Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 99-116 and 99-117 and Ord 931 and 932 GPA 99-3 CZ 99-2 PP-CUP 99-7 DA 99-3 12-09-1999 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acres) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion), development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community and a community center building on 10.3 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive at 72-755 Parkview Drive. III. APPLICANT: Pearl Industries, Inc. Pearl Industries, Inc. 66 Alviso Drive c/o Charles Sweet Camarillo, CA 93010 43-708 Virginia Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 V. DATE: December 9, 1999 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution Nos.99-116 and 99-ll7and Draft Ordinance Nos. 931 and 932 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving this case E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1958 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 2, 1999 and November 16, 1999 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt findings; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 99-116approving GPA 99-3; 1 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 3. Pass Ordinance No.931 approving C/Z 99-2 to second reading; 4. Pass Ordinance No.932 approving development agreement to second reading; and 5. Adopt Resolution No.99-117 approving PP/CUP 99-7. B. BACKGROUND: The project has been revised considerably since it was before City Council on October 14, 1999. The plan now proposes 250 residential retirement units and a community facility on 10.3 acres. The 99-bed skilled nursing facility has been deleted. The applicant revised his plans by reducing the three-story sections to 25 feet (previously 28 feet), reducing the two-story units from 17 feet to 15 feet, deleted the tower elements, reduced the community building from 42 feet to 28 feet, replaced the 32 parking spaces along Fairhaven Drive with landscaping and the 31 above-ground spaces in the area of the entry driveway at Parkview have been replaced with landscaping. This revised plan was presented to Planning Commission at its metings of November 2 and November 16,1999, and was recommended for approval pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 1958 on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Finerty voting nay). The revised plan was presented to the Architectural Review Commission at its meeting of November 9,1999, and the Commission granted preliminary approval. The applicant and several area residents have met several times over the past few weeks to attempt to resolve some of the remaining issues. Out of these meetings, the applicant offered to facilitate the improvement of two lots within the Palm Dell Estates area. At the November 16, 1999 Planning Commission meeting, the residents presented a list of 28 conditions which they requested be imposed if the project was to be approved. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1958 included two special conditions. One condition endorsed the list of conditions proposed by the residents, in substance, provided they were not in conflict with the items specifically approved by the Planning Commision. Secondly, the Commission endorsed the matter of the applicant investing in two homes in the community to remodel and improve them provided the applicant could be protected from residents asking exorbitant prices. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3,C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 Staff reviewed the list of conditions and reworked them to be consistent with the project. The revised conditions have been discussed with the residents and with the applicant. The aplicant has indicated acceptance, while the neighbors will ask for a few modifications related to berm and wall heights. PROPERTY BACKGROUND: A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is an irregularly shaped site comprising 10.3 acres generally located on the west side of Fairhaven south of Parkview Drive. The property is generally flat with a slight slope to the southeast and is lightly scattered with native vegetation. The site has never been improved. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: Rancho Mirage/single family residential South: PR-7/church East: R-1 and PR-7/single family residential and apartments West: PR-22 AHD/One Quail Place C. SITE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The site is currently zoned PR-7 and is designated medium density residential 5-7 units per acre. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The continuing care retirement community building(s) is a three (3) story building 25 feet in height above adjacent curb. The south wing faces toward Fairhaven Drive and the north wing faces toward Parkview Drive. These two buildings connect at the community center building (28 feet in height above curb line). All of the continuing care structure is at least two stories and 15 feet above curb in height. The three story portion (25 feet in height above curb) has been pushed back from Fairhaven and Parkview and is adjacent to the two story (22 feet in height) One Quail Place. The third story is setback from Fairhaven Drive 120 feet and is setback 1 1 7'/2 feet from Parkview Drive. 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 The main access to the continuing care building is from Parkview Drive at the east limit of the property. This access leads to surface parking, to underground parking and a valet drop off area at the community building. At the west end of the site on Parkview and at the north end of Fairhaven Drive gated, emergency vehicle only, access points will be provided. The continuing care portion of the project includes: UNIT TYPE CODE SIZE REQUIREMENT SIZE PROVIDED 154 - 1 bedroom units 500 square feet 826 sq ft and 910 sq ft 90 - 2 bedroom units 700 square feet 1 183 sq ft & 1220 sq ft 6 - 3 bedroom units N/A 1640 sq ft 250 Total Units with 98 in the south building and 1 52 units in the north building While the project will provide a common dining room, all units will have their own kitchen. As well, each unit has a full bath and living area. PROJECT DATA A. CONTINUING CARE BUILDING Project Code Standard Setbacks: Front (Fairhaven Drive) 60' to 1 5' section 20' to 1 8' section 120' to 25' section 120' for 24' section (Parkview Drive 42' to 1 5' section 32' to 18' section 117' to 25' section 120' to 