care
and convalescent homes. This type of facility is occupied by residents who do little or no driving.
Traffic is primarily generated by employees, visitors, and deliveries.
Additional Data
The sites were surveyed from the 1960s to the 1990s throughout the United States.
Source Numbers
28, 29, 91, 98, 221, 237, 245, 253, 397, 436
Trip Generation, 6th Edition 1005 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Nursing Home
(620)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 20
Average Number of Beds: 110
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Bed
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
2.61 1.88 - 3.97 1.68
Data Plot and Equation
600
500 -- . . . . . . . .; . . . . • . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .
:
C .
W .
•
400 N,.'�� X
U X • .
•
X • .• M : : .
y X .
.
a) 300 , . .
•
200 . . . . .. . _X. . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .•. _ . . . . . . _ . . . • . . .
X X
X
X
100 i T 7 i T I I I i '
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
X = Number of Beds
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.844 Ln(X) + 1.681 R2=0.72
I I .
Nursing Home
(620)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 4
Average Number of Beds: 97
Directional Distribution: 45% entering, 55% exiting
Trip Generation per Bed
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
0.36 0.27 - 0.43 0.60
Data Plot and Equation
40 _ . . . . . . . . . . . Caution - Use Carefully-Sm�al.x�l Sample Size
50
I
ll
y x
,
w
a : :
U . .
L •
CD . .
> . . .
.
.
T.
j •
X•
u 30 — :
H
•
•
20 1 1 i - r r i '
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
X= Number of Beds
X Actual Data Points - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2= ""
Nursing Home
(620)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds
On a: Sunday
Number of Studies: 17
Average Number of Beds: 112
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Bed
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
2.36 1.62 - 3.73 1.62
Data Plot and Equation
600
X . .
.
500
•
c 400
w . .
a :
I- X" X
d X
> 300 — •
: : : : :
•
200 — .,X X . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . X. . . . . . . . . ... . . . .
X
X : : : :
100 - X :
•
0 1 I ' I 1 7 T 1 ' 1
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
X= Number of Beds
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.876 Ln(X) + 1.424 R2 =0.66
Trip Generation,6th Edition 1029 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Land Use: 210 j
Single-Family Detached Housing
Description
Single-family detached housing includes all single-family detached homes on individual lots. A
typical site surveyed is a suburban subdivision.
Additional Data
The peak hour of the generator typically coincides with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic.
The sites were surveyed from the late 1960s to the mid-1990s throughout the United States and
Canada.
The number of vehicles and the number of residents have a high correlation with average
weekday vehicle trip ends. The use of these variables is limited, however, because the number of
vehicles and residents is often difficult to obtain or predict. The number of dwelling units is
generally used as the independent variable of choice because it is usually readily available, easy
to project, and has a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends.
•
This land use includes data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges,
locations, and ages. Consequently, there is a wide variation in trips generated within this
category. As expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive, or farther away •
from the central business district (CBD) had a higher rate of trip generation per unit than those
smaller in size, less expensive, or closer to the CBD. Other factors, such as geographic location •
and type of adjacent and nearby development, may also have had an effect on the site trip
generation.
Single-family detached units have the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all
residential uses, because they are the largest units in size and have more residents and more
vehicles per unit than other residential land uses; they are generally located farther away from
shopping centers, employment areas, and other trip attractors than are other residential land
uses; and they generally have fewer alternate modes of transportation available, because they are
typically not as concentrated as other residential land uses.
Source Numbers •Z
4
1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 26, 34, 35, 36, 38, 40, 71, 72, 84, 91, 98, 100, 105,
108, 110, 114, 117, 119, 157, 167, 177, 187, 192, 207, 211, 246, 275, 283, 293, 300, 319, 320,
357, 384, 435
,
Single-Family Detached Housing .
(210) •______
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday
•I
!
Number of Studies: 348 •
Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 198
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ,1
ti
li
3 Generation per Dwelling Unit
,I
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
9.57 4.31 - 21.85 3.69 i
11
to Plot and Equation
30,000
• * ,'
. ,
• ,'
. 4
•• • ,''
•• , ,
• . ,'
4n ,' X •
•
1:3 ,
c 20,000 •• ,
IL • ,
O. •. .'.
I—
,.. •
,
•
a)
T.). • X ,'
, .
Ic •. ,
a)
> . „
' x
a) -
co , ,' •
cc •
. ,_ X
.2)
> . ,•
< ,
. ,
II 10,000 —
'•'
•
)k ' '
, X X .
"fr X • I
`I
.4'.•••./ .
1
.•
X ;
s !
0
0 1 000 2000 3000
t
X=Number of Dwelling Units
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) =0.920 Ln(X)+2.707 R2=0.96
1
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Weekday,
P.M. Peak Hour of Generator
Number of Studies: 352
Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 177
Directional Distribution: 64% entering, 36% exiting
p Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
1.02 0.42 - 2.98 1.05
to Plot and Equation
1,900 . : : : : : . . . . . . .
1,800 i : : : : :
1,700 71 . . . . . .
1,600 • : : ' : : : : •: •; ; ;
1,500 1 • . . . :
1,400 — ; .
cn 1,300 : : :
c �
x
W 1,200 — • • '
.
H 1,100 . . ,! : :
cu . x
L
a)
> 900 . _ X . •
CD .
2 800 1 : : x ; . •. . .
co
Q 700 . . •
,- X .
I 1 •
I— 600 .
500 :. . . . .X. . ... . X
Xl' y•
x (
X X X'x x X
300 x .� 'X
200 — • X';:.,.►s+i ,
0 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
X= Number of Dwelling Units
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) =0.887 Ln(X) + 0.605 R2 =0.91
'ip Generation,6th Edition 267 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Single-Family Detached Housing
(210)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units
On a: Saturday
Number of Studies: 72
Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 217
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit
Average Rate Range of Rates
Standard Deviation
10.09 5.32 - 14.72
3.67
Data Plot and Equation
11.000
10,00o •
•
9,000
8,000 ~ • ; •
C
a 7,000 — . .,
:
x
CDx .
t 6,000
co
v� 5,000 — • . •
:
m •
< 4,000 / . - -:. . . . . . . . : .,
I •
'— :• X X •
•
• X
3,000 • XX X• '''� ;•
x X
2, 00-, . . . . . . .- • • - -X• •
XX X X•
•
• •
1,000 — ;,• KX- - X : . •
•
0 100 200 300 400
500 600 700 800 900 1000
X = Number of Dwelling Units
X Actual Data Points
Fitted Curve Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.956 Ln(X) + 2.540 R2=0.92
Trip Generation,6th Edition
268 Institute of Transportation Engineers
a
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUME
DATE: APRIL 9, 1998
CATION: HOVLEY LANE WEST AND MONTEREY AVENUE
1E 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 TOTAL 1
RTHB O U N D 70 29 19 24 41 110 257 515 577 693 868 976 1046 1012 1167 1294 1218 1181 876 665 557 540 321 170 14226
259 333 331 363 255 176 129 152 94 52
1 9 7 7 1
6 20 62 115 130 160 209 239 23311 226 2 259 775 312 315 292 221 169 130 141 106 43
15
4 5
19 7 7 8 11 46 75 162 151 205 223 231 264 259 301 326 279
9 07 14 28 61 161 144 166 244 258 255 268 302 323 293 284 197 160 143 143 70 40
9 242 203 160 155 104 51 35
UTHBOUND 72 34 30 25 34 120 441 710 848 989 1076 1119 1141 1019 1077 1080 1121 1074 884 677 422 316 203 170 14682
22 13 8 6 5 17 43 146 195 208 249 285 291 256 256 292 261 280 246 207 109 81 53 59
18 7 8 9 4 15 84 140 200 241 271 249 257 246 286 244 281 279 229 169 99 79 47 42
18 6 6 35
7 16 51 161 240 238 281 286 287 280 241 298 278 293 267 3
198 148 120 66 53 34
18 8
TOTAL 142 63 49 49 75 230 698 1225 1425 1682 1944 2095 2187 2031 2244 2374 2339 2255 1760 1342 979 856 524 340 28908'
STBOUND
STBOUND 4 5 1 1 6 24 75 180 184 160 143 134 132 118 127 134 124 102 89 72 54 39 15 8 1931
0 2 0 0 2 3 6 29 42 35 33 32 34 28 32 35 30 32 24 23 9 18 9 2
1 2 0 1 0 7 9 40 47 48 35 40 37 27 32 31 27 27 18 20 12 2 3 3
2 00 2 11 31 11 3 29 51 45 41 35 38 28 31 32 32 37 20 22 10 8
60 50 36 40 24 33 32 31 36 30 23 25 19 25
1 10 8 2 0
1 1 1
J TOTAL 4 5 1 1 6 24 75 180 184 160 143 134 132 118 127 134 124 102 89 72 54 39 15 8 1931
TAL 146 68 50 50 81 254 773 1405 1609 1842 2087 2229 2319 2149 2371 2508 2463 2357 1849 1414 1033 895 539 348 308391
PL JING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1917
/ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A 60-BED SINGLE STORY SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING
COMPLEX AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO ON 3.77 ACRES AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MONTEREY AVENUE AND HOVLEY LANE, 73-
055 HOVLEY LANE.
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
2nd day of March, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by THE
DAMONE GROUP, LLC, for the above noted conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify denial of said precise plan/conditional
use permit:
1. That the project's intensity, inherent institutional operational characteristics and
building scale would not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential
community.
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/Conditional Use Permit 99-2 is hereby denied.
APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this
16th day of March, 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: FINERTY, LOPEZ, JONATHAN
NOES: CAMPBELL
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: BEATY
SABBY JON AN, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Pla ning Commission
Apr-OB-99 09:43A Bart 1"tt Commercial 7607- ii4141 P _ O1
COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
ASSET AND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
BARTLETT
COMMERCIAL
April 7, 1999
Steve Smith, Senior Planner
City of Palm Desert
Via Fax: 760.341.7098
Re: Case No.: PP/CUP 99-2
Dear Mr. Smith
As you know we have appealed the decision of Planning Commission to the City Council
regarding the above referenced case. Mr. Lutich of The Damone Group has requested that the
meeting be delayed until May 13, 1999 to allow him the opportunity to revise the plans to meet
the Planning Staffs recommendations.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bartlett Commercial
a California corporation
By: Timothy R. Bartlett, President
•
73-362 Salt Cedar Street, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PHONE: 760.776.4141 FAX: 760.779.0714
f^.••• T 3/91
= CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFOR AA
co
rn
I 1. 10421;1 OtaLwA
" APPLICATION TO APPEAL
e. DECISION OF THE R(Lk.K.1//\C) Cc5 '1/1S j �
(Name of Committee/Commission)
Case No. £*2 Meeting Date: MA / _ / Y
Name of Appellant
71/EL /C)Gt - ��Cit)'
Address Lf! P/pZ9-( /24 •-*/5 Phone: el B)58 3_C
602 - 'B 1 3GE
Description of Application: ��-(/tom P Sz '/LiA 4
to,) V7c-
Reason for Appeal: f7fP&1/ %l) (f ( _ G % Ccfp
Signature of Appellant ate
m'-49,) Cat_ti°
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: i' )I-Ia/ Fee Received: • --�
67-9
Treasurer's Receipt #: 124? Received by: 1
Public Hearing Set For:
Action taken by the City Council:
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk
03i15i1999 15:12 6023481702 3 DAVID LUTICH PAGE 02
THE :013
OANIONE GROUP
March 11, 1999
MAR . 5 1999
Mr. Steve Smith COMMUNITY CEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Senior Planner CITY OF PALM DESERT
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Case No.: PP/CUP 99-2
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am wilting this letter to voice my strong objection to the Planning Commission's
decision to deny a continuance on the above referenced project.
As you know, I presented our assisted living project to the Planning Commission
on Tuesday, March 2, 1999. At that meeting, I requested, and the Planning
Department recommended, a continuance to enable my firm to make requested
changes to our site plan and to continue to address the concerns of the
surrounding residents. I felt more time was needed to process the information I
received at the neighborhood meeting the week prior and to address the issues
raised at the Public Hearing.
I held a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, February 25th in order to entertain
comments from the surrounding neighbors and address their concerns. Only a
handful of neighbors (approximately 17) attended the meeting. in fact, a petition
was circulated by certain neighbors requesting a boycott of the neighborhood
meeting (see letter attached). The end result was that I heard many of the
neighbors concerns at the Public Hearing for the first time.
Given the circumstances, I feel that a continuance would have been appropriate
to allow me the chance to make the changes recommended by the Planning
Department and continue to educate the neighbors. I know the neighbors that
attended the Public Hearing were very vocal against the project, however, many
of their concerns were based on a misunderstanding of our project and the
residents it will serve.
adga.. S{'L:PN&.NSCUN IiWY_, ti[.,11'1 F. zou I RUV rt�C_if I<;AN gtt..ti'} .amD a44}/ 50)-a.i&.s
03/15/1999 15:12 6023481702 J DAVID LUTICH PAGE 03
THE DAMONE GROUP
understand that at the next Planning Commission meeting the Public Hearing
will be closed on this matter. Therefore, could you please submit this letter and
the attachment to the Planning Commission for the record? Should the Planning
Commissioners reconsider their decision to deny our application for this project
and grant a continuance, l would be happy to meet with them and the neighbors
to discuss our project further.
Thank you for your continued assistance.
Sincerely,
J. David Lutich
Development Manager
•
•
ass.>S ilWl'., Sltl I 44,4.r, "i RC)Y, MICHI<;AN 4Nc)Ql3 .z48/ ss;-6a)s0 FAX 240/ $03 'b5
February 19, 1999
Dear Neighbor.
By now you are probably aware of a proposal to build a mental hospital on the
corner of Hovley and Monterey. (The busiest non-traffic light intersection in the
desert!) We strongly urge you to attend the Commission hearing on the evening
of March 2nd to voice your arduous objections. This is the loosest interpretation
of the zoning laws that we have ever encountered. It would most certainly turn
the Hovley community into a 4th class neighborhood with the attendant plunges in
property values.
Please carefully consider the prospect of a 60 bed mental clinic, the necessary
restaurant facilities that will be serving over 200 meals a day, the constant flow of
supply and garbage trucks, the traffic congestion, etc. We have accumulated
over 72 separate items of objection that we intend to present at the hearing. We
are certain that you have at least 72 more.
The developer has invited some Hovley residents to a presentation on February
25th to display his plans. PLEASE DO NOT ATTEND! It is merely a ploy that will
probably include delicious food and drink, the presentation of exquisite colored
renderings and some of the best persuasion speakers available. He will also
listen closely to your objections, so as to better arm his attorney/attorneys for the
Commission hearing. If you do decide to attend his presentation, we implore you
to merely voice your objection and save your reasons for the ears of the Planning
Commission. DON'T ASSIST THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY/ATTORNEYS
BY FORWARNING THEM OF THE NATURE OF YOUR OBJECTIONS!
Please write a letter to the Planning Commission today, as we have done, to
voice your strenuous objection to this ludicrous proposal for a mental hospital
. and restaurant in our back yards. We look forward to seeing you at the hearing
on March 2nd.
Sincerely,
Your very concerned Hovley neighbors
0543,--14
Merit and Stuart Swidler Linda and Jeff Brandt
�." -
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
A. Case No. PP/CUP 99-2 - MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., AND
THE DAMONE GROUP, LLC, Applicants
Request for approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit for
a 60-bed single story senior assisted living complex and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto on 3.77
acres at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Howley
Lane, 73-055 Hovley Lane.
(Commissioner Beaty arrived at this time.)
Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. He explained that the request
was for a 60-bed single story senior assisted living complex. The project
would be located at the southwest corner of Howley Lane and Monterey
Avenue. The site in question had dimensions of 277 feet along Howley and
616 feet along Monterey. Along the south side of the property there was a
CVWD well site. Toward the east it was adjacent to Monterey Country Club.
On that southerly property limit there was an existing row of tamarisk trees,
15-25 feet in height. Along the east side of the proposal were ten single
family residential dwellings/single story homes of approximately 16 feet in
height. To the north were more single family homes that fronted onto streets
running north off Hovley. To the west across Monterey Avenue was the city
of Rancho Mirage and that property was vacant and currently zoned
residential. The property in question was zoned Planned Residential, five
dwelling units per acre. Zoning Ordinance Section 25.24.025 C permitted
institutional facilities with the approval of a conditional use permit, hence the
hearing tonight. The goal of the applicant was to obtain approval, construct
and operate a 60-bed senior assisted living facility to serve persons with
Alzheimer's disease and other memory impairments in a homelike environment.
The facility would provide resident bedrooms which would each contain a
closet and separate bathroom facility. The common elements would include
a sweet shop, barber shop, two dining rooms, two libraries, two TV lounges,
and numerous other facilities. The facility proposed to take its main access
from a driveway on its north limit off of Howley Lane. There was a secondary
emergency access provided from Monterey Avenue at the southerly limit of the
property that would be gated for fire/emergency access only. Mr. Smith
showed the location of the building on the site and indicated that the facility's
front would face westerly toward Monterey Avenue. The driveway on Hovley
would run southerly and to the west side of the building providing access to
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
the main entrance on the west side and access to a proposed 20-space parking
lot located at the south end of the site. He indicated that four additional
parking spaces were provided to the northwest of the building and two
additional spaces were provided to the southwest of the building for a total of
26 parking spaces onsite. The code requirement for a 60-bed facility was 15
parking spaces. The colored rendering on display provided an indication of the
design of the building. Main roof sections were hip roofs to a maximum ridge
line of 20 feet. There was a tower element on the westerly elevation facing
Monterey Avenue which had a total height of 30 feet. Code permitted a
maximum of 24 feet in the PR zone. Code also permitted tower elements to
as much as 49 feet under certain circumstances. He said it basically came
down to whether the tower element was less than 10% of the overall floor
area. The proposed tower was less than 10% and it was proposed at 30 feet
as permitted by code. On page 3 of the staff report were the various setback
requirements of the ordinance and those proposed. For the setback from
Hovley Lane, code required 20 feet and the proposal was for 160 feet. From
Monterey the requirement was 32 feet and provided was 46 feet. From the
south, 135 feet was proposed and from the east 20 feet was proposed. A
residential care facility was a permitted conditional use in the PR zone--
institutional facilities. This was consistent with such other uses as churches,
public and private schools, and other residential care centers. Generally they
tried to locate them on the edge of residential areas so that they could serve
as a buffer to single family residences. The proposed project complies with all
the zoning requirements, but staff still had concerns with the proposal.
Specifically, staff was concerned with the location of the main parking lot, the
closeness of the building to the residential units to the east and the height of
the building relative to the residences to the east, specifically the lots at the
south end of Calafia. Staff's proposal was to send the matter back to the
applicant and: 1 ) ask him to take the 20 parking spaces currently shown at the
south end of the site and disperse it throughout the west end of the site; 2)
the 20-foot setback to the east which might be appropriate for a single family
home, staff had concerns with a 30,000 square foot building that close, hence
staff was requesting that it be moved further to the west an additional ten
feet; 3) the site dropped from Hovley Lane to its south limit some 17 feet; the
proposal was to establish the finished floor at 211 but some of the homes at
the south end of Calafia have their finished floors at 209 or 208 so effectively
the project's finished floor would be above their finished floor by as much as
three feet. Staff was suggesting that the finished floor be lowered to be no
higher than the adjacent residential unit to the east in that if this site was
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
developed with single family homes, the grading would have been stepped.
That was what staff was suggesting--that they go to the lowest point or that
they step the building. It didn't matter how they got there it was just that the
building should not be higher than the adjacent pad. As indicated on page 5
of the report, as of the writing of the report last week, staff had received
correspondence from 13 area residents. Since then more were received and
most if not all were faxed to commission members throughout the afternoon.
Staff indicated that there was another piece of correspondence received at the
meeting from Mr. Charles Smith on Glenwood Lane and that had not been
copied or circulated but he passed it along to the commission for review. He
explained that basically he took a look at the correspondence received up until
the staff report preparation and tried to bring the concerns into focus and then
tried to respond to those issues which were raised and to come up with
appropriate conditions which could be imposed on the project. Many people
felt it was an inappropriate use in the zone and would result in a negative
economic impact on their single family homes. As noted previously, it was a
conditionally permitted use. The CUP process allowed the City to impose
appropriate conditions on the design and operation to mitigate identified
impacts. The project had been designed with large landscaped areas and
generous street setbacks and should provide an attractive entry to Hovley
Lane. The building would help to buffer the residences to the east from noise
generated by traffic on Monterey. The vacant lot currently provided none of
this protection and in fact created a blow sand problem. The facility had been
designed with one story to maintain a residential scale and the applicant
indicated it would be maintained at an extremely high level. All of these
factors should result in a positive impact. Security--neighborhood residents
expressed concern that residents of the facility would wander off and become
a danger to themselves and to traffic in the area. The applicant advised that
the facility would have a state of the art security system and additionally the
site would be enclosed with a perimeter fence. Staff was urging the applicant
to use wrought iron to maintain a view corridor into the setting. Third, there
was a concern over the lack of legal notice, that the legal notice was not
distributed to a wide enough area. They were mailed to all property owners
within 300 feet of the site pursuant to Municipal Code requirements. Staff
mailed 108 notices and five were returned as undeliverable. They were sent
first class mail. Also, considerable correspondence was received so word of
the project did get out. Fourth, residents expressed concern that employees
and/or visitors would park in front of their homes. As noted earlier, the code
requirement was 15 parking spaces and they were providing 26 on site. The
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
applicant indicated that during the day on weekdays there would be 15
employees available on site and that would still leave 11 parking spaces
available for visitors. On weekends there would be 9 or 10 employees which
would leave 15 or 16 spaces available. Mr. Smith clarified that the residents
of this facility would not have access to automobiles nor would they have their
cars parked on site. Existing traffic problems in the immediate area would be
exacerbated by additional traffic created by this use. Fifth, Public Works
advised that by Labor Day of this year a traffic signal would be operational at
the intersection of Monterey and Hovley. It was not contingent upon any
action on this project and was out to bid at this time and was proceeding.
That was a separate issue, but should address some of the concerns relative
to traffic. He noted that Southwest Community Church in the near future
would be relocating to their new facility. Lastly, he indicated staff performed
a traffic analysis on this project and concluded that in fact it would generate
less traffic than would a similar 19 lot tract of homes if they mirrored the tract
immediately to the east. They would see 51 fewer trips per day based on the
ITE Trip Generation factors for this versus a 1 9-lot tract. Sixth, noise
problems from ambulances, fire trucks, visitors, employees, delivery vehicles
and trash trucks. Staff agreed that trash trucks had the potential for creating
headaches and the project would be conditioned so that trash collection would
only occur between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays. Staff also agreed
that the location of the parking lot had the potential to create impacts on the
residences on Calafia and staff was suggesting the relocation of those parking
spaces. Sirens on emergency vehicles using Monterey were irritants and
something the applicant was very interested in because sirens tended to
disturb the residents of the facility. There would be a concerted effort by the
City and by the applicant to get the Fire Department to at least limit the use
of sirens on Monterey and particularly when they were riding into this facility.
Delivery vehicles were also an issue. Their size and year of production could
be limited consistent with residential districts. This was a residential district
and the size of vehicles could and would be limited as would the year and
make of the vehicles. Delivery hours could and would be restricted to 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays. Staff was given to understand that at a meeting
held by the applicant last Thursday evening there was some concern with
respect to roof-mounted equipment being screened. It was a city requirement
that it be screened. In this instance it was being proposed in a well on the
roof and it could be screened and staff could assure commission that the
working drawings would be examined for complete compliance with that
requirement. There was concern expressed that visitors and/or residents might
6
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
peer over the existing property line wall along the east side. Staff was
suggesting the planting of pyracantha to discourage that activity. A resident
at Monterey Country Club was requesting the wall at the south property line
be a minimum of eight feet in height and that could be conditioned. He noted
there was concern about parking lot lighting. He indicated that staff was
requesting that the parking lot be relocated but they could also require that the
lighting be no higher than the top of the wall so that it wouldn't spill over into
the adjacent residences and that was a city ordinance--they could not have
light spillover. In conclusion he indicated that additional correspondence was
received today. He had an opportunity to read through it and thought for the
most part the concerns were somewhat similar which he addressed previously.
He said there might be some that were outside of what he covered and he
would be pleased to review them specifically. The modifications suggested by
staff to relocate the parking, lower the finished floor and move the building to
the west were presented to the applicant last week and they indicated they
would need more time to do the changes to show to staff, so the staff
recommendation was to continue the matter to a date certain at the end of the
public hearing. The date would depend upon when the applicant could provide
the revised drawings.
Chairperson Jonathan explained that he would open the public hearing, ask the
applicant to give his presentation, then ask for testimony in favor of the
project, testimony in opposition of the project, and then rebuttal comments
from the applicant. He noted that the applicant had requested a continuance
and staff was recommending that the matter be continued. Whether the
matter was voted on tonight or continued would be up to the commission and
it appeared that there was a reasonable likelihood that the matter would be
continued, but that should not deter the audience from making comments
tonight and if the matter was continued, they would have further opportunity
to comment.
Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. DAVID LUTICH, Development Manager for The Damone Group,
LLC, stated that they were the developers/builders of the assisted living
project. He thanked Mr. Smith and the planning staff and other city
departments for their ongoing assistance with their project. On behalf
of The Damone Group and the ultimate owner, Alternative Living
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
Services, they appreciated the opportunity to present their assisted
living development to meet the needs of older adults in the Palm Desert
community. He informed commission that last Thursday evening they
conducted a neighborhood meeting, which was customary for them, to
introduce the project to the local neighbors to try and solicit any input
or comments that they might have. As a result of that meeting, as well
as some of the comments Mr. Smith had garnered from
correspondence, they were happy to make the adjustments that were
recommended and asked for a continuance in order for them to do
them. In most instances there was a wider gap between the
neighborhood meeting and the planning commission meeting.
Unfortunately, the timing was such that they were unable to act as
quickly as they would ordinarily have liked. There seemed to be a lot
of interest with the neighborhood meeting, however, they only had 17
people in attendance. He was glad to see all that could attend this
evening's meeting and he looked forward to hearing their comments so
they could be in a position to respond. He clarified that the proposal
was for a 60-bed assisted living residence that was designed to cater
to the needs of older adults who suffer from memory impairments such
as Alzheimer's or related dementia. In some instances they were
physically frail, in some instances they weren't they just have a certain
level of confusion and need 24 hour supervised care. These were
residents that didn't have intensive medical needs, in which case a
nursing home would be the appropriate housing setting. These were
residents that have a need with assistance for activities of daily living
such as bathing, dressing, etc., in a supervised setting. They called it
"high touch, low tech." They designed a single story building to
incorporate residential characteristics and hopefully to appeal to
respective residents and the adult child who were typically the decision
makers in terms of placing a resident in one of these environments. He
stressed that this would be an upscale residence and the monthly rates
would range anywhere from $3,500 a month and up. The total cost of
the residents would exceed $7 million and again, it was a very market
driven product so it was incumbent upon them to maintain the best curb
appeal as well as service within the building to attract these residents.
He indicated he didn't want to repeat everything said by Mr. Smith and
felt Mr. Smith did a nice job in terms of presenting the dynamics of the
project but he wanted to give the commission some background in
terms of who The Damone Group is, who the ultimate owner and
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
operator is and an idea of a typical resident profile. As The Damone
Group they are the developer/builders of the assisted living project.
They have been working with the ultimate owners/operators Alternative
Living Services for more than ten years and have built more than 50
buildings on behalf of Alternative Living Services throughout the
country. They have more than 25 buildings currently in development
with Alternative Living Services, who recently changed their name to All
Terra, and they have more than 17 years of experience in the assisted
living industry and was currently the nation's largest provider of
assisted living. They have specific experience in that they are an
industry pioneer in creating this particular concept in this particular
residential setting which is a freestanding purposely built building
designed to cater to the needs of older adults with memory impairment.
Many other providers would have an Alzheimer's wing as it relates to
their building. This was designed from the ground up with features
specifically designed to cater to this type of resident. An example
would be each of the wings contained very small intimate
neighborhoods. Each neighborhood was color coded to provide
orientation for the residents to get to their particular room. That was
just one of the many examples of how the building was designed from
the ground up. Alternative Living Services' mission was to provide
these homelike environments for older adults that promote choice,
independence, and aging with dignity. Alternative Living Services builds
its assisted living residences in high end communities such as Palm
Desert because they strongly believed that older adults have the right
to live in very nice residential settings. In terms of the typical resident
in one of these buildings, in most instances they are 75 years and older.
They may or may not be physically frail and they have low medical
needs. They suffer from confusion or memory impairments such as
Alzheimer's, but they were not crazy people or mentally disturbed
people. He thought some of the initial reaction was that this was going
to be a hospital or psych hospital. It wasn't. It was a social residential
setting designed to have the residential characteristics to create a home
for one's Mom and Dad to live. The residents typically paid for their
care from their own funds. What they have found as a general rule was
that more than 70% have lived within or have an adult child that lives
within seven miles of the residents. They were drawing from the
community in terms of the residents. The residents didn't drive so it
created a lower traffic impact as it related to other uses. In conclusion,
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
they looked forward to providing these types of services to the
community of Palm Desert. He believed they offered an attractive
project that complimented the residential character of the neighborhood
with a low traffic impact, a single story building nicely landscaped and
provided an opportunity for an inter-generational program within the
community. In terms of the staff recommendations, as it related to the
finished floor elevation, they were in the process of making that change
to bring the finished floor elevation two feet lower. In terms of moving
the building they were in the process of making that change as well.
In terms of dispersing the parking, they were in the process of making
that change. Regarding deliveries, they had no objection to limiting
certain sizes of trucks between normal business hours, however, these
residents would require medications and it was important that they get
medication deliveries outside normal business hours and that would
typically be done in a car so it would be very non intrusive. He asked
that that be considered in terms of that condition. In terms of the gates
surrounding the building, typically when they designed these buildings
they wanted them to look like a residence and typically there wouldn't
be that type of gate in front of a residence. As mentioned, they have
security procedures in terms of the alarming of the building. The
building was alarmed internally. If someone were to exit the building
without entering the appropriate key pad entry, an annunciation would
take place inside the building, not outside the building, so it wouldn't be
heard by the neighborhood. The staff was highly trained to redirect the
resident back into the building. The building had features that provided
natural wandering paths within the interior courtyards to mitigate
wandering. As well, on exit doors what typically happened with respect
to fire codes there would be barred doors which would have a 15
second delay where if a resident pushed, it would not open immediately
and then they would be redirected away from that particular door. The
point being that their preference would be that the gate be a condition
if for some reason there was an issue with respect to wandering;
however, their experience had been that through the training of their
staff that hasn't been an issue in other locations. He asked for any
questions and noted that their engineer was also present to answer any
engineering questions.
Commissioner Finerty asked if this would be a Medical certified facility.
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
Mr. Lutich indicated that typically the state did not provide funding for
this type of facility. What they had mostly experienced was private
pay. In some instances there might be an opportunity. As an example,
in Minnesota there was some opportunity for some state funding, but
they didn't typically anticipate that when coming into a particular
marketplace.
Commissioner Finerty asked if that meant they wouldn't be applying for
certification.
Mr. Lutich replied that they would always try to help anyone who has
a need in terms of placing their family member in a building, but they
didn't build based on the fact that they were anticipating gaining that
type of subsidy.
Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Lutich indicated the fees would be
$3,500 a month and up and asked how much higher "up" could be.
Mr. Lutich said he didn't set the rates, he was just trying to give the
commission a sense of what the charge would be for a residence like
this in other locations.
Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Lutich if he had a representative present who
could answer that question.
Mr. Lutich explained that he used to work for Alternative Living Services
as their Chief Financial Officer for four years and he was also a Regional
Director for more than 20 residences in Wisconsin and Minnesota and
the process was that once the building was built, there would be a
market determination at that time as to what the rates might be. He
thought they would be very close to $3,500 per month.
Commissioner Lopez noted that Mr. Lutich said they operate approximately 50
across the country.
Mr. Lutich clarified that they have built more than 50 and Alternative
Living Services actually operated more than 350 throughout the
country.
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
Commissioner Lopez asked how the average size of those facilities compared
to the proposed facility.
Mr. Lutich said the average size was 52 beds and for this particular
resident need they ranged anywhere between 40 and 60 beds.
Commissioner Lopez noted that Mr. Lutich said that most of the folks who
come to visit live within the community or within a seven-mile radius.
Mr. Lutich said that has been the experience of Alternative Living
Services.
Commissioner Lopez asked if 26 parking spaces for this particular project were
enough to handle not only the employees, but the visitors of the community
as well.
Mr. Lutich said that through their experience it has been adequate.
They would rather take that part of the site and attribute it to
landscaping as opposed to parking. They found that typically a ratio of
one space for every two bedrooms had been adequate.
Commissioner Lopez asked about the staffing.
Mr. Lutich indicated that the Resident Manager was typically a
registered nurse. They were onsite during normal business hours and
on call 24 hours per day. The next staff was a Health Care Coordinator
in charge of the daily health care monitoring as well as the assessments
for each of the residents. In addition, there were care givers for
providing the hands-on care on an ongoing basis. Also, there was a Life
Enrichment Coordinator in charge of scheduling all the activities within
the residence as well as activities outside in the community. There was
also a Dietary Director in charge of the meal preparation as well as
minimal dietary staff. A Community Services Representative was in
charge of outreach into the community in terms of building a referral
source network and there was ongoing maintenance staff. The care
givers provided the hands-on care, did the light housekeeping, served
the meals and it was designed so that they were an extended member
of the family and they were providing all these cares as if they were
providing them in their own home.
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Lutich said only 17 people attended the
meeting last week. She asked if Mr. Lutich was aware that a letter was
circulated asking residents not to attend the meeting.
Mr. Lutich said he heard something to that effect but had not seen the
letter.
Commissioner Campbell indicated that was probably why more weren't there.
Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't see the conditions of approval (staff
indicated they hadn't been prepared yet) but Mr. Lutich indicated that the use
for this facility would be for memory-impaired patients and asked if Mr. Lutich
had any objections to a condition of approval that would limit this facility to
that type of a client versus someone who suffers from other mental health
deficiencies.
Mr. Lutich said he hadn't been asked that question before and he would
have to check with their operations group, but the intent of the use if
it was a conditional use permit would indicate it was conditioned for
memory impaired residents.
Chairperson Jonathan stated that he didn't mean to put Mr. Lutich on the spot
and he didn't have to make a commitment, but there certainly was a concern
that what is approved, if it was approved, that it be the same use 10 or 20
years from now.
Mr. Lutich said that Alternative Living Services was in the business of
assisted living and they didn't have any other type of use.
Chairperson Jonathan said he understood that, but noted that they might not
always be the owners/operators and part of the commission's job was to look
to the future. The parking was an issue as to whether it was adequate or not.
He said that perhaps for the normal day to day usage 26 spaces might be
right, but he was sure there were special times that required more intensive
use of parking accommodations such as holiday times when people come to
visit or if there was a program and kids were being brought in from the schools
or from volunteer organizations to put on a performance. He could think of all
sorts of situations where they would need a whole lot more than 26 parking
spaces and asked if it might be feasible, and he was sensitive to the greenbelt
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
and the preference to green areas as opposed to cement and asked if it was
possible to design a situation so that there was a flat green area that would
accommodate special parking usage situations.
Mr. Lutich thought that the way the site was designed now, and they
were being asked to disperse the parking that was along the southern
edge of the site, they could create something that would be visually
appealing but still allow for overflow parking if that would be something
required. He had no aversion to that.
Chairperson Jonathan said that without making a commitment, Mr. Lutich
thought that might be feasible.
Mr. Lutich concurred and said he would be happy to look into that.
Chairperson Jonathan indicated he would ask for testimony in favor, then
testimony in opposition and then they would give the applicant a final
opportunity to respond. He also mentioned that there were quite a few people
in the audience and thanked them for taking time out of their day to help them
in this decision making process. He asked that they be considerate of
everyone here, asked that they try to not be overly repetitive and to try and
stick with the planning issues--those elements or aspects of the application
that would affect them directly and personally and the commission was very
interested in hearing their thoughts. Finally, he asked that the comments be
limited to no more than five minutes and he would try not to be rude, but if he
found someone wandering or taking too long, he would remind them of the
game plan. He asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of the project.
There was no one. Chairperson Jonathan noted that several people submitted
cards requesting to speak and he would start with those. If a resident failed
to provide a card, they shouldn't worry because they would have an
opportunity to offer comments as well. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there
were any questions before getting started. A Mr. Kevin Winter spoke from the
audience with a question regarding parking requirements. Chairperson
Jonathan indicated that Mr. Winter would be given an opportunity to come up
to the microphone so that his comments would be on the record. Chairperson
Jonathan invited Mr. Al Gernsbacher to address the commission and requested
that everyone repeat their name for the record, spell their last name, give their
address and if they wanted they could point out where their residence was in
relation to the proposed development.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
MR. AL GERNSBACHER, 40-640 Posada Court in Palm Desert, stated
that he had very strong objections to the planned conditional use of this
lot and he would like to ask Mr. Smith, who referred to the fact that he
had received mail in rather a large quantity, he wanted to know the
preponderance of what those replies were--if they were negative or
positive.
Mr. Smith said negative.
Mr. Gernsbacher asked for a percentage.
Mr. Smith said he believed it was 100%.
Mr. Gernsbacher indicated that Mr. Smith had adequately addressed his
opinion and he had strong objections to the project and felt the fact that
they were allowing 15 parking spaces for the employees, visitors and
the staff was absolutely ludicrous. He asked how in the world they
expected a 60-bed facility to accommodate those people with 15
useable parking spaces was ridiculous and he said maybe he should
smoke some of the stuff they were smoking. He wanted to go very
adamantly on record that he opposed this with every fiber of his being.
Chairperson Jonathan asked the audience to refrain from applause and other
types of comments so that they could get through the hearing quicker and
thought that it was clear the sentiment that people had and the commission
was very interested, but they could certainly do without comments about what
people were smoking. He thanked the audience and asked Mr. Whit
Markowitz to address the commission.
MR. WHIT MARKOWITZ, 40-885 Avenida Calafia, stated that his
property was right behind the proposed development. The proposed
footprint of the building at this point was 15 feet away from the wall
of his property. His home was one of the closest and there was only
one other property two doors down where the building would also come
within 15 feet next to the wall of the property. Given the size and
nature of the proposed project, it would clearly impact his property and
a number of his neighbors. He opposed the granting of the conditional
use permit for the following reasons. First, the proposed project would
be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and would injure
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
properties in the vicinity for the following reasons: 1 ) traffic due to
increased traffic from deliveries, visitors and employees; 2) increased
noise due to commercial and industrial HVAC units on top of the
building, industrial kitchen ventilation units, truck deliveries and alarms,
odors emanating from the property from trash dumpsters, kitchen
ventilation, the residences were situated directly downwind from the
facility so that would make it very difficult for them to enjoy their
evenings and other times outside in their backyards when the breeze
comes by and he could imagine a kitchen serving 180+ meals per day
would have some odor coming out of it. Privacy would be another
issue. Since employees, visitors and the general public would have
access to the area directly behind his rear wall and his neighbors, he felt
he would have little or no privacy. He thought when a single family
residence was located behind a home, people respected each others
privacy and don't peer over the walls, but when they have visitors of
some of the residents of the facility and employees, he thought there
was more interest in looking over to see how other people live and he
thought there was a lack of consideration in terms of their privacy that
would occur. Property value--residences in the immediate neighborhood
have homes in excess of $250,000 and the value of his property would
certainly increase (decrease). He talked to several appraisers in town
who said if a facility like this was next to his property it would be
considered more like a commercial or institutional facility and could have
a negative impact on the value of his home. According to the city's
zoning regulations the purpose of the conditional use permit was to
insure that special consideration was taken so that a particular use was
properly located. He wanted to emphasize that. He felt this project
was not properly located for the reasons he stated. If the commission
looked at similar facilities in the neighborhood, and there were a number
of them popping up on Country Club, he believed there were three going
up on Country Club within one mile, all along a major thoroughfare such
as Country Club and was near other facilities similarly situated. With the
exception of the corner of Monterey and Country Club, everything else
along there was residential from Monterey Country Club up past
Sagewood and the Hovley area. In general, the Southwest Community
Church which operated under a conditional use permit had already
impacted the community in a variety of negative ways and a lot of them
had headaches from it. He was sure it was a wonderful facility and had
heard a lot of wonderful things about it, but it was a perfect example
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
of how things that have a conditional use permit got out of hand in
terms of traffic and other issues. Therefore, he opposed the granting
of the conditional use permit. However, in the event that the Planning
Commission decided to grant the conditional use permit,
notwithstanding the adjacent homeowners' public comment opposing
the development, he asked that the Planning Commission at a minimum
consider the following: in terms of setbacks, require substantial
setbacks, perhaps three or four more times the requirements by the city
from the residents on Calafia. This was a 31 ,000 square foot building
which was huge. He knew that the staff report and applicant
represented that it is a residence because it is one story but there was
nothing about a 31 ,000 square foot building that is a residence. It was
an institutional type facility. It was huge and one of the things he asked
since there was a chance it would be continued, was that perhaps the
applicant should come out and stake out the property both in terms of
the footprint of the building and do something to show them where the
height of the building would be so that the residents could be
sufficiently informed to come to the commission and give them direct
feedback after they see the size of the building. He thought some
people didn't have any idea how big this building would be. With
respect to landscaping, he asked that the applicant be required to
provide extra landscaping utilizing mature plants, shrubs and trees that
would act as a buffer with respect to the size of the structure and this
would increase privacy. He thought there needed to be something
taken into consideration about the view because one of the things these
homes enjoyed was a beautiful view of the mountains. He conceded
that nothing was built there right now and if there were single family
homes there their view would be impacted, but he believed from the
drawings he had seen and from the staff he talked at the Planning
Department that their views would be more impacted by this structure
than a single family residence. In terms of noise and odor he requested
that the applicant be required to install dampers or similar type devices
on all HVAC units to eliminate noise from the commercial and industrial
grade units and a similarly installed device on kitchen units to insure
that odor outside the building was completely eliminated. He said he
didn't know if that was possible, but he heard someone talk about it the
other night at the meeting that there might be some device that could
be installed on kitchen ventilators so there wouldn't be a great deal of
smell. In terms of building elevations, he asked that the applicant be
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
required to redesign the site so that the elevation of the facility was
well below the elevation of the homes on Calafia given the size of the
facility and the height of its roof lines. They were saying it was now
two feet below his property line and a little less in terms of some of the
other property owners, but it was still hard for him to envision what this
would look like and if there was a way for them to stake it out and
show the residents the heights of the roof, that would be extremely
helpful in giving them an idea. Some people might not be as opposed
to the project as they are now--he didn't know if he would be. In terms
of site layout, he asked commission to require the applicant to eliminate
all walking paths, service entrances, access and parking at areas along
the rear of the project to minimize privacy and security concerns. Right
now they proposed some walking paths that were designed along the
back of the property and a service entrance that was represented to
them the other night that would be directly behind the building. He
showed the commission on the map the location of that service
entrance for deliveries and where they would park. He said his concern
was both having a parking area along the side right there and that
people could get in there and park, hop the fences and break into
houses a lot easier than if there were homes there. Also, having
walking paths back there would contribute to people walking and being
back there and disrupting their lives more so than if one or two families
lived there which would normally abut them. Finally, in terms of
construction if they were to be granted this conditional use permit they
would have to limit the hours of construction operations and have
substantial controls in terms of dust control which he was sure was in
the zoning regulations or governed by the building permit. He hoped
that the commission would consider his concerns in connection with the
proposed facility. He had made his single largest investment in buying
a home in Palm Desert. He bought a home here because he liked what
he saw here in terms of growth and development. Current
developments appeared to be well planned and properly placed;
however, he felt the applicant's proposal would be inappropriate for this
location. He felt it was a wonderful concept and product, but they had
chosen the wrong site and if anyone knew anything about real estate,
it was all about location, location, location. That was why a lot of them
bought where they did. He urged the Planning Commission to review
and consider the zoning regulations concerning the intent and purpose
of residential districts which stated that residential districts are intended
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
to achieve the following purposes: to reserve appropriate located areas
with sound standards of public health and safety, to insure adequate
privacy and open space for each dwelling, to minimize traffic
congestion by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size,
to protect residential properties from hazards, noise and congestion
created by commercial and industrial traffic and eliminate odors and
other objectionable influences to insure that structures and uses are
compatible in each category for the purpose of family living. Therefore
he didn't believe the proposed project met the intent of the residential
zoned district.
MR. JEFF BRANDT, 40-635 Posada Court, about four blocks east of the
proposed location, stated that prior to moving to beautiful Palm Desert
he was an administrative partner of a licensed board and care facility.
He averaged about 90 residents per month and he did that for ten
years. Not just licensed for ages 55 and older, he also handled light
Alzheimer's patients. They referred to them as residents. He asked the
commission to keep in mind that they started out as light Alzheimer's
patients. Once they became very impaired, the administrator or owner
of the facility had to make a decision to move the resident to other
facilities. Since they were governed by the dollar, it was something
they didn't like to do, something they held on to not wanting to do it,
and in which case many times they found residents wandering into the
streets, or into residential areas in this case. His particular facility was
located in a commercial district. Even though it was in a commercial
district the residents still found their way to residential areas outside.
He noted the facility was located in the city of Encino. In this case
there was a facility that was strictly going to be in a residential area.
He heard the developer mention that he would like to have a state of
the art ability to monitor residents leaving the facility. Mr. Brandt
wanted the commission to know that he too had a state of the art
ability to monitor residents. It was a people business and they had
people not located in an area where they needed to be to be able to
monitor these people, therefore, his conclusion was that they would
leave the facility one way or another. He heard them propose a fence
around the facility. He wasn't quite sure these residents would like to
see a building with a fence around it of any kind. He questioned
whether the city would like to see a building located in a residential
district with a fence around its perimeter. There were some serious
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
design flaws that were stated but one not stated yet was that there
was an emergency entrance/exit located on Monterey. It was his
opinion that motorists heading northbound on Monterey, possibly
southbound, might see this location and decide to turn into it. He felt
it would be an emergency exit creating emergencies. He thought one
of the questions commission might have was where to put this facility.
He felt it should be put in a commercially zoned situation or similar
situation as stated by some of the residents. They exist on Country
Club. He was sure there were other frontage or highway locations
looking to be redeveloped that might be a better location for it. One of
the reasons was that these commercially zoned areas would be able to
handle the influx of commercial purveyors. Traditionally there would be
a meat company, dairy company, dry canned goods company,
maintenance supplier, deliveries by pharmacies which he had heard the
developer speaking as an operator say that he would like the
commission's consideration as far as the hours of a pharmacy. They
would also have a podiatrist, maybe two. There would be beauticians
and family members. The developer speaking as an operator wanted to
work closely with the ambulance companies to alleviate the sirens.
That would be a tough one to do. It just stressed to him that this
needed to be in a commercial district where it was commonplace to
have ambulances and was understood that if they located their
residence near a commercial district they were subjecting themselves
to all sorts of possibilities. Not one of the residents at this meeting ever
felt they were going to be subjected to a commercial situation. Parking
was addressed. Many of these people were private payers and they
would have private help. That was another consideration for parking
that had not been considered. He said the commission could okay this
project with 26 spaces. He personally felt they needed about 50. If
they okayed it the way it was presented, he thought they could park
cars within the drive itself which would further eye pollute the
surrounding area. He felt this project needed to be in a different
location, primarily in a commercial zone. Even then they would not be
able to alleviate many of the situations that would occur in a facility like
this and it was his hope that the commission would see it in the same
way. He thanked the commission for their consideration.
MS. ANNE AZZU, 40-529 Clover Lane, stated that her home was north
of the proposed development and she had concerns regarding traffic,
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
especially in the findings where it says there would be a less than
significant impact when no traffic analysis was done. What she meant
by traffic analysis was in the form of a traffic impact study. She
requested a formal traffic impact study to be done on the site showing
the existing and future traffic impact on the adjacent area utilizing ITE
Manual Sixth Edition, the one adopted by CVAG.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Greenwood wished to comment. Mr.
Greenwood stated that the Public Works Department had not been asked to
do a traffic evaluation on this project. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there
were some staff comments regarding traffic impact. Mr. Greenwood indicated
the comments were not from the Public Works Department.
MS. EVA WELSH, 40-724 Clover, explained that her home was north
and east a block from the subject site. She thanked the Chairperson,
Commission and staff for all the wonderful work that had been done in
Palm Desert. She felt they had done an outstanding job and that Palm
Desert was the finest city in the Coachella Valley. She thought that
most people would agree with that, however, she had some issues with
the existing conditional use permit. She pointed out that within the last
several months she had occasion to work with a developer out of
Seattle who developed and operated assisted living facilities. They
started in Palm Springs and worked east through Cathedral City, Rancho
Mirage, Palm Desert, La Quinta and finally ended up in Indio. The
reason for that was they found there was such an over supply either of
land that was in the process of being considered whether it was a
conditional use permit or whatever, or was actually under construction.
She had delivered over to the city today a survey from that developer
which showed, and she had an arrow pointing to it, it showed a
negative or over supply of 37 and that was just based on a ten-mile
radius. The site in question was in Indio because they had to go that
far out to be able to find any cause to have it merit an assisted living
facility, and then it only merited it if they looked to the west of that 114
units. It was just one facility but they backed off. When they did this
study, it didn't take into consideration anything other than assisted
living. It did not take in Alzheimer's, skilled nursing, any other types of
dementia or the Portofino project at the corner of Country Club and
Portola which was 711 rooms, so that would make it show a
tremendous over supply in the entire area. Based on just that one
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
reason, she asked why they would need to have a conditional use
permit on Hovley for a facility of this type when there was so much
land involved in Palm Desert. She said it was her further understanding
that it was in the making where they were considering annexing north
of 1-10 and felt there was too much land and it would be a terrible
injustice to have two conditional use permits within a half mile of each
other on Hovley. The residents had been tremendously impacted by the
project by the one conditional use permit, but they were living with it
and they appreciated the traffic signal. She didn't know that it would
be a complete answer to the traffic problem. Ms. Welsh informed
commission that she has been in the valley for 22 years in real estate
from Palm Springs to Rancho Mirage and presently had an office in
Rancho Mirage. She had been a developer and knew a little about the
process. She wasn't up to date on it today, but she knew how much
time and trouble a developer went through to get something passed.
She was involved in the development on Clancy Lane in Rancho Mirage
called Mission Ranch and that went on for three and a half years but felt
like a lifetime. She wasn't at the meeting to try to stop someone from
making their living or operating their business, but this was a business
and she believed when she bought on Hovley that it was going to be a
really pretty 60 foot wide residential street with cul-de-sacs and pretty
homes and it was an option for those that chose there not to live within
a gated community. Some people wanted to be behind gates, but some
of them really enjoyed being outside of a gated community. It had been
developing so nicely she felt it would be a shame to have it
commercialized and really felt this was definitely commercializing it.
She didn't see a need to have two conditional use permits within half
a mile. She also sent a letter to the commission on February 12
wherein she stated that the project would affect the values of property
in her estimation. There was a facility now, The Carlotta, and it
definitely had impacted nearby developments--Primrose and Sandcastle.
She noted today that the commission also received a letter from an MAI
Appraiser Michael Scarcella who addressed this particular situation and
he stated that he discovered a development known as Primrose located
adjacent to The Carlotta in Palm Desert. It had an initial absorption rate
well below market. Additionally, values in this project appeared to be
lower than similar quality units of a similar size in other locations. That
was mildly putting it, especially with the people on the east side of this
project and directly to the north of this project. It was going to be
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
devastating to them and not just to them, but to all of Hovley from
Portola to Monterey because it has been considered to be residential
and it would affect everyone there and she really felt that if this was to
not be dismissed tonight, and she implored the commission to totally
dismiss this, if they didn't she felt that every resident on Hovley and all
of the cul-de-sacs including Casablanca at the end of Hovley should be
notified of any further Planning Commission and/or Council meetings
because she didn't think they were aware of it. With the over supply
of the area, she was wondering who would be occupying the units at
$3,500 per month not covered by insurance. It seemed to her around
the last election time in Palm Desert that there was a lot of conversation
around the fact that the median age range was the 30's and that sort
of implied young people with beginning families. If that was so and it
was a six-mile radius that they were saying people come from, if they
were becoming that young it was another thing she wanted to mention.
In the event that the Planning Commission went ahead with the project,
she asked that they put up a 12-foot wall on Hovley and have the main
entrance on Monterey. She thanked the commission and hoped they
took this under great consideration. She also asked if they as
homeowners would want to have it directly next door to them and felt
it would totally impact their lives, not just emotionally, not just
financially, but also physically and it was the old adage that the one
most biggest investment that people make in a lifetime is their residence
so she asked the commission to excuse them if they got a little
emotionally crazy about it. They didn't really mean to be rude and
appreciated everything that they do and really hoped the commission
took this under great consideration.
MR. STUART SWIDLER, 40-751 Hovley Lane, stated that his home is
just a few hundred feet from the proposed mental project. He lived at
the corner of Hovley and Clover Lane. For the record, he said he was
the one who wrote the letter asking people in the area not to attend the
builder's meeting. His reasons were set forth in the letter and he would
be happy to answer any questions about it after he finished if it was
necessary. He had been a real estate broker for 35 years and had lived
in the Hovley area for ten years. He held before the commission a
residential agreement and purchase agreement for residential sales and
listings. During his years he has seen these documents evolve from a
simple one page form to more than 18 pages as they exist today. The
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
primary purpose of these documents was to protect the buyer and
seller--to divulge as much as possible. They required so many
signatures and initials that many of their clients requested that the
brokers fill them out on their behalf, but they couldn't do that. The
documents contained page after page of agency disclosures, flood and
earthquake disclosures, foreign status, smoke detectors, water heater
strapping, neighborhood noise, annoyances, encroachments, easements,
asbestos, led paint, etc., all for the purpose of offering the buyer and
seller the utmost protection from something they don't know about. In
addition to that it is suggested that the buyer have an independent
home inspection, a termite report, a roof inspection, a septic tank
inspection, etc., and then the buyer might request a home warrantee to
offer the utmost in protection. The Real Estate Commission, the
California Association of Realtors, local authorities and some very astute
attorneys drew up these documents over the years but what if they
forget to include something. No where in these papers or documents
did it warrant or suggest to the unwary buyer that if he purchased a
lovely home with a manicured lawn in their neighborhood on an R-1
zoned property that adjoins PR-5 zoned property that he might in the
future reside next to a mental facility. PR-5 was shown in the letter
from the commission. One of the PR-5 zones was already built with
houses and the other was Monterey Country Club. He asked everyone
in the room if they were conscious of the fact that a PR zone could be
conditionally changed so that a mental facility is allowed. He said this
was an outrageous injustice. He asked if the Real Estate Commission
should warn the innocent prospective buyers of the Century Home
development and other builders in the area that they may have a mental
hospital at the entrance of Hovley Lane. The Damone Group, an out of
state developer, had a pure affront to ask to build and operate a mental
facility located in the backyard of Hovley residents in one of the busiest
non traffic light intersections in the desert. It would still be just as busy
when they get a light. In their letter of February 8, the Damone people
sent a letter to Hovley residents in an attempt to down play the
disastrous effect their commercial project would have on the residential
neighborhood and they told them they planned to build a 31 ,000 square
foot single story building--31 ,000 square feet catering to the needs of
frail older adults suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He asked how old,
how frail and who set the guidelines and who would police the
guidelines. Thirty-one thousand feet (31 ,000) was the size of 15 of
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
their homes joined together under a common roof; 31 ,000 feet was the
size of a grocery store; 31 ,000 feet would most certainly forever blight
their neighborhood. The commission would hear stories from other
neighbors who have loved ones who had Alzheimer's. One of his own
experiences was witnessing a dear friend who suffered from this
dreaded disease recently and he died. The man during his lifetime was
among the kindest, most docile human beings on earth. When stricken
with Alzheimer's he beat his wife of 20 years into unconsciousness on
at least two occasions and frequently escaped from his around the clock
attendants. He ran out into the street nude looking for his high school
sweetheart. He stated he wasn't trying to be funny. The man was
very wealthy and had the best nurses and guards that money could buy
and yet he managed to escape frequently. Unfortunately Alzheimer's
patients often did these things and most decidedly would do so on the
streets where their children and grandchildren play. They would feel
much safer if a jail was on the corner. At least when the convicts
escaped they got out of the area as fast as possible. Mental patients
would stay right on the street walking onto Monterey, endangering their
own lives and the lives of passersby. He said they were all sympathetic
with people with mental impairments but they must be cared for in an
area commercially zoned and large enough so that they could enjoy
extensive grounds on which to stroll away from dangerous traffic and
children at play. The Damone Group would have them believe that
there is no traffic impact because none of the 52 or 60 residents would
be driving. He asked if they were supposed to buy that trumped up
argument. He asked if the three round the clock personnel shifts drove
automobiles, if the doctors did, if hundreds of visitors drove. He asked
about the kitchen supply trucks, the restaurant supply trucks necessary
to serve more than 200 meals a day, the garbage trucks, the
maintenance trucks, the exterminators, the cleaning crews, the
gardeners, the parking lot maintenance crew, restaurant and food
inspectors, city medical inspectors, state medical inspectors, the
ambulance vehicles, and so on. The Damone Group proposed to run a
small hospital and restaurant no matter what fancy name that gave it
and they had the gall to expect them to believe that traffic would be
less than that of 15 or 20 homes. He said anyone who believed that
would be a good prospect for their mental hospital. He said they have
decided to invade their residential neighborhood and cause them to live
in an uncomfortable environment and sit by helplessly while their homes
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
would become virtually worthless, all in the name of a money making
commercial enterprise that goes by the peaceful sounding name of Clara
Bridge. He thought the name Clara Bridge rang with a false sense of
tranquility. He asked if they thought the name was chosen accidentally.
He said he respectfully asked the commission to run The Damone Group
out of Dodge and to let them sell their absurd commercial schemes to
their own neighbors in Michigan.
MS. FRAN JONES, 40-696 Clover Lane, stated that she had a petition
of 80 plus people who lived right around the proposed building. (She
submitted it to the secretary.) She informed commission that she has
a sister in an Alzheimer's home and she was a very sweet lady and they
loved her and she had another sister visiting her from Minnesota. Last
summer she went to see her sister Vi. A couple of months later her son
called and told her that Vi and a little gentleman friend who also has
Alzheimer's and who were both in wheel chairs got out of that facility
and were cruising down the highway. Fortunately no one was hurt, but
it happened.
MR. JAMES MAZORAS stated that he had heard enough that he could
not say anything more himself, except for one thing. The government
was made up by the people and for the people and the commission had
been selected to help represent them. He even knew how much they
made a month and that was beside the point. They were in a position
that they swore to and they only had to realize one thing--how the
residents felt. He lived close by where this project was going to be
built. He was a former administrator of a health center, the Cosby
Center in Oakland California that had 60 beds. They averaged one
death every 48 hours. He asked if they could imagine what he went
through during that period of time. He lasted for about one year and a
half and then had to get out of there before he ended up in some other
convalescent hospital himself. His past experience had been as a
developer. He developed the Palm Springs Golf and Tennis Club in Palm
Springs. He found out one thing. When they had a neighborhood that
is called a residential area it should be kept that way. Don't put in a
grocery store or service station or a health facility. There was always
a better place for that. He said they should give these people a break
and not lock them up on this main street because if their sickness didn't
kill them, he would bet them any money that car fumes would. They
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
have enough cars going up and down Monterey right now and it was
out of control. He knew it wasn't Palm Desert's fault because on the
other side of that highway, and it wasn't Monterey Avenue any longer
but a super highway, but it took him to get from Hovley to Country
Club as much as 20 minutes and he was on call. He was a notary
republic and an officer of the court and he was begging the commission
to take this into consideration because their job was to protect the
people and they had been appointed to take care of the people and they
had asked for that appointment. He said they should regard it as a big
crown on their heads and thanked them for listening to all of the
residents tonight.
MR. WAYNE WELCH, Avenida Estrada, stated that they would be
impacted by this project in many ways. Most of which had been
mentioned, but he would say a few things that hadn't been mentioned.
If they had 19 residences along that street, they would have 19
driveways, not one serving the facility in a commercial way. Secondly,
if people were going to pay $3,500 and up for a stay there, they would
have nice long cars, some of them limousines. They would have to
provide large parking spaces. He has had a lot of experience with this
kind of facility and he was an Episcopal priest for 25 years, and still
was, and he currently volunteered at the Eisenhower medical hospital.
He wanted to convey one point and that was that Alzheimer's people
and their kin unfortunately came in all shapes and sizes and some of
them were huge. In his experience with these homes he had been
verbally abused, spontaneously. A clergyman came in love, but he
couldn't always expect to be received like that. He had been physically
assaulted by them. If they had a building 31 ,000 square feet they
would have a PA system in it. Inevitably someone would leave the door
open no matter how well insulated. Residents would hear exercise
classes, performances they don't necessarily want to hear, movies they
didn't want to attend, all of these things needed restrictions. He asked
if they had thought about how a PA system would work in a residential
area. He was in his yard listening to a page from a school that came
over the air just because the wind was blowing a certain way. He had
heard the Marriott pages from time to time and the music at their pool.
He asked if they had thought about these things and really considered
giving Mr. Kaufman back his view or how Mrs. Jones was affected by
the odors from the kitchen. He asked if they had really thought about
27
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
compensating residents who back up to this facility for the loss they
would suffer in their property. He said they could be assured that the
people developing this property would be making enough money from
it so that they would live on properties well buffered from such a
facility. They would not make the mistake that they had made buying
property where a sudden change in zoning diminished their lots.
MR. JAMES BROWN, 40-780 Avenida Calafia, stated that he was just
on the other side of the wall from the proposed complex. He said he
would be very brief. Everyone had said objections. They were going
to probably now hear rebuttals to those objections. He thought that the
number one thing was that as they listen to rebuttals to objections
many of them become argumentative and he didn't mean that the
developer was going to argue with them that they were wrong, but they
were going to find things to say to try and mitigate all of the numerous
things going on but they couldn't predict tomorrow, next month or next
year. They did the best they could and the Planning Commission did
the best they could but they had an opportunity sitting right in front of
them. They didn't have to listen to 80 or 200 or 400 complaints of real
estate values dropping. They didn't know they were going to drop.
They couldn't tell them they weren't going to drop, but if and when
they do, the commission will have participated in helping that happen
and he didn't believe they wanted to do that. He didn't want it to
happen but there were many issues. They could eliminate the entire
problem. The property was zoned residential. They should leave it
residential and when it came time for a developer to build the 15 or 18
homes that would comfortably fit there it wouldn't look like it was part
of the neighborhood, it would be part of the neighborhood.
MS. ANNETTE LEWIS stated that they resided in the second house on
Avenida Calafia and their property would be backed up to this property.
She stated that she and her husband coauthored a letter and she had
been over to the Amdahl facility in Rancho Mirage that used to be called
Ardan and she implored the commission to go over to the facility and
see what is going on over there to see how that has impacted that area,
see how many beds they have vacant and see how many peo le died
in the last month. She knew of four. She felt that putting this project
P 9
in a residential area was not the thing to do and would impact her
privacy, view, noise and things like that in her backyard when she
28
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
wanted to enjoy her pool. That was why they bought there--so that
they could enjoy their pool and the desert. She asked the commission
to do some strong thinking on this and not give into this thing. There
were other places in the sand where they could build in Palm Desert.
Within a two or three-mile radius theyhad all these assisted living
g
places coming in--Eisenhower and Marriott. She asked the commission
to get real and go to the Carlotta and see what happens.
MR. SAMUEL RODRIGUEZ, 40-800 Avenida Calafia, said that when
they moved out here seven years ago they picked out a home and the
realtor said they could have a house down the block and then two
weeks later said they could live farther up the street with the same plan
but for $2,000 more because of the view of the mountains. The value
of his house did go up because of that view. Now they were going to
take away that view and automatically that was going to cost him
$2,000--just like that. Environmentally, he guessed they had conducted
an environmental impact report. Just the fact that there was noise was
detrimental. There would be increased traffic from cars and trucks and
that meant smog. Mr. Smith said this was a residential area--if it was,
then they should keep it that way. The developer said they would meet
the needs of the older community people le and right to live in a nice
p had a
community, but so did they. They were not as old and they also had
a right to live in a nice community and he thought this project would
hinder that. He wasn't against them providing facilities for older people
to live, but there was plenty of space for them to locate. He said it
might not sound like much, but they had a roadrunner going in and out
of their backyard every couple of weeks and if they built there they
would take that roadrunner away. He felt it was a lovely site to see
right in their backyard. Being an elementary school principal in the Palm
Springs Unified School District, he worked over in Cathedral City, but
• he resided here and every day the students said the pledge of allegiance
and it ended with "in justice for all" and they taught that this was a
nation where they elect representatives who were supposed to listen to
the people. They have a student council and they came to his office
once in a while asking for things and he listened and they talked it over
to see what was best for them and the rest of the kids in the school.
He was asking the commission to act responsibly and listen to the will
of the people. He said he was prejudiced because he was with the will
of the people and wanted the commission to listen to them. The
29
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
developer made a lot of promises and that was just what they were, a
lot of promises. The commission asked about Medical/Medicaid. In
Minnesota they did this, in Wisconsin they did that, but here in
California they didn't know. They would keep up the landscaping. That
was a promise but they didn't know if it would be kept. Maybe two or
three years from now it would look run down because they decided
they didn't want to pay the gardener enough because they weren't
making enough money. A lot of promises had been made and would be
made after he got his chance to rebut and that was all they were,
promises. They in the neighborhood knew what they had and they liked
it, loved it, and it was a nice residential neighborhood and he wanted to
keep it that way.
MR. JERRY WILEY, 40-900 Avenida Estrada in Palm Desert, said he had
a couple of questions for the developer if that was okay.
Chairperson Jonathan said that was fine, but the developer would probably
address the questions when he had an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Wiley noted that he and his wife moved here a couple of years ago
and they had been coming to this valley for about 20 years. They could
have bought in Palm Springs or La Quinta but didn't do so. They chose
Palm Desert because of the area. The residential area they bought in
was off of Hovley and they had been impacted by the Southwest
Community Church which the Planning Commission was quite familiar
with. The church was there before they were and they bought knowing
the church was there. There had been some impact on their life style
and he couldn't sit and not say anything about this proposed
development. The Planning Commission did not have to grant this
change. These people were there to make some money and then once
they made the money then the homeowners in the area were there to
pay the consequences. His recommendation was to vote tonight, not
to carry this matter over to another meeting to give the developer more
time to respond to the things that had been addressed. He urged them
to vote no and listen to the will of the homeowners.
MR. KEVIN WINTER, 40-686 Via Fonda, stated that he brought pictures
with him of the neighborhood to give the commission an idea of what
the traffic was like. He said he moved from San Jose where he worked
30
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
directly across the street from a facility similar to this. They called that
one St. James Place. They put it in an industrial part of town across
from the San Jose Arena where the Sharks play. It had a devastating
impact even on the commercial/industrial warehouse area. There were
police and ambulances there continuously. He didn't know what went
on in the place and didn't want to know. It was a lot rougher than the
bar he worked in. He said he was with the people as far as his vote
went. He thought the Lucky's store was the only 31 ,000 square foot
building he wanted anywhere near his house and that was about the
size of the facility. That was a one story building as well. One story
could be 15-18 feet tall and still be one story. He said he just wanted
to share with the commission that even in an industrial area a facility
like this had its problems. It was a unique facility and had problems
they weren't aware of or what they could be in for.
MR. JACK MENZIA, 40-780 Centennial Circle, stated that he and his
wife reside there. As he sat and listened to the presentation by Mr.
Lutich the first question that came to mind was that knowing full well
that a project such as this would require a conditional use permit and
the support of the commission, why they would have the audacity to
even make such a request to put in an establishment or business or
building as was being proposed in this residential area. He didn't know
if the developer, owner or business folks had been asked to provide an
explanation as to why they would have the audacity to even attempt
this project in this residential area, but he thought it was a question that
needed to be asked and as taxpayers they needed an answer to that
question because to him it was very obvious that this type of venture
should be in a commercial area. They would not get the resistance
shown this evening if the building was attempted to be constructed in
a commercial area. He heard constant reference to patients suffering
from Alzheimer's. It was stated that this facility would attend to these
folks, provide them excellent care which was commendable, and his
question was if the facility would specifically be restricted to patients
with Alzheimer's. He knew very well that in the very broad category of
memory impairment there were a variety of conditions, ailments and
illnesses that were included. Some were very peaceful and tranquil and
some were not. His question to the commission or developer was
specifically what other conditions or diseases or types of patients would
be housed in this facility and not let them as a general public be
31
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
convinced when they left this evening that they would be dealing with,
or be concerned about or fearing strictly patients who were suffering
from Alzheimer's. He said he had to chuckle when there was reference
made to attempts being made to control sirens from ambulances and
fire trucks and also attempts to control the year, make, size and models
of the delivery trucks that go in and out of the facility. He said he
wasn't being facetious. He wanted to know how on earth they were
going to control the size, make and model of a delivery truck when they
were delivering towels or food or picking up rubbish. That must take
the ultimate power and wanted to know how they obtain the power to
do so. When they considered a project like this whether as a taxpayer
of a person sitting in a very critical position like the commission, one of
the obvious questions for all parties concerned was what were the
benefits. From his point of view it seemed to be a four-part question
pertaining to 1) the promoters, whose motives were very clear and they
were profit driven and had a singular motive and purpose--to make profit
off the citizens or city or the area known as Palm Desert. Their benefit
was very clear. For the patients, if the care provided to these
individuals as stated by the applicant, if they received that type of care
obviously that was a direct and great benefit for them and they were
deserving of good care so they too would benefit as patients. For the
city of Palm Desert he wasn't sure what the benefit would be but he
was assuming that if the commission would even consider approving
this type of project down the road somewhere there had to be benefits
for the city of Palm Desert, whether in the form of increased revenues,
through taxes or some other form. He didn't know, but if they even
considered this type of approval he could only assume that they would
have the very specific response to that question of what were the
benefits and why would they approve such a proposal. Lastly, when
they thought about the benefits for the citizens, the homeowners, the
taxpayers, the residents of Hovley Lane and the surrounding areas, he
didn't know of any benefits although the commission might but based
on what he had heard this evening he had not been able to glean from
any of the comments any singular benefit to himself or to all his
neighbors, taxpayers and homeowners at the meeting. Clearly the
people who would be impacted most and the people who probably
should receive the greatest amount of benefit from this type of proposal
were being completely overlooked. The economic impact and the
quality of life were two things the commission should take into serious
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
consideration if they allowed this proposal to get out of the chambers
that evening. Clearly the benefit for the homeowners, taxpayers, and
people they represent was nonexistent. Finally, he lived on Centennial
Circle and unless he was mistaken, he represented the eastern portion
of the street. No one to his knowledge who had spoken this evening
lived beyond him in an easterly direction. As the commission knew,
they lived on the street just east of the Southwest Community Church.
They had a marvelous congregation, marvelous purpose and no
objection whatsoever, but he could tell them that it had impacted their
quality of life. They knew the church was there when they bought two
years ago, no problem, and they tolerate it. On Saturday evenings,
Friday evenings, particularly on Sundays, they have to be extremely
careful when he and his wife back out of their driveways or with their
friends who are visiting because the cars had literally taken over
Centennial Circle and Hovley Lane East and West. On Sunday when
services were well-attended they were literally trapped in their cul-de-
sac. It just confused him greatly that they as a council or commission
as was previously stated by someone else would even consider granting
another conditional use permit in addition to the church on Howley Lane.
The church would relocate and they understood that. If the commission
granted this conditional use permit, he was really concerned what
would happen next to the vacated site where the Southwest
Community Church was located. He said that maybe the commission
had already made a decision of which he was not aware or maybe the
facility would be torn down and homes would be built, he didn't know,
but if there was another consideration for a conditional use permit in
addition to the church, he was greatly concerned that the commission
had lost sight of what their basic mission was and that was to protect
the residents. It didn't make sense at all that they in an area that has
been described as a beautiful residential area would be impacted by two
facilities that the commission approved under the auspices or the
conditions of a conditional use permit. Again, he chose to live on
Centennial Circle off of Howley Lane. It was not a gated community.
They chose not to live in a gated community for the reasons that were
stated. They liked the sense of community they have. The cul-de-sacs
were warm friendly areas populated by people with the same basic
philosophies and concepts of living in the beautiful desert. If they
wanted to live behind walls they would. They chose not to. In closing
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
he asked that this issue not be allowed out of these chambers this
evening and to stop the project now.
MS. ANN KIM, 40-075 Clover Lane, informed commission that they
have lived in Palm Desert for 22 years and at this address for more than
ten. The only thing she wanted to mention was that the desert was a
beautiful place, but it was also a place with plenty of space. There
were options. Palm Desert was a beautiful place to live and in the
future she thought there would be a lot of development and rather than
building on that corner there were plenty of other places they could
develop.
MS. STARLENE MILLSPAUGH said that she had one point that hadn't
been touched on. Everything else said was exactly how she and her
husband felt. They don't want this facility in their neighborhood. She
had been in the health care business for 25 years. She worked at
Eisenhower for 12 years. The ratio of staff to patient really concerned
her for this facility. If they had 60 patients, Alzheimer's and mentally
impaired, parking for 25 cars and a staff of less than 15, she had
witnessed in her own career that as Alzheimer's patients digress they
need one on one care. She had seen patients come to the hospital for
one reason or another, falling out of bed breaking a hip, and they have
literally had to be strapped into bed to keep them from hurting
themselves or others if they didn't have a personal care giver. She
asked if that meant that as these patients' health deteriorated that they
would be strapped into beds or if they would bring in more help to take
care of them on a one on one basis because she knew from personal
experience that a staff of less than 25 for this kind of patient and that
encompassed people that take care of the cleaning and whatever else,
she asked what the ratio of actual care giver was to the patients and
how many people were actually involved in the daily care and
supervision of these people. They would wander off and get out. They
would hurt themselves and were very violent if their health was in the
final stages of Alzheimer's. They could not be controlled or held but
literally required some physical force to keep them from hurting
themselves or others and that was a real concern of hers. She thought
that hadn't been made clear to them but had been in her mind since the
proceedings began. She thanked the commission for listening.
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to readdress the
commission.
Mr. Lutich said he would try to address as many of the issues as he
could. First, the question was asked how they could have the audacity
to propose this project in Palm Desert and he also felt that spoke to
what they perceived as the need for this type of project in this
community. As he mentioned before, Alternative Living Services'
philosophy was that older adults have every right to live in a residential
setting just like anyone else. As it related to this particular site, he
understood there was a woman who gave some information to assisted
living residences in the area and agreed that assisted living for frailer
adults was over bedded in the Palm Desert area and that was not what
they were proposing here. They were proposing a residence designed
specifically to cater to adults with memory impairment and related
dementia in a freestanding purposelposeillt building which they believed
was a market that was under served in the Palm Desert area.
Alternative Living Services has an extensive market research department
that does similar analysis to what was described earlier and that was
their conclusion and the reason why they were proposing to build here
and why they were proposing to build in this residential setting. That
was ALS's philosophy. ALS had built more than 365 residences
throughout the Midwest and they were building them in California as
well. Comments had been made with respect to the residential
character of the building. He said he wasn't there suggesting that they
saw very many 31 ,000 square foot residences. What he was saying
was that this was not an institutional setting. This was a residential
setting for these older adults. They walked in and saw living room
furniture. They didn't see a nursing station. They saw a fire place and
residentially scaled room sizes. The way the building was designed was
to basically house neighborhoods in two different buildings joined by a
town center in the building which created the tower. That town center
was for the residents and their families to congregate in the middle of
the building in a safe and secure environment. As it relates to the
parking and adequacy of the parking, that ratio was something they
have experienced to be adequate in the past and there were industry-
wide studies that also supported that. Their experience has been that
it hasn't been a problem. When they talk about maximum staffing, they
have 15 staff on site, not all of whom would drive and park a vehicle
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
on the site, so they had to consider that some of the care givers were
dropped off and picked up and even then assuming they would take the
full 15 spaces, that has been adequate for them in the past. There
were questions about being detrimental to public health and safety as
related to noise. As the staff report indicated, they would make every
effort to screen and mitigate all the noise as it relates to the air handler
systems, etc., on the roof. They were located away from the single
family residential area and were in a lower pitched section of the roof
and they would bring in screening there. As it relates to privacy along
the back wall, again, any recommendations the commission required
that would be adequate to the neighbors to screen that they would be
more than happy to comply with. A comment was made that these
buildings were more appropriate in a commercial setting and
comparisons were made to buildings/projects underway and the Marriott
project, MBK project, Portofino project, those were all multistory
85,000 plus square foot residences and he didn't think they were
comparable to this particular residence. ALS's philosophy was that
older adults shouldn't be "imprisoned" in a commercial area. There was
a lot of concern with respect to the safety and concern of the residents
and their tendency to wander, the care of the residents and there were
comparisons made to other facilities. He couldn't comment on other
facilities, just on his experience and knowledge of Alternative Living
Services who was the premier provider of these types of freestanding
residences that cater to this particular adult population. They have
specifically trained staff. They take every precaution as it relates to the
building. The building was closed 24 hours a day and doors were not
left open so there wouldn't be any noise emanating from the building as
it relates to that particular setting. Security of the residents was
paramount to Alternative Living Services and they take every training
and every precaution to insure the fact that wandering didn't take place
or if someone did exit the building that they were escorted back into the
building as quickly and safely as possible. Regarding discussion about
the emergency entrance off of Monterey, that was proposed as a Fire
Department requirement. Any mitigation that could be made regarding
the concern that people might pull into that area they would be happy
to respond to. In terms of staffingratios, industrystandard for this
p
type of care was one to seven from a resident to care giver ratio and
that was the ratio Alternative Living Services used for their buildings.
As someone progressed with the Alzheimer's disease, they could
36
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
become combative and Alternative Living Services with an RN on staff
and in the building and a health care coordinator, they make every
attempt to try and mitigate that with both the family's involvement as
well as a personal physician. In a situation where someone becomes a
danger to themselves or others then they would be considered for
discharge to another setting that would be more appropriate for that
type of behavior. Someone said it would be in the best interests of
Alternative Living Services to keep them longer for the all mighty dollar,
but it was quite the opposite. This was a market driven environment
where the adult child was coming in and they didn't want to see
residents that were combative or endangering their family members so
it was definitely a concern that Alternative Living Services as an
operator would share. There was a comment about one death every 48
hours at another residence. What they had experienced as the average
length of stay for this type of resident was two years, so they were
perhaps experiencing one death a month. There was a question relating
to sirens coming in and out of the building. If there was an emergency
situation in most instances there was a nurse on staff. If it was after
hours the nurse was on call and they would be able to instruct and
provide immediate care on the scene and typically they would try to
work with local groups to bring someone in a non siren type situation
and that was what they would make every attempt to do. He asked if
there were any questions from the commission or if he missed any.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked the applicant and closed the public hearing and
asked the commission for comments.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she would like to see this matter continued
to the next meeting. (There were many loud comments from the audience
made at this time.)
Commissioner Finerty thanked everyone for their comments, letters and
participation. She said there were many references made to Southwest
Community Church and they all knew the church was there first and then
came the residents. This situation was different because now they had the
residents there and now they had another conditional use permit. She felt they
needed to give the nod to the residents. She sympathized because she had a
situation near where she lived where Palm Springs Mortuary wanted to put in
a satellite office next to where she lived and not one of the 247 homeowners
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
thought it would be a good idea. She personally wouldn't choose to live next
to an Alzheimer's facility nor would she choose to live next to a mortuary
office. She believed that the property values would be negatively impacted as
stated and as written in letters. She had a father-in-law whose second cause
of death was Alzheimer's. He did become violent and they had to address the
issue of restraints and medication to mitigate it. It appeared that escape was
inherent in this disease. She listened to everyone and agreed with them that
another site would be more appropriate and she believed that a continuance
was fruitless and would move to deny the CUP.
Commissioner Lopez also thanked everyone for participating and taking the
time to write the letters. His concerns were very much in line with theirs. He
had valid concerns regarding parking, safety, the well being of the individuals
there, the impact to the community and he felt there were other areas this
would fit better in. He too believed a continuance would not be in the proper
order tonight.
Commissioner Beaty said he was somewhat offended because he lives right
across the street from The Carlotta and it wasn't a bad neighbor. He bought
his home after The Carlotta was built and there were a few things he didn't
like but would accept. But as stated, he would yield to neighborhood
concerns. They were there first and he would go along with Commissioner
Finerty and Commissioner Lopez.
Chairperson Jonathan thanked everyone for attending and for taking time out
of their personal schedule to write and to be at the meeting and that included
the applicant. He said he was a little embarrassed by his co-citizens and felt
there had been some comments that verged on being rude and he wanted the
applicant to know it wasn't representative of our community. He thought
some of the people were just very emotionally involved in the issue and that
was understandable. He noted that the applicant was a guest to our
community and they welcomed him here during his stay and hoped he knew
that some of the comments made were not representative of our overall
community. Chairperson Jonathan stated that the concerns had tremendous
validity. Whether they could be mitigated or not he didn't know. Based on
some of the comments they heard tonight, they could create a Taj Mahal or
a 1 ,000 square foot facility, but if it had the word "Alzheimer" attached to it
he didn't think they were going to find compassion tonight. Again, he was
sorry and was a little embarrassed by his neighbors. He heard almost no
38
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
compassion for the need for this type of facility. He understood why they
wouldn't want it in their backyards and that was reasonable, but why not a
comment here or there about how we need to take care of our aging
population and why not at least consider that issue. As to why they had the
gall to apply--because it was a potentially permitted use in the residential zone.
The commission was there not to consider a change of zone. He explained
that within a zone certain zones were allowed under that zoning. They had
certain uses disallowed under the zoning and then they had in between uses
that required special permission like the church and like the care facility. There
were certain uses that could only be permitted in a residential zone after a
process like this one. This project was proof that it works because the
applicant has the right to pursue the application and the residents have the
right to express opposition. The only way this type of use could be permitted
in a residential zone was through the granting of a conditional use permit
which required this whole procedure. If there was a disagreement with the
findings, they had the right to appeal the decision. It was a very fair process
and hopefully the people who administered the process did so fairly. He said
he would have the same concerns if he lived there and he thought they were
valid. The question in his mind was whether or not they could be mitigated
or not. In other words, if the applicant were to do everything that addressed
the concerns if that would satisfy the people. From what he was seeing he
had his doubts. The other concern was the greater good of the city. There
was a need for this type of facility, but could it be accommodated elsewhere.
He thought the answer was probably yes. He said he was struggling and was
trying to be sympathetic to the applicant and to the need for this type of
facility, but on the other hand he thought there were options as to where to
locate this type of facility. He asked for further discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Finerty moved to deny the CUP. Mr. Drell clarified that the
motion should be to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial with the
proper findings for adoption at the next meeting.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,
instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the meeting.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there were any comments. Commissioner
Campbell stated that she would still like a continuance and felt the facility was
needed and would perhaps be needed by the residents, their parents or family
members. She felt the applicant should have the opportunity to address staff's
39
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1999
concerns and the concerns expressed by the residents. (During Commissioner
Campbell's comments the audience interrupted with loud conversation and
comments.) Chairperson Jonathan addressed the audience. He pointed out
that they were being rude and that the commission sat for more than two
hours and not only heard their comments but listened to their comments. It
was impolite of them to not even listen while they were having discussion
amongst themselves. He had to tell them that in all his years on the
commission he had never been that embarrassed by his neighbors. He asked
that they please respect the commission like the commission respected them
and to allow them to have their discussion without having to yell over their
comments. He asked Commissioner Campbell to continue. Commissioner
Campbell felt the developer should be given the opportunity to address the
concerns. As stated earlier by Mr. Markowitz, she would like to see what the
impacts would be from the height of the building if it was to be built there and
thought the developer should be given the opportunity to do that and address
the concerns. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any other discussion.
There wasn't and Chairperson Jonathan called for a vote. Motion carried 4-1
(Commissioner Campbell voted no).
Chairperson Jonathan explained to the audience that the application had been
denied but the actual resolution would be adopted at the next meeting. At
that meeting they would not open the public testimony so it would just be the
formality of the vote of denial. Chairperson Jonathan again thanked his fellow
neighbors for taking their time to be with them and for sharing their feelings
and thoughts.
One of the residents came to the microphone and thanked the commission for
their kind and courteous patience.
X. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. CONTINUED AGENDA ITEM VIII: AWARDS/PRESENTATIONS
Request for adoption of a resolution commending George
Fernandez.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that this item had been continued from earlier in
the evening and asked for a motion.
40
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Case No. PP/CUP 99-2
As directed by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1999
presentation of a resolution denying a request by The Damone
Group, LLC, for a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 60-bed
single story senior assisted living complex on 3.77 acres at the
southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane, 73-055
Hovley Lane.
Mr. Drell noted that the Planning Commission had the resolution with the
finding being that the project's intensity and inherent institutional operational
characteristics and building scale would not be compatible with the adjacent
single family residential community.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments.
Commissioner Finerty stated that she would like to comment on the letter sent
to Steve Smith dated March 11 from Mr. Lutich. He was concerned that the
commission didn't take staff's recommendation to continue the item and he
again addressed the letter circulated by a homeowner encouraging other
neighbors not to attend the neighborhood meeting. She pointed out that the
letter was a suggestion and that the homeowner didn't handcuff or lock up the
homeowners and they chose of their own free will not to attend that meeting
and she felt the record showed there was a 100% negative response to the
project and that it was ludicrous to think that had all of them attended that
there would be overwhelming support. With that she moved to approve
Resolution 1917.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty to approve Resolution No. 1917.
Commissioner Campbell felt that the commission should have had the common
courtesy to extend a continuance to the applicant due to staff's
recommendation that it be continued. That would allow for changes to be
made and since most of the public was ill informed as to what was the actual
project was. She also felt that the Planning Commission was degraded and
bullied by the public that was sitting before them at the last meeting and she
felt they should take it into consideration that they didn't know what was
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
going on since theycalled the project a mental institution. Commissioner
9 9
Beaty stated that he has felt bad since he left the council chamber that
evening and he agreed with Commissioner Campbell that they yielded to some
pressure from a group of people who perhaps did not have credible
information. He had gone back and reviewed the testimony and he really
didn't see anything in there that was not emotionally based. There were
comments about parking and traffic and so on that were items that could be
perhaps mitigated. Everything else was emotionally based and he felt bad that
he voted to support the denial and he was prepared to reverse his vote and
deny the motion to deny the project. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there
was a motion on the table at this point and asked if there was a second.
Commissioner Lopez seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for
discussion on the motion. He asked staff if in the event that the motion was
not passed what would happen. Mr. Drell said that staff could readvertise and
reopen the public hearing since no action had occurred. Mr. Hargreaves said
he briefly reviewed the procedures and there was nothing to guide them, but
in terms of due process and fairness, that was what he would advise them to
do if the commission wished to reconsider the action--they should renotice it
and reopen the public hearing and go through the process again to give
everyone a chance to say what they needed to say and make a decision at that
point. Commissioner Campbell asked if she could make a motion to continue
the item. Mr. Drell said that by definition it would have been continued since
no action would have occurred. Mr. Hargreaves indicated they could have a
motion to reconsider and direct staff to renotice. Mr. Drell said he didn't know
if the commission wanted to go through that hearing again or if they wanted
the council to deal with it if in fact the applicant wished to appeal. He thought
there was discussion that it would be appealed. Chairperson Jonathan said he
would proceed with discussion on the motion and if the motion failed, then
perhaps they could have discussion about their options. He noted that the
motion before them was to approve the findings as presented by staff as
outlined in the resolution denying the request by The Damone Group. He
asked if there was any other discussion on that particular motion. There
wasn't and he called for the vote. The motion failed on a 2-3 vote
(Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioners Beaty and Campbell voted no).
Commissioner Beaty said he would certainly hope that as indicated by Mr.
Drell everyone who was legally entitled to receive a notice would receive the
same, but also everyone who testified the night of the previous hearing should
also be noticed.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan wanted to explain to council and for the record that the
reason he was opposed to the denial at this point, and he had not made a
decision in his mind regarding the application, but in reviewing the record,
testimony and so forth, he thought he made a mistake in not giving the
applicant an opportunity to address the concerns that were expressed that
night. He said it was possible that the concerns could be adequately
mitigated. He kind of reached the conclusion that it wasn't possible, but he
felt he shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion. If the applicant came back
and said he would build a 7,000 square foot facility; if they didn't like a big
building he would do it in clusters of three small ones and he would have all
grass parking and landscaping nicer than the Annenberg Estate and so on. If
he went to that extent perhaps the residents would agree. Was it realistic that
the applicant would go to that extent he didn't know, but he felt perhaps it
was inappropriate on his part to not provide the applicant with an opportunity
to address those concerns. That was why he was not yet prepared to deny
it.
Commissioner Campbell noted that there were a lot of other projects where
the residents were present and were ill informed and afterwards when the
commission had the applicant address their concerns, they changed their
minds.
Commissioner Beaty stated that he in no way had made a decision pro or con
for this particular project, he just felt that they needed to give the applicant the
opportunity to address the concerns and revisit the issue.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a way they could pick up where they
left off so they didn't go back to square one in terms of the applicant
presenting the same proposal, because the applicant had heard the concerns.
Mr. Drell said the applicant could always come back with revised exhibits to
the plan--he would to a certain extent if he was inclined to come back. He felt
this issue was likely to go to council. It was his understanding that the
applicant was considering appealing the decision. If the project were to be
approved, there would be those in the public who would appeal and it would
go to council sooner or later. This might give the Planning Commission an
opportunity to better articulate their position on a modified design.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was possible to find out if the council
preferred for the Planning Commission to hear it again before it went to them
or if they preferred just to let it go to council and hear the response from the
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
applicant directly. It occurred to him that if the Planning Commission brought
the matter back they might just be avoiding the inevitable that council would
get it, so maybe it was a bit superfluous.
Commissioner Campbell said it was her understanding that whatever Planning
Commission voted the project would have gone to council. Mr. Drell noted
that the Planning Commission could make comments. Commissioner Lopez
asked if the applicant indicated that he was going to appeal. Mr. Drell said
there was an indication that he would appeal, but they couldn't appeal until
there was a resolution of denial or approval adopted. Chairperson Jonathan
asked if it was possible to send the matter to council without a formal denial
and give them an opportunity to send it back to commission if they chose. Mr.
Hargreaves said would basically be a recommendation to council. Mr. Drell felt
the question was why in this case the commission would choose to not make
a recommendation. Chairperson Jonathan said it wasn't that they were
refusing. His concern was if they went through the notice procedure and so
forth that would consume time and if the council was prepared to hear this
matter and preferred to address it directly, then he would be just as happy to
let them do that. He didn't feel that the commission needed to since they had
done the proper process and now it was a matter of the applicant addressing
the concerns and he could do that either before the commission or before the
council. Mr. Drell said that was probably the most expeditious process, but
in order for that to happen the commission had to deny the project.
Commissioner Finerty pointed out from the minutes of March 2 that
Chairperson Jonathan explained to the audience that the application had been
denied but the actual resolution would be adopted at the next meeting. At
that meeting they would not open the public testimony so it would just be the
formality of the vote of denial. It was very clear to the people what the
commission's intent was and had they had the resolution in front of them that
night, there was no question it would have been denied. She asked if they
were proper at this point to change. Mr. Hargreaves explained that at any
point up to when they actually take the definitive action they could reconsider
a decision. They could even reconsider after taking a definitive action if they
reconsidered it at the same meeting. The commission had not taken a
definitive action so they were free to reconsider it. Given the fact that the
matter was basically continued to this meeting under the bylaws it could be
construed to be the same session. The point ultimately was not to get
wrapped up in the formalities and technicalities, but the commission needed
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
to reach a decision on the merits of the application which it felt it could
support and felt comfortable with. If that required something more than what
had already been done, then it was incumbent upon the commission to get on
the record with a definitive action it felt was the decision. Commissioner
Campbell asked if they could just recommend to council that commission
wished to continue it and see what council said and if it should come back
before commission. Mr. Hargreaves said they needed to make a decision one
way or the other. If they didn't want to belabor the issue at commission level,
the kind of finding they might want to reach was that upon further
consideration commission believed that the project might be modified so that
it could recommend it but rather than belabor the point here knowing it was
going to council the commission would send it forward to expedite the process
without making a formal recommendation based on the fact that the
commission did not believe at this point that they had a fully developed
application in front of them--they had not given the developer an opportunity
to go back and modify it in response to the objections raised and commission
felt the applicant needed to have that opportunity before a definitive decision
was made, but rather than require him to come back to commission, they
would send him along so they didn't waste his time. Chairperson Jonathan
clarified that the commission action would be to send the matter to council
without a recommendation but with an explanation as expressed and certainly
the council would have the ability to send it back to commission if they
wanted commission to listen to the applicant and take more public testimony
and give council a recommendation or they could choose to hear the matter on
their own. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was comfortable with that
course of action. To reiterate, the commission would be sending the matter
to council without taking formal action but instead with an explanation that
they felt that it would be appropriate to give the applicant an opportunity to
respond to the concerns raised during the process and to review the matter
with that input. Commissioner Finerty noted that the applicant had a rebuttal
in the minutes on pages 35, 36 and 37 where he did respond. Chairperson
Jonathan agreed, but indicated that the applicant requested a continuance so
that he could more fully respond to those concerns. Commissioner Finerty
stated that she didn't recall the applicant requesting a continuance. She
thought that was staff's recommendation. Chairperson Jonathan thought he
did and certainly in his letter he expressed it. Commissioner Finerty agreed
that he did in his letter, but that night he didn't request a continuance.
Commissioner Beaty thought the applicant was expecting a continuance which
he may not have been entitled to do, but he thought that was the expectation.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
Commissioner Finerty said that in a sense it reminded her of the Walgreen's
issue at city council where they thought they had denied it but hadn't taken
a formal action and that was where the commission was right now.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she knew where she stood. Commissioner
Beaty said that he felt the applicant was entitled to some time to consider and
if necessary amend the project to address the concerns offered at that
evening. He thought the commission might be shirking their responsibility to
just pass it to council. He thought those residents were entitled to listen to
the applicant and more fully explore the issue. All the decisions were based
on emotional testimony and he didn't think it was correct. Chairperson
Jonathan asked what course of action he recommended at this point.
Commissioner Beaty was in favor of denying the motion to deny the project
and renoticing everyone and having another public hearing. He didn't think
that the applicant had a sense of urgency that the commission would have to
bypass that responsibility and send it to council and it might give the residents
more time to more clearly evaluate the project. Chairperson Jonathan asked
what would happen if the commission failed to take action on the motion of
denial and there were no other motions that passed. Mr. Drell said the
commission had to act to send it to council, otherwise there was nothing for
the applicant to appeal so he would be left in limbo. Mr. Hargreaves stated
that no action was a denial of the application. Commissioner Beaty noted that
at this point in time the commission denied the motion to deny.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Beaty to renotice the issue and schedule
another public hearing and notice everyone who testified at the March 2
hearing. Mr. Drell clarified that it would be an amended application.
Commissioner Finerty said the motion was to approve the resolution and that
motion failed. Commissioner Beaty concurred and explained he was placing
a new motion on the floor. His new motion stated renotice as legally directed
and everyone else who testified that evening and reschedule the public hearing
to allow the applicant to address the commission. Chairperson Jonathan
asked for a second to the motion. Commissioner Campbell seconded.
Chairperson Jonathan asked for discussion on that motion. Commissioner
Finerty said she was extremely uncomfortable. They told the crowd how they
felt and Chairperson Jonathan even addressed the issue of if the applicant did
everything they wanted if it would make a difference. He felt it was unlikely.
She thought that it would be fruitless to continue and she could not imagine
how, no matter what the applicant came up with, that would change minds.
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
She thought they were going to infuriate the public because they were led to
believe that it was denied at this level although they understood it could be
appealed to the city council and she felt that it would be going in the wrong
direction and was clearly misleading because it was not stated to them two
weeks ago that the commission could change their minds tonight. It was told
to them that this was just a formality and she was very uncomfortable with
that. She would be more comfortable with denying it and letting the
commissioners that were having second thoughts state so in the minutes that
they were uncomfortable and the reasons why and maybe they should have
allowed the applicant to come back and to continue it, but ultimately she
thought this was going to the city council and that was where it needed to go
and the commission needed to keep their word. Commissioner Campbell
commented that tonight's meeting wasn't a public hearing so even if anyone
was present they wouldn't have been able to speak. Commissioner Beaty
noted that the commission's comments were being recorded and would be
forwarded to council so these comments including Commissioner Finerty's
were on record. Commissioner Lopez asked if they denied the application this
evening if that gave the applicant an opportunity now to appeal to the city
council. Mr. Drell concurred, but indicated that the commission had not
approved the resolution to deny. Right now there was nothing to appeal since
no action had been taken. Until there was an approval of an action with an
affirmative three votes, no action had occurred. A failed motion was not an
action. Chairperson Jonathan said the motion to deny the application had not
yet passed, therefore, they had not denied the application and there wasn't
anything that was appealable. If the present motion passed, then the applicant
wouldn't appeal because commission would just be reopening the public
hearing. What they were saying was until the commission said either yea or
nay in the form of a resolution, then neither the applicant nor residents had a
basis for appealing. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he was really on the
fence as he shared all of the concerns. Commissioner Campbell pointed out
that with the Portofino project there were people from Casablanca against the
project. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he didn't have a problem going
against the wishes of 200 or 300 or 1 ,000 people. He voted his conscience
and he didn't have a problem with that. That was the beauty of sitting in the
commission's position. They didn't have to worry about votes or anything
else. They just had to vote individually and as a commission as to what was
right. He also felt the process worked. He didn't have a problem procedurally
in terms of not approving the resolution of denial because he thought that was
why the process was there and if they didn't approve it there would be
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
another public hearing; it just postponed it but there was still adequate
opportunity. He thought there was some expectation to be sure that tonight
was a formality in terms of approving or formalizing the denial, but if that
should not come to be tonight, then if the residents were interested enough
they would come back. He was really on the fence on this one.
Commissioner Beaty said he should find out which way he would fall and then
call for the vote. Chairperson Jonathan agreed and asked for any other
discussion. There wasn't any. He reiterated that the motion was to continue
the process with reopening the public hearing and giving the applicant an
opportunity to make a presentation, give the residents an opportunity to
respond, and continue the process. He asked for the vote. The motion failed
on a 2-3 vote (Chairperson Jonathan and Commissioners Finerty and Lopez
voted no).
Chairperson Jonathan noted that at this point the commission had not taken
any action on the application. Mr. Drell said they were back to a minute
motion to refer it to council with comment with the explanation that for the
sake of consideration for the expectations of the residents and the expediency
of the process they would be forwarding it to council with comments of the
individual planning commissioners and an explanation of how they got there.
Staff would try to explain the unique circumstances with which this thing
happened. He said they had to realize that the residents had to take time out
of their lives to come to the meetings and asked if they should have the
obligation to come to another one and then another one--he didn't know. That
could be the possible process. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the resolution
of denial had been approved then the matter would only have gone to council
if the matter was appealed or if the council chose to call it up. Mr. Drell
concurred. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that they do exactly as Mr. Drell
described and that was to send the matter to council simply with an
explanation that as a body the commission was torn between complying with
the indications at the last meeting that there would simply be the formality of
approval with regards to the resolution of denial and on the other hand the
desire to give the applicant an opportunity to more fully address the concerns
expressed by the residents. As a body the commission was torn and was
sending it to council for its consideration of this matter and if the council
wished the commission to reopen the public hearing, they would be pleased
to do so. If it wished the commission to prepare a resolution of denial they
would consider that as well. If they wanted to send it back to commission,
fine. If they wanted to handle it, fine. Mr. Drell asked the City Attorney if
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
that was an appealable action by the applicant. Commissioner Finerty
incumbent
asked
if it would be simpler to adopt the resolution and then it would
bupon the council to call it up or the developer to appeal and then they would
still be accomplishing the same thing but the comments of the other
commissioners would go with it but at least they would have taken an action
and done something. Mr. Hargreaves said that if the commission was unable
to reach a decision one way or the other, it basically was a decision which
was in effect a denial without a recommendation and then the developer could
appeal it. Mr. Drell said such an action of a no decision and a referral could be
kind of appealed and if that was the case and the applicant's preference, they
could act on that appeal and schedule it for public hearing before the council.
Mr. Hargreaves said it was basically a non decision but if the commission
refused to act, in effect it was a denial without the required findings but the
applicant would then have the ability to appeal. Mr. Drell said that staff would
explain the unique circumstances which led them here. Commissioner Beaty
noted that all of the commission's comments were on record and didn't think
that Mr. Drell would need to attempt to explain since council could read the
minutes. Mr. Drell said he would still attempt to summarize in the staff report
how it got to this point. He thought council would sympathize with the
circumstances that got them to this point. Chairperson Jonathan thought
where they were heading was a minute motion sending the matter to council
in consideration of all the comments that had been made. Mr. Hargreaves
suggested a minute motion that said that the commission refused to make a
decision based on the record before it and suggested that the matter be
referred to council for further proceedings. Chairperson Jonathan suggested
that instead of saying refused, that the motion reflect that th
e commission
deliberated exhaustively and was unable to reach a consensus resulting in an
action. Mr. Hargreaves also suggested the wording respectfully declines.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to make that a motion.
Chairperson Jonathan said he would move for that since it would move the
item to council in a neutral way.
Action:
It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, by minute motion, to refer the matter
to city council for further proceedings because of the commission's inability
to reach a consensus based on the record before it. Chairperson Jonathan
asked for a second to the motion. There wasn't one and the motion failed due
to the lack of a second.
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan said they could just move on then since there was no
action, not even a recommendation to send it to council. He didn't have any
idea what that did to the process, but he guessed it would give the applicant
enough opportunity to appeal since there was no approval. Mr. Hargreaves
said it was effectively a denial and the applicant could appeal it.
Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant could appeal with no resolution.
Mr. Hargreaves said yes, because the alternative would be to have it forever
locked up at the commission level. Mr. Drell concurred that if the commission
couldn't approve a resolution or minute motion that was no action. If this
happened at city council it would be a real problem since they were the end
of the line, but Planning Commission was not the final decision maker. Mr.
Drell said this was where the explanation of how it happened and the
dynamics of how it happened would be needed. Since it was going to get to
the council anyway, an issue of this controversy was liable to get to the
council in any case. This kind of shortened the decision making process and
took it to a level that it would ultimately get to anyway. Chairperson Jonathan
asked if the applicant appealed if the council could send it back to the
commission. Mr. Drell said that if the council saw a plan which was
substantially different and it wanted the planning commission's input, it could
always get it. Mr. Hargreaves said that even if the plan wasn't substantially
different if the council looked at the same plan and was upset that the
commission didn't act on it council could send it back here and insist the
commission act on it. Chairperson Jonathan said he would like to move for
approval of the resolution of denial with an explanation to council that in the
event that the applicant appealed and presented a substantively different plan
with redeeming qualities, that the commission would welcome the opportunity
to revisit the application. Commissioner Beaty asked if the commission could
vote a second time on the same motion. Mr. Hargreaves advised that there
be a motion to reconsider, made by one of the persons who voted in the
majority the first time. Chairperson Jonathan said that since he was in the
majority that denied the motion to approve the resolution he would move to
reconsider the motion for adoption of the resolution of denial.
Action:
It was moved by Chairperson Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty to
reconsider adoption of the resolution of denial by minute motion. Motion
carried 3-2 (Commissioners Beaty and Campbell voted no.)
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 16, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan stated that he would now move for adoption of the
resolution of denial with an explanation to council that if the applicant
appealed and if the applicant presented a substantively different plan-solution,
that the commission would welcome the opportunity to revisit the application.
Commissioner Finerty noted that would be adoption of Resolution No. 1917
and she would amend the motion that it would be up to council to send it back
to the commission at their discretion. Chairperson Jonathan concurred.
Commissioner Finerty seconded the motion. Chairperson Jonathan asked for
discussion. There was no further discussion and he called for the vote. The
motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Campbell voted no, Commissioner Beaty
abstained).
Chairperson Jonathan thanked Commissioner Beaty for bringing forth his
concerns. He also obviously had conflicting feelings and thoughts and was
glad that the discussion took place.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. CIVIC CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE - (No meeting)
B. DESERT WILLOW COMMITTEE - (March 1 6, 1 999)
Commissioner Finerty noted that the meeting was primarily
informational and they discussed the Art and Leisure Trail; the
clubhouse was scheduled to open on October 4; there was a bus shelter
update and a little bit of signage discussion.
C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE - (March 1 5, 1999)
Commissioner Finerty stated that an item that would be becoming
before the commission on April 20 would be the Palm Desert Country
Club neighborhood park. The map included basketball and volleyball
and it looked like it would be a nice park. They also came up with a
landscaping plan for Hovley Lane and Fred Waring which they were
delighted to see to go in concert with the eight foot walls that were
going to be erected. There was a brief discussion that Washington
Street would be increased to three lanes in each direction with a 14-
foot median similar to La Quinta and they anticipated that to be
23
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission —
DATE: March 2, 1999
CASE NO: PP/CUP 99-2
REQUEST: Approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit for a 60-bed single
story senior assisted living complex and Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact as it relates thereto on 3.77 acres at the
southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane, 73-055 Hovley
Lane.
APPLICANTS: Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262
The Damone Group, LLC
7599 E. Pleasant Run
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
BACKGROUND:
A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The vacant site consists of sand dunes along the east side and slopes
downward from Hovley Lane to the south end of the lot some 13 + feet. The
site is bordered on the north and west with fully improved streets and
sidewalks. Along the south is a tall (20-25 feet high) row of tamarisk trees.
Along the east is a row of 10 single story (16 feet tall) single family dwellings.
B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: PR-5/single family dwellings
South: PR-5/Monterey Country Club and CVWD well site
East: PR-5/single family dwellings
West: Rancho Mirage/vacant
C. SITE ZONING AND SIZE:
The property is a 3.77 acre site at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue
and Hovley Lane and has 277 feet of frontage on Hovley and 616 feet along
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
Monterey. The site is zoned PR-5, planned residential five units per acre. The
Zoning Ordinance at Section 25.24.025 C (copy enclosed) permits
institutional facilities" to subjectapproval of a conditional use permit.
pp
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant seeks approval of a 60-bed senior assisted living facility to serve
persons with Alzheimer's Disease and other memory impairments in a homelike
environment.
The facility provides resident bedrooms which each contain a closet and separate
bathroom (toilet and sink). Common areas provide among other facilities:
1 . A sweet shop
2. A beauty-barber shop
3. Two dining rooms
4. Libraries (2)
5. TV lounges (2)
The facility also provides two interior courtyards and enclosed patio areas.
A. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION:
The single story complex takes access from Hovley Lane with an entry
driveway aligned with Glenwood Lane to the north. The two-way entry
driveway extends southerly and around the west side of the building to a 20-
space parking lot. Two other smaller parking lots (two spaces and four spaces
respectively) are located adjacent to the driveway west of the building.
B. PARKING:
As noted above three parking areas are delineated with a total of 26 parking
spaces. The code requires a minimum of one parking space for every four
beds (i.e., minimum of 15 parking spaces required).
C. ARCHITECTURE AND HEIGHT:
The building has been designed to resemble an upscale home with six wings.
Each wing houses seven to eight bedrooms. The building design includes a
2
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
ser
ies of hip roof sections to lower the building appearance. The main
building, while it is single story, has a ridge height of 20 feet and a tower
element facing Monterey Avenue which is 30 feet. Tower elements
comprising less than 10% of the floor area may be as much as 25 feet above
the zone district maximum (i.e., 24 feet plus 25 feet = 49 feet) (Municipal
Code 25.56.300 B). This tower qualifies under that provision.
The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval to the
building architecture subject to landscape plan modifications to increase
landscaping density along Monterey Avenue and adjacent to the single family
dwellings to the east.
D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
TYPICAL SINGLE
PROJECT ORDINANCE FAMILY DWELLING
Building Height 20 feet-1 story 24 feet-2 stories 24 feet-1 story
30 foot tower 49 foot tower* 24 feet-2 stories
Front Setback (Hovley) 160 feet 20 feet 20 feet
Street Side Yard (Monterey) 46 feet*** 32 feet 15 feet
Side Yard Setback 20 feet ** 5 feet
Rear Setback (South) 135 feet ** 15 feet
Parking Spaces 26 15 2 covered spaces
Maximum Coverage 19% 40% 30% (2,400 square
foot home on 8,000
square foot lot)
* Tower elements comprising less than 10% of the building area may be as high
as 49 feet
** Unspecified: "shall be approved on the development plan" Code Section
25.24.250 A
*** Arterial street setback requirement
III. ANALYSIS:
The plan as submitted complies with all requirements of the Municipal Code. The
facility will be owned and operated by Alternative Living Services which is the
nation's largest and most experienced provider of assisted living services. ALS caters
to the needs of frail older adults with memory impairment.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
The applicant indicates that market research concludes that this segment of the elder
care market is under served in Palm Desert.
A residential care facility is a permitted conditional use in the PR zone (institutional
facilities). This is consistent with such other uses as churches and public and private
schools. Generally these uses are located on the edge of residential areas and they
serve as a buffer for single family residential units.
This proposed facility meets all of these criteria and is generally well designed and
laid out. Notwithstanding staff has concerns with the location of the main parking
lot, the closeness of the building to the residential units to the east and the height of
the building relative to the residences to the east.
The main parking lot is currently located at the south end of the site and provides 20
spaces. Staff would prefer that these spaces be dispersed throughout the site
generally on the west side of the site.
The building has been designed to be residential in character; however, it is 31 ,000
square feet under one roof. We are not comfortable locating the wings of these
buildings 20 feet from the east property line. It is true that a row of residential
dwellings could be as close as 20 feet to this property line but such dwellings would
have required side yards between the units which would increase the open feeling.
As a result staff is suggesting that the building be moved westerly on the site to
provide a minimum east setback of 30 feet.
The height of the building as designed complies with the ordinance, however, the
proposed site grading could result in excessive impact to residences at the south end
of Avenida Calafia. The site drops from Hovley to its south end from an elevation of
217 to 204. The applicant proposed to establish the finished floor at 211 . This
means that the finished floor will be several feet below the residences at the north
end of Avenida Calafia, level with the middle of Avenida Calafia and as much as 3
feet above the dwellings at the south end of Avenida Calafia. If this site were
developed with a row of single family units, the pad heights would generally mirror
the existing adjacent pad heights to the east. Therefore staff is suggesting that the
finished floor of the proposed building be lowered so that no point of the finished
floor is above the finished floor of the adjacent residential units to the east. This
could be accomplished by lowering the entire pad to 209 or by stepping the building.
4
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
We feel that these modifications would make a good project even better and reduce
the impacts on the neighbors.
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS:
As of the writing of this report on February 24, 1999, staff had written
correspondence (copies enclosed) from 13 area residents. Five persons visited the
department to review the plans and talked with staff.
Concerns expressed by residents of the area are wide ranging and include:
1 . The project is an inappropriate use in this zone resulting in negative
economic impact on the single family homes.
Response:
The proposed use is a conditionally permitted use in the PR zone. The
process permits the city to impose appropriate conditions on the design
and operation of the project to mitigate identified impacts on nearby
properties. This use should not be relegated to an industrial, commercial
or office zone.
The project has been designed with large landscaped areas and
generous street setbacks which will present an attractive entry to
Hovley Lane and the building will help to buffer the residences to the
east from noise generated by traffic on Monterey. The vacant lot
provides no buffer.
The facility has been designed as one story to maintain a residential
scale and will be maintained at a very high level. All of these factors
should result in a positive economic impact.
2. Security. Neighborhood residents expressed concern that residents of
the facility will wander off and become a danger to themselves and to
traffic in the area.
Response:
The applicant advises that the facility will include a state of the art
security system within the building perimeter. The building also
includes two courtyard areas and two fenced exterior gardening areas
5
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
immediately adjacent to the building (sole access from within the
building).
The perimeter of the site will be enclosed by a six foot tall wall system
(wrought iron). The residents of this facility will be frail elderly persons
so the six foot wall system will be adequate. The access driveways will
be gated.
3. Lack of legal notice. Residents expressed concern that the legal notices
were not distributed to a wide enough area.
Response:
Legal notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the
perimeter of the subject site pursuant to Municipal Code Section
25.86.010 C. A total of 108 notices were mailed.
Correspondence concerning this item has been received from residents
well beyond 300 feet (2,000 feet).
4. Residents expressed concern that employees and visitors to the facility
will park in front of their homes.
Response:
The plan provides for on-site parking well in excess of the code
requirement (26 spaces versus 15 required). The applicant indicates
that the maximum number of employees at one time will be 15
(weekdays during the day). Other shifts and weekends will be 9-10
employees. This means that when all 15 employees are present there
will be 11 spaces available for visitors. On weekends there will be 1 5-
16 spaces available for visitors. The residents of this facility do not
have access to vehicles.
5. Existing traffic problems in the immediate area will be exacerbated by
additional traffic created by this use.
Response:
The Public Works Department advises that a traffic light will be installed
at the Monterey/Hovley intersection and be operational by Labor Day.
This should improve the existing traffic condition. As well, Southwest
6
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
Community Church will be relocating in the future which should lessen
traffic congestion in the area. This project will create more traffic than
the existing vacant lot. As is discussed more fully in the CEQA portion
of this report, according to the ITE Trip Generation Manual this use will
generate 51 fewer trips per day than a 19 lot residential tract map (19
dwellings @ 10.1 trips per day = 192 trips versus project with 35
employees/day x 4.03 trips/day = 141 trips).
6. Noise problems from ambulances, fire trucks, visitors and employees
cars, delivery vehicles and trash trucks.
Response:
This facility will have fewer service vehicles over the course of a week
than would a 19 lot tract development (i.e., Federal Express, UPS, pool
service, security firms, U.S. Post Office, cleaning personnel, yard
maintenance crews, moving vans, furniture store deliveries and persons
operating home based businesses generate significant traffic in
residential areas).
Trash collection could pose a problem it were collected in the very early
morning. A condition will be imposed that will limit trash collection to
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays.
Staff was concerned that visitors and employees vehicles and
conversations could be heard from the south (main) parking lot. We
have requested that that parking lot be eliminated and those 20 spaces
be dispersed throughout the west side of the property further away
from the residents. There is ample room to accomplish this.
With respect to ambulance and fire truck sirens the applicant indicates
that this is a concern of the operator also because the sirens tend to
disturb the residents.
The city and the operator will request the cooperation of the Fire
Department to minimize use of sirens when passing this project and in
particular when responding into this project.
Delivery vehicles to this site will be limited to size consistent with those
permitted in residential districts pursuant to Title 10 of the Municipal
7
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
Code (i.e., vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000
pounds).
Delivery hours will be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
7. Health concerns relating to trash collection.
Response:
The applicant will be required to provide adequate timely trash collection
and will be subject to Health Department regulations and inspections.
8. Air pollution concerns with respect to diesel vehicles making deliveries.
Response:
The project will be conditioned that all diesel delivery vehicles to the site
be built after 1974.
9. At the meeting held by the proponent February 25, 1999, people
expressed concern that air conditioning equipment be adequately
screened and not create a noise problem.
Response:
City code requires that all roof mounted equipment be screened from
view. In this project the roof mounted equipment is to be located
within wells on the roof of the building. Those wells are located behind
the main roof structures and the tower element. The screen walls will
be of sufficient height to screen the units. The working drawings will
be examined for complete compliance with this requirement.
These equipment walls are located in excess of 80 feet from the east
property line. The screen walls and roof structures will tend to deflect
noise upward. This coupled with the distance from the property will
assure that noise from air conditioning equipment will not be an impact.
10. Concern was expressed that residents or visitors may peer over the
existing property line wall.
8
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
Response:
The existing wall is six feet tall masonry. The residents of the facility
are frail elderly people who are only permitted outside when
accompanied by an aide. If there is a concern that visitors might climb
over or peer over the wall, we could require that the applicant plant
pyracantha along the west side of the wall. This should preclude this
activity.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Director of Community Development has determined that this project will not
have a significant negative impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration will
be prepared.
Traffic projections show that the project will generate fewer ADT than a 1 9-lot
subdivision. Incremental impacts to the regional circulation system will be mitigated
through payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The project
is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan and will be assessed the $600 per acre to mitigate destruction of
dune habitat.
The site may contain other dune species which are of statewide concern (i.e.,
Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A multi species habitat conservation plan is being
re ared byCVAG which will es
tablish p preserves and conservation practices to insure
the future survival of these dune species.
To assist in this process, the project shall contribute $1 ,000 to CVAG to be directed
to MSHCP funding.
VI. CONCLUSION:
The modifications suggested by staff to relocate the parking, lower the finished floor
and move the building 10 feet to the west are significant.
Staff is recommending that this item be continued to permit the applicant to make
the requested changes to the site plan and continue to work with the area residents
to allay their fears about this type of use.
9
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
MARCH 2, 1999
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
By minute motion continue PP/CUP 99-2 to a date certain.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal Notice
B. Correspondence
C. Environmental Documentation
D. Plans and Exhibits
D. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by )
t ve Smith
Reviewed and Approved b
Phil Drell
/tm
10
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title:
Alternative Living Services Inc.
The Damone Group, LLC
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:
Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager
Department of Community Development
(760) 346-061 1 ext. 486
4. Project Location:
3.77 acres at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane, Palm
Desert, CA, Riverside County
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
The Damone Group, LLC
7599 E. Pleasant Run
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
6. General Plan Designation:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
PR-5 Planned Residential five units per acre
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 sheetls► if necessary.)
City of Palm Desert approval of a conditional use permit for a 60-bed senior
assisted living complex serving residents affected by Alzheimer's disease and
other memory impairments.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS
EAST: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
WEST: VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND
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"
F ENVIRONMENTA
L FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
f
if
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that
is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services
Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities and Service Systems
❑ Population and Hou g �
❑ Geological Problems 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
❑ Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance u:
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 th;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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL ❑
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect
1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a
"potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 9
Si Date
.viA
• Printed Name For
CITY/1997/139904
FORM "J'
Page 2 of 12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if
the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.
the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed
in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 4
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be
attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
• Impact Incorporated Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑
souRCE(s): , tit
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ a
souRCE(s): ( , 2
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑
souRCE(s): t , . .
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 3 of 12
Potentially
Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 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): , a ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority
community)? soURCE(S): I t ❑ ❑ ❑
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections? SOURCE(S): I l 0 0 ❑
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): 1213
❑ ❑ ❑ bcY
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑
soURCE(s): 3 , y
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? SOURCE(S): I / g ❑ ❑ ❑ '
b) Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(s): I 0 ❑ kff ❑
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? SOURCE(S): L 20 0 0
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(S): I , 2, ❑ 0 0
e) Landslides or mudflows? SOURCE(s): / 0 0 0 0
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading, or fill? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): I 0
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 4 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
g) Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S): b ❑ ❑ 0
h) Expansive soils? SOURCE(S): r v ❑ ❑ ❑i) Unique geologic or physical features? SOURCE(S): 1 , 2 ❑ ❑ ❑
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, dt*ainage 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): (U / ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? SoURCE(S): 10 D D 0
•
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? SOURCE(S): j 12 / q ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? SOURCE(S): t 1 ID ❑ ❑ ❑
•
f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations_or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability? SOURCE(s):
❑ ❑ ❑
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 Impact
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? SOURCE(S): /(
❑ 0 ❑
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): 17 ❑ ❑ ❑
.
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? SOURCE(S);t7 ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? SOURCE(s): ❑ ❑ ❑
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// ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)? SOURCE(S): 3 ❑ 0 ❑
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1s-
• soURCE(s):• 1
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): ( 1
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑
SOURCE(S): t a
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): I /
oZ i 3 O O
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? SOURCE(S): 1,3 � ❑ 0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rar4 species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plaits, fish, insects, animals,
and birds)? soURCE(S): (6 a ❑ ❑
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
soURCE(s): 2 / 5 r
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(S): /l �
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? 0
soURCE(s): I /p 13 .
e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? soURCE(s): 7 a a �
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 0 Cl
soURCE(s):
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? soURCE(s): 4_ �. a D ❑
CITY/I997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 7 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? SOURCE(S):
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? souRCE(s): 1 , 2_ ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(S): 1 2 ❑ ❑ ❑
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? sOURCE(S): 1 , 2 ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? SOURCE(S): , 3 0 ❑ ❑
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? SOURCE(S): a / 3 ❑ ❑ ❑
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(S): I� 2 ❑ 0 0
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? SOURCE(S): 13 ❑ ❑ ❑
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): /JI ❑ 0 ❑
CITY/I997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 8 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: st Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Police protection ? SOURCE(S): 11
0 0 0
c) Schools? SOURCE(S): �- 0 0 0 S
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ 0 0 K
SOURCE(S): („
e) Other governmental services? SOURCE(s): r1. ❑ 0 N. 0
1.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
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 9. 0 ❑ ❑ '
b) Communications systems? SOURCE(S): .1 , [3 ❑ ❑ 0 K
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? SOURCE(S): i i
d) Sewer or septic tanks? SOURCE(s): [I ❑ ❑ 0
21
e) Storm water drainage? SOURCE(s): Ci I 1D ❑ ❑ 0 ❑
f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S): I ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Local or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S): L' ❑ ❑ ❑
• XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S): (, 2,3 0 0 0 14'
CTTY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 9 of 12
Potentially
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant
, Potentially Unless Lcss Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
souRCE(s): 2 D D D
c) Create light or glare? SOURCE(S): 2 D D �
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Po ro sal:
P
a) Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(S): 5 D D D
b) Disturb archaeological resourLes? SOURCE(S): 5 D D D
c) Affect historical resources? SOURCE(S): 5-
0 D
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which r
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? D D D
souRCE(s): 5
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? SOURCE(S): JR-
s D D D
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities? D 0 D ,�
• SOURCE(S): .2
•
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D 0 D
• souRCE(s):
•
CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J"
Page 10 of 12
XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative
Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this case a discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
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
P q Y Y
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.
The property is in the fee area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard.
Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan
the developer has been conditioned to pay a mitigation fee of $600 per acre.
This mitigation is specific to this 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 No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
proceeds of California history or prehistory?
❑ ❑ 1 ❑
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? F
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.)
❑ 0 0 Z
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Y
CITY/I997/139904
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
1 1 . 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
16. Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed lizard Conservation Plan
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION
MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The site is zoned PR-5 (planned residential five dwelling units per acre). The project
will not alter the developed and proposed land use in the area. The planned land use
is residential; a senior assisted living complex is a permitted conditional use in the PR-
5 zone.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a. The project is a 60-bed senior assisted living complex on 3.77 acres. The PR-
5 zoning would permit up to 19 single family dwellings with an average
occupancy of 2.25 persons per unit for a total of 43 persons. This is within
an acceptable range and will not negatively impact local population projections.
b. The property is surrounded on the north, south and east with developed
residential units. The project is an acceptable infill project adjacent to existing
residential units.
c. The site is currently vacant. The site is not designated for affordable housing.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
a. Project is not in a fault rupture zone.
b. The project will result in grading. Such grading will not result in any
alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading
will not create unstable earth conditions.
As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-
covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved
grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural
developments which will take place on the site.
The site is relatively flat but does slope from north to south and changes in
topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage to
accommodate the project design and avoid increased runoff to adjoining
properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff
from the property to adjoining properties and better direction.
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features.
The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to
the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff
from the site.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must
be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed
within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and
occupancies being developed.
IV. WATER
a. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the
landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material. The
alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as
it is directed in a controlled manner.
b. The FEMA flood zone maps designate this site zone "C" (minimal flood zone).
c. There is no surface water on the site.
d. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to
accept the water from the site.
e. There is no ground water present on the site.
f. The project will use water. The Coachella Valley Water District has indicated
sufficient water is available to serve the impact
project.
This will not im
projectp
on groundwater recharge capability.
g. See e.
h. See f.
2
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the
amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley
Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate
this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct
additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and
future development.
V. AIR QUALITY
a & b.
During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short
term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which
grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm
Desert Grading Ordinance.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result
in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported
by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a draft environmental
impact report prepared for the North Sphere Specific Plan. Completed
development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently
occurs with the site's vacant condition.
c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due
to its size and identified uses.
d. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The project will generate additional vehicular movements. The existing 3.77
acre site could be developed with up to 19 single family dwellings and would
be expected to create 192 trips per day per ITE Trip Generation Manual. The
ITE Trip Generation Manual category for this project is "nursing home" and 18
studies were used to determine the trip generation rate of 4.03 trips per
employee on weekdays, 3.39 trips per employee on Saturdays and 3.72 trips
per employee on Sundays.
The applicant indicates that total employees over three shifts on a weekday
will be 35 persons for a total of 141 trips. While there will be fewer
3
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
employees on site on Saturdays and Sundays, this reduction will be offset by
visitors.
This project will generate less traffic than a 19 unit single family residential
development.
The Public Works Department advises that in the near future the
Monterey/Hovley intersection will be signalized which will improve traffic flow
in the area. Also, Southwest Community Church which is located on the
south side of Hovley east of the subject site and is a major traffic contributor
will be leaving this site in the near future in favor of its new location at Fred
Waring Drive and Washington Street. While another church use can be
expected to replace Southwest Community Church it is expected that any
replacement will generate less traffic.
b. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and
the project will not include incompatible uses.
c. The project will take access from Hovley Lane. Emergency access will be
provided from Monterey Avenue at the south end of the property.
d. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied
by the project on site in compliance with city code.
e. Off street sidewalks exist on Hovley and Monterey and provide for pedestrians
and bicyclists. Street improvements (traffic signal installation) will reduce
traffic hazards to motor vehicles.
f. Project will be conditioned to make land available for future bus turnouts and
will provide onsite bicycle racks.
g. Project will not impact rail, waterborne or air traffic.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard. This project will eliminate all fringe-toed lizards within the project
boundaries. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan the loss of lizards and habitat can be mitigated by payment
of a $600 per acre fee for each acre developed. Project will be conditioned to
4
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
pay said fee. Mitigation fee will be used by Nature Conservancy to purchase
land in special preserves. The Coachella Valley Preserves which will create
suitable habitat for lizards as well as other species.
The site may contain other dune species which are of statewide concern (i.e.,
Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A multi species habitat conservation plan is
being prepared by CVAG which will establish preserves and conservation
practices to insure the future survival of these dune species.
To assist in this process, the project shall contribute S1 ,000 to CVAG to be
directed to MSHCP funding.
b. No locally designated species.
c. No locally designated species.
d. No wetland habitat.
e. See a above. The dune species of concern are not migratory in nature. The
site has been designated for development with mitigation fees within the
Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a. The project will comply with adopted energy conservation plans.
b. Project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes
energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature.
c. Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of this state.
IX. HAZARDS
a. The project does not include any substances that could result in explosion or
escape of hazardous materials.
b. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or evacuation plan.
c. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards.
5
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
d. Project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards.
e. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or
trees.
X. NOISE
a & b.
Construction and subsequent operation of an assisted living complex will
increase ambient noise level. The increase is not expected to create an
annoyance to adjacent residential properties. All uses on the site will be
required to comply with the city noise ordinance.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Noise to be
mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded.
Xl. PUBLIC SERVICES
a, b, d, e.
The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment
to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been
developed, and the general plan and zoning is designated for residential
development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., storm channel, streets,
utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The proposed land use would increase the economic productivity of the land
in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these
uses, versus the current state of the land.
The project will result in a net increase in fiscal flow to the City of Palm
Desert. The property is currently assessed at $11 ,733.00. The property will
be reassessed based on the improvements currently estimated in excess of $7
million. The City's portion of the taxes will increase accordingly.
c. SCHOOLS
An assisted living complex serving Alzheimer's patients and persons with other
memory impairments should have minimal impact on schools.
6
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP/CUP 99-2
The project will be conditioned to pay appropriate school mitigation fees for
this type of residential land use.
XII. UTILITI
ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a-g. All service providers have indicated the ability to serve the site.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a & b.
The site has a scenic vista to the mountains to the west. Monterey Avenue
is not a scenic highway.
The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive due
to blow sand problems. The proposed development must be approved by the
Palm Desert Architectural Commission.
c. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting
spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per
Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-e.
The cultural resource study performed as part of the North Sphere Specific
Plan found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance
on this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found
during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared.
XV. RECREATION
a & b.
The project is an assisted living complex. No impacts are expected on existing
recreational facilities.
7
( ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
MINUTES
4. CASE NO.: PP/CUP 99-2
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES for
THE DAMONE GROUP, LLC, 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301,
Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of
architecture for a 52-bed senior assisted living complex on 3.77 acres
LOCATION: Southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane
ZONE: PR-5
Mr. Smith reported that the applicant seeks approval of a single-story, 60-
bed assisted living complex at the southeast corner of Monterey Avenue and
Hovley Lane. The site is 3.77 acres and slopes from north to south. The
grade change is 10± feet. The surrounding land uses include single-family
residential to the north, a CVWD well site to the south, single-family
residential to the east, and vacant land to the west.
The project takes access from Hovley Lane. The-entry aligns with Glenwood
Lane to the north. An emergency access driveway is provided from
Monterey at the south end of the site.
A two-way, 24-foot wide driveway extends from Hovley Lane around the west
side of the building to a 20-space parking lot. Two other smaller parking
areas provide six more spaces for a total of 26 parking spaces on site.
The single-story building has been designed to resemble an upscale home
with six wings. Each wing houses seven to eight resident bedrooms. The
building includes a series of hip roof sections to lower the building
appearance. This is combined with an entry tower element facing Monterey
Avenue. The main building, while it is single-story, has a total height of 19
feet while the tower element facing Monterey Avenue is 28 feet. While the
maximum height in the PR zone is limited to 24 feet, tower elements
comprising less than 10% of the building area may exceed the height limit.
This tower qualifies under that provision.
7
4 ® SUBJECT TO
REVISION
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
MINUTES
Staff recommends that the Commission grant preliminary approval.
Commissioner Holden asked about the rear setback, to which Mr. Smith
replied that it is 20 feet from the existing residences.
Commissioner Holden asked about the maximum height of the tower, to
which Mr. Smith responded by indicating 28 feet, and added that the
maximum height of the ridge line is 19 feet.
Marvin Roos noted that the site slopes 13 feet from north to south.
Commissioner Van Vliet asked what type of windows will be used, to which
Steve Alexander, the project architect, replied that double hung vinyl
windows will be used.
Commissioner Van Vliet expressed concern about the height and
architecture of the tower.
Mr. Smith asked if the developer has met with the neighbors, to which Mr.
Roos responded negatively, but added that a meeting will take place with the
neighbors prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Action:
Commissioner Holden moved, seconded by Commissioner Urrutia, to grant
preliminary approval for a 60-bed senior assisted living complex with
direction to include heavy landscaping along Monterey and between the
adjacent single-family residences. The motion carried 4-1, with
Commissioner Van Vliet dissenting.
:.t
8
DR ,„..). FT SUBJECT TO
® REVISION
a
0
O 25.56.280
A.
'' percent of the buildable area provided that the total building B. Other Residential Areas.The receiver shall not be
coverage allowed by the zone is not exceeded. visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a
C. No accessory building shall be located closer than required front setback,or any other required setback except
•
ten feet to any main building nor shall it be located closer a rear setback with no portion of receiver located within
w than five feet to any side or rear lot line. (Ord- 128 § 7 five feet of a property line.Height from existine or finish
. (part), 1976: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § adjacent grade,whichever is less,shall not exceed fourteen
25.32-7.07(8)) feet if within twenty feet of a property line or eighteen
• feet otherwise.
2556.290 Projections over public property in C. Commercial and Industrial Areas. Architectural
commercial zones. commission approval for design and screening is required
4 Building projections into public rights-of-way in comma- if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent proper-
. zones shall be regulated by the currently adopted ty.The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are
Uniform Building Code.(Ord.98§ 1 (part), 1975:Exhibit the location,type(solid or mesh),color and screening.(Ord.
+ A § 25.32-7.08) 338 (part), 1983)
2556300 The height of a structure. 2556302 Sale of alcoholic beverages in
I A. It shall be measured vertically from the average commercial zones.
elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the In all commercial zones a conditional use permit must
structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be be obtained for convenience stores, liquor stores and
f measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of establishments with on-site consumption of alcoholic
a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from beverages.
the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. A convenience store is defined as a "grocery store used
B. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, for the retail sale of food, food products, dairy products
flagpoles,monuments,scenery lofts,radio and television and alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises."
. aerials and antennas except home satellite receivers,corn- (Ord. 468 Exhibit A, 1986)
s mercial transmission towers,fire towers and similar struc-
r cures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering 25.56310 Screening and landscaping.
. not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by A. Except as otherwise required by the provisions of
O the structure may be erected to a height of not more than this title,screening shall consist of a solid wall or fence,
0' sixty-five feet or not more than twenty-five feet above the vine-covered fence, or compact evergreen hedge. Hedge
. height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district material used as screening shall not be less than three feet
in which the site is located,whichever is less.Utility poles in height when planted and shall not be permitted to exceed
and towers shall not be subject to the height limits pm- the specified height by more than one and one-half feet.
. scribed in any district regulations. Where buffers or trees are required,they shall have a mature
C. The height limit contained in the zoning district height of not less than twenty feet apart.All screening and
i regulations of this Code and in this Section do not apply landscaping shall be permanently maintained in orderly
., to ground mounted commercial communication towers or condition by the owner. Plant material shall be watered,
building mounted commercial communication antennas. weeded, pruned, and replaced as necessary to screen or
e Height of said ground mounted commercial communication ornament the site.A permanent irrigation system shall be
. towers and/or building mounted commercial communication provided.
antennas shall be as prescribed in Section 25.104.040(G). B. In a residential district an open parking facility for
1...
s (Ord. 817 § 10, 1996; Ord. 338 (part), 1983: Ord. 98 § more than five cars or a loading area shall be screened
. 1 (part), 1975: Exhibit A § 2532-7.09) from properties in a residential district adjoining or directly
s
* across a street or alley.In a district other than a residential
s 2556301 Home satellite receivers. district an open parking facility or a loading area shall be
s
A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter screened from a residential district adjoining or directly
must conform to the following standards depending on across a street or alley.Screening shall be six feet in height,
.
s location. except that screening to protect properties across a street
A. Planned Residential Developments. Appropriate may be not less than four feet in height
association approval is required.The receiver is not to be C. In an industrial district the required front yard and
s visible from adjacent properties or a public street required side yard on the street side of a corner lot,except
Ik for the area occupied by necessary drives and walks,shall
O.
0 421 (Palm Desert 8-97)
16,
PFCEIVED
JAB! 2 6 1999
RIVERSIDE COUNTY r0i'19MUNITYOEVELOPM NT oEP R r _: i uuEognll
XT 1 of
e ES T 0*' OAFS
e.w !h FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF Ft.L�,D_DER, v' r
p;tOF\PE PROiECIio�Y
1 . IN COOPERATION WITH THE ,4
II COUNTY ,::;-4
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY -'�' t+
* - AND FIRE PROTECTION -
RIVERSIDE ..., ,.., � "�•� D
F
GLEN J.NEWMAN '«+v '.
FIRE CHIEF ` ;y':;;
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE
COVE FIRE MARSHAL I -7-6 q ci PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370
70.801 HWY 111 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183
RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270
(619) 3461870
TO: $j vt SMlNi
REF: pp 19-2.
If circled, underlined or noted, condition applies to project
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code,
NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire
Code Sec. 10 . 301C.
411 A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual
operating 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
0 potential gallon per minute flow of
3000 for commercial . The actual fire flow available
from any one hydrant connected to any given water main shall be 1500 GPM
for two hours duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure .
0 The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"
x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25' nor more than
c 4 ^7' ..- -,,.,; '1• 150' commercial from any portion
of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways .
Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel"
type.
5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants ( 6"x4"x2-
1/2"x2-1/2" ) will be required, located not less than 25' or more than
200' single family, 165' multifamily, and 150' commercial from any
portion of the building( s) as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
Delr.:
Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having
jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the
required fire flow, or arrange field inspection by the Fire Department
prior to request for final inspection.
7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall
furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the
County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued
until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief .
Upon approval , the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to
the responsible inspecting authority .
Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the
system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by
a Registered Civil Engineer and may be signed by the local water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the
water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department. " "System has been designed to provide
a minimum gallon per minute flow of 1500, 2500, 3000. "
8. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area
separations, or built-in fire protection measures such as a fully fire
sprinklered building.
9. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the
existing water mains will not meet the required fire flows. Please
check with the water company prior to obtaining an approval from the
Planning or Building Department.
10. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted
January 1 , 1990 , for all occupancies .
p id. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 . The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the
front, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved
hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more
building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs
which are sprinklered per NFPA 13 . The building area of additional
floors is added in for a cumulative total . Exempted are one and two
family dwellings.
Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building
0Code 3803 for sprinkler system. Install tamper alarms on all supply
and control valves for sprinkler systems.
414. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes
and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs approved by the
Fire Marshal .
1))4.
Install a fire alarm as required by the Uniform Building Code and/or
Uniform Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring
of sprinkler system per NFPA 71 and 72 . Alarm plans are required for
all UL central station monitored systems, systems where any interior
devices are required or used. (U.F.C. 14-103(a) )
10 A Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less
than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking
distance. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is
required for commercial kitchens.
I �
I/ ). Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a
commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fryers, grills,
charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or
smoke. NFPA 96 , 17, 17a.
17. Install a dust collecting system as per the Uniform Building Code,
Section 910a and Uniform Fire Code Section 76. 102 , if conducting an
operation that produces airborne particles. A carpenter or woodworking
shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust
collection.
0). All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story.
The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13 ' 6"
of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway
shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on
one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a
minimum 45' radius turn-around ( 55' in industrial developments) .
Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds
shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be
more restrictive.
19. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment
complexes shall be:
a. 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking,
carports or garages allowed on one side only.
1 b. 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or
garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking.
c. 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking
is allowed on one side.
d. 36 feet wide whenparallelparkingis allowed on both sides .
13 )6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates , barriers , guard houses or similar means , provision shall be made
to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the
Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated
shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when
activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. aeirtives=g30=1
^gsar---a4 m0e. All controlled access devices that are not power
operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening
width shall be 16 ' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 '6" .
21. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary
access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire
Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over
1300 feet be accepted.
22. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main
access points from main roadway or an emergency gated access into an
adjoining development.
iii /f. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
0
I ,?f. This project may require licensing and/or review by State agencies.
Applicant should prepare a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage
to facilitate case review. Contact should be made with the Office of
the State Fire Marshal (818-960-6441 ) for an opinion and a
classification of occupancy type. This information and a copy of the
letter of intent should be submitted to the Fire Department so that
proper requirements may be specified during the review process.
Typically this applies to educational , day care, institutional, health
care, etc.
25. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated
residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval .
Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the Cities of Indian
Wells , Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert.
D)04. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved
by the city.
(( X'. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm
plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction.
Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal
requirements .
8 )4 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 Department, Coves Fire Marshal , at Phone ( 619 ) 346-1870 or the
Fire Marshal 's office at 70-801 Highway 111 (Rancho Mirage Fire Station) ,
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 .
OTHER:
Sincerely,
MIKE HARRIS
Chief
by MIKE MC CONNELL
Coves Fire Marshal
bbm
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Steve Smith
FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director
SUBJECT: P.P./C.U.P. 99-02; Assisted Living Complex, The Damone Group
DATE: February 1, 1999
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 permit issuance.
(2) Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
(3) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos.
79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to permit issuance.
(4) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City
standards.
(5) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance
with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall
be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. Such
offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, main project entry and
emergency access improvements.
(6) All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works
and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
(7) Landscaping maintenance on Hovley Lane and Monterey Avenue shall be provided
by the property owner. Subject landscaping shall be drought tolerant in nature.
(8) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for
checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits.
(9) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
(10) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
(11) Pad elevations, as shown on the preliminary grading and drainage plan are subject
to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code. -
(12) Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management
and Discharge Control
RICHARD J. FOLKER , P.E.
{
Tans\ cu
(Js9\PP PP 99-02.iom)P
RIVERSIDE COUNTY A
LARRY D. SMITH, SHERIFF tr 4sh if
^%9S/DE (,Os=s-:,
N." 73-520 FRED WARING DRIVE • PALM DESERT, CA 92260 • (760) 836-1600
PROUDLY SERVING AS THE PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT
January 15, 1999
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, Cal. 92260
Attention: Steve Smith
Re: PP/CUP 99-02
52 bed senior assisted living complex on 3.77 acres
Dear Mr. Smith
The Sheriff's Department has no objections to the proposed 52 bed senior assisted
living complex of 3.77 acres. This complex will be on the southeast corner of
Monterey Avenue and Hovley Lane within Palm Desert.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project from a law enforcement
point of view.
Sincerely,
Larry D. Smith, Sheriff
e , Captain
Palm Desert Station Commander
cc: File
Nt1ATEq`
O`.'� ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AG...CY
,STRIC
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
RUSSELL KITAHARA, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON.SECRETARY
JOHN W. McFADDEN January 20, 1999 OWEN McCOOK,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
JOHN P. POWELL, Jr. REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
DOROTHY M. NICHOLS
File: 0163.1
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert y � E�
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260 j.r i ` 9 1999
;�v Z
Gentlemen: Subject: Conditional Us ,,em -2 rt ion of
the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 5
South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of Palm Desert and is
considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps s which are in
effect at this time.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 53 and 80 of the
district for sanitation service.
The district requires laundromats and commercial establishments with laundry
facilities to install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined
by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the
district. Installation of the lint trap will be inspected by the district.
Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the
district for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Joe Cook, planning engineer,
extension 292.
Your very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chief Engineer
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
JEC:j1\eng\aw\jan\cup99-2 TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
- ` .,.•
»'' ! ,y Cityof Palm Desert
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098
January 28 , 1999
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO: PP/CUP 99-2
PROJECT: 52 BED ASSISTED LIVING COMPLEX
APPLICANT: MAINERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
777 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, SUITE 301
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
This project shall comply with the following codes :
1994 Uniform Building Code (1995 California Building Code)
1995 California Plumbing Code
1995 California Mechanical Code
1993 National Electrical Code (1995 California Electrical Code)
specifically;
Uniform Building Code Section 310, Chapter 11A
National Electrical Code, Article 517
Occupancy: Group R, Division 2 . 2
Should you have any further concerns regarding this project, please
feel free in contacting me.
Si cerely,
RUDY ACHS
PLANS EXAMINER
RS :djw
bh/e7f i . i :D4 bm:J4eifttz J DAVID LUTICH PAGE 02
AE]
T H E O A r"1 O N E G R O U P'
February 8, 1999
Dear Neighbor:
My firm, The Damone Group, is considering purchasing and developing approximately 4.0
acres of vacant land at the southeast corner of Hovley Lane and Monterey Avenue.
Because you reside in the immediate vicinity of our proposed development, we want to let
you know about our plans.
Specifically, we intend to construct one single-story, 52-bed, senior care residence on the
site. The ClareBridge residence will be an approximate 31,000 square foot, single-story
building catering to the needs of frail older adults suffering from memory impairments such
as Alzheimer's disease. Each resident will have their own private room and access to
common areas for dining, activities, personal care, leisure, etc. An Administrator, typically
a registered nurse, will be responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the residents and
staff. The building will be secured and staffed 24-hours a day to provide for the personal
care needs and security of each resident.
The ClareBridge facility will be residential in design and appearance. The exterior design
of the building will blend with the surrounding architecture in the community. We believe
our proposed use on the site offers a lower impact than other allowable uses:
•. None of the residents will drive, thereby creating less traffic
•. Our building is residential in design with natural landscape buffers
•. Our building wilt be single-story with access from Hovley Lane.
I invite you to meet with me on Thursday, February 25, 1999, to discuss our plans and
answer any of your questions. The presentation will begin at 7:00 P.M. at the Southwest
Community Church located at 73251 Hovley Lane (on Hovley Lane between Monterey and
Portola Avenue). Please park and enter at the back of the church, our meeting will be in
the lower level meeting room. Tim Bartlett, our local real estate representative, and I will
be available for questions and comments after the presentation.
ff you should have any questions prior to the meeting or are unable to attend, please feel
free to call me at (602) 481-3625 or Tim Bartlett at (760) 776-4141. Thank you for your
time and we look forward to meeting you on February 25.
Sincerely yours,
THE DAMONE GROUP, LLC
David Lutich
Development Manager
> :.• _I 1 1'111 rv,(IN I f •.< '112(>Y. Nil' I11(iAN .1/1..);; r,I}1 , ,>f t ,-A. . ,n. ,>a -f<< •„ _