24' section Side (W) 48' 20' Rear 35' 20' Maximum Height Flat Roof 28 feet* * (above curb) 22 feet Maximum Coverage 32.7% 50% Parking* 426: 318 underground 250 108 above ground Senior Overlay Intensity* * * 462 persons 515 persons 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 * Senior Overlay projects serving persons age 62 and older are required to provide a minimum of one parking space per unit. ** The PR zone limits maximum height to two (2) stories and 22 feet for flat roofed structures. The Senior Overlay standards permit 24 foot high structures if they are setback 120 feet from the property line. The building section for the three stories is 30 feet; however, the applicant proposes to lower the building five feet into the ground creating a net height of 25 feet above the adjacent curb. The applicant is seeking an "exception" to the height and number of stories. *** The Senior Overlay zone density is a function of the projected population of the project. Projects in excess of ten acres are permitted a maximum of 50 persons per acre with a minimum age of 62 years (10.3 acres x 50 PPA = 515 persons). This project contains a (154 one bedroom units x 1 .75 PPA = 270 persons) + (96 two and three bedroom units x 2.0 PPA = 192 persons) (270 + 192 = 462 persons). III. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The project will require a general plan land use amendment to add senior housing, change of zone adding the senior overlay and a development agreement. The senior housing designation was designed to provide increased density and special development standards to encourage the development of various forms of senior housing. When the senior overlay was created, it was anticipated that senior projects would be requesting densities in excess of 20 units per acre. Due to the significantly lower traffic and other impacts of senior housing, the overlay allows these densities based on a population per acre land use intensity formula. The overlay also requires that senior housing projects include up to 25% affordable housing in exchange for these large density bonuses. For example Hacienda de Monterey, the first project approved under the overlay, received a density increase from R-1 10,000 (three units per acre) to 23 units per acre. Total allowable units increased from 31 to 233. This project if approved would 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 increase the permitted number of units from 91 to 250 units. For projects in excess of 100 units the affordable housing inclusionary requirement mandates 10% moderate income units, 10% low income units and 5% very low income units. Several previous projects were high-end congregate care and assisted living projects providing a wide range of services (meals, recreation, maid service, medical care, etc.) beyond basic housing and it was difficult to determine an appropriate affordable housing cost. As a result, the City and developer of these projects have historically agreed through a development agreement to substitute an in-lieu fee which would be used by the City to subsidize senior housing. In the case of Portofino (Royce International Investments Co., approved in 1999) a $12,000 per required affordable unit was assessed. In this instance the applicant will be allowed to meet the affordability requirement through a one time payment of $12,000 per affordable unit (i.e., 62.5 units = $750,000.00). Planning staff and the applicant met with the housing manager with a view to coming up with a program to put affordable units in this project. Unfortunately due to the cost structure it doesn't appear that we could be any more successful at putting low cost housing units in this development than at Bighorn. Any units would need substantial ongoing subsidy and staff concluded that the city would be further ahead to take the in-lieu fee and spend it on more units elsewhere. Staff recommends that if this project proceeds that the applicant be required to pay the in-lieu fee described above. IV. STAFF CONCERNS: At the beginning of the processing of this application staff had a long list of concerns but gradually the applicant has taken care of most of our concerns. These concerns were itemized in the September 21 , 1999 report. Staff will limit the comments of this report to the current request. 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 A. BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF STORIES AND MASS: The PR zone limits height to two stories and 22 feet for flat roofed structures. The senior overlay limits height to 24 feet with a minimum setback of 120 feet. The plan originally proposed three stories and 33 feet in height. In an effort to reduce the height impact, the applicant proposed to depress the structure five feet into the ground. The first floor would be five feet below curb height reducing the apparent building height to 28 feet. The most recent changes reduced the height to 25 feet for three story sections and 15 feet for two story sections. The applicant previously eliminated several of the third story units to help break up the roof line and lower the appearance and eliminated the third floor units closest to Fairhaven Drive and Parkview Drive (the project originally had 280 units in the residential portion versus 250 currently proposed). The basic design concept provides a linear building with wing sections extending closer to the streets. This too helps to lower its appearance. The applicant also removed all the tower elements so that the maximum height is the community facility building at 28 feet. Even with all these changes the applicant still requires a height "exception" for the three stories, the 28 foot community facility building and the 25 foot building. Staff feels that the project now is within the parameters used in previous height exceptions. The design of the project is unique with the two story building sections extending out to 60 feet from the property line while the three story sections maintain 120 feet and 117 feet of setback. With the building depressed five (5) feet into the ground, the two story sections are more in keeping with a single story structure (15 feet). The three story section, at 25 feet, is very much in keeping with a typical two story building. From staff's perspective the matter of the three story limit is moot especially when one considers that the people per acre density is consistent with the senior overlay (i.e., the third story does not push the project over that limit). 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 Staff is still concerned with the building mass. While the building mass is less now because the building is three feet lower in height and two story portion is two feet less it is still over 1 ,350 feet in length when measured from south end to west end. The extra setback area will allow for substantial landscape treatment (berms, trees and walls) which will reduce the impact of the building once the landscaping matures. B. TWO LARGE HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER: INTENSITY VERSUS DENSITY The proposed project has a unit density of 24.3 units per acre. One Quail Place is 22 units per acre. This will put a lot of units in close proximity. The density of units is partially offset by the lower occupancy levels in the senior facility. The applicant indicates that other similar projects have slightly more then one person per unit. Using the people per acre formula from the Senior Overlay District, we could expect 1 .8 persons per unit. We feel that number is on the high side but it is still much below the number of people per unit at One Quail Place which is family oriented. These units also will have fewer external impacts (i.e., barking dogs, teenagers with loud music and vehicles coming and going). TRAFFIC STUDY A traffic impact analysis was prepared by Robert Bein William Frost and Associates (RBF). The lower persons per unit factor also carries through to the traffic counts. As was shown in the RBF traffic study, the expected traffic generation from this project has only a minimal impact on area streets. At Page 2 of the traffic study, it states, "Based on the analysis the proposed project trips generated...will have a minimum impact at the studied intersections during the peak hours." At Page 3, the study discusses traffic impacts on Parkview Drive and concludes, "Therefore, Parkview Drive is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better)..." 8 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 In addition, staff carried out traffic counts at the entrances/exits to/from Hacienda de Monterey during the week of October 18 through 22, 1999. Hacienda de Monterey is a similar project in that it has skilled nursing, assisted living and individual living but it has only 231 units. The traffic study projected 1 ,212 daily trips in the original 300 unit project. The count at the 231 unit Hacienda de Monterey project on Tuesday, October 19, 1999 was 946 trips. When this count is adjusted to compare it with the 300 unit project, then 1 ,229 trips are expected. This compares very closely with the projected 1 ,212 daily trips. The elimination of the skilled nursing facility from this project will reduce the traffic proportionally. C. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS: This hearing on the revised plans was advertised and mailed to area residents October 18, 1999 and on November 22, 1999. We have received a few pieces of correspondence (form letters) from residents in Monterey Sands. This letter expressed the following concerns: 1 . The proposed project requests an approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay. Any plan amendment should be carefully scrutinized and considered to evaluate the impact on neighboring property owners and demand for city services. Response This application has been given careful consideration particularly with respect to its impacts on its neighbors. As a result of ongoing discussion with the applicant the effective building height has been reduced from 33 feet to 25 feet, the number of units has been reduced from 280 to 250 in the individual/assisted living section, removed surface parking in favor of landscaping and removed many third story units and tower elements to reduce building height and its impact on view corridors. 9 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 2. The proposed project requests a change of zone from PR7 to PR7SO. Such change of zoning will not only result in an increase of density of development of the property but will further result in added traffic to and from the project on city streets. Such streets in primarily residential areas were not designed to carry such added number of vehicles including trucks servicing the proposed project. Response In order to access and reduce impacts on city streets and services we required that the primary access be moved from Fairhaven (a local street) to Parkview Drive (a secondary roadway). The general plan prescribes five levels of roads - local, collector, secondary, major thoroughfare and arterial. In addition we required the applicant to have a traffic study prepared. This study looked at impacts on nearly intersections and on traffic flow on Parkview Drive. The traffic study at page 2 concludes that the project "will have a minimum impact at studied intersections during the peak hours." On page 3 the study states that "Parkview Drive is forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better). The density of units on the property would be increased from 7 units per acre to 24.3 units per acre. The number of people per acre based on the land size of the proposed units will be within that prescribed in the senior overlay ordinance (i.e., 462 persons versus 515 persons). 3. The proposed project is a disguised business operating in a residential area. As such, it should not be authorized or permitted in such area but should seek an alternative location in compliance with not only the general plan but existing zoning. The proposed project which includes the operation of a skilled nursing facility will result in a 24 hour round the clock need for city services including ambulances and other care providers. This will add a further nuisance to nearby property owners. 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 Response The site is zoned PR (planned residential) which permits a wide range of residential uses. "Institutional uses" are permitted upon approval of a CUP, and the skilled nursing facility has been deleted from the plan. D. LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURE: As suggested by staff in the earlier report, the applicant has removed 29 parking spaces adjacent to Fairhaven Drive and replaced them with landscape area. This increases the landscape depth by 20 +/- feet and retains the emergency access roadway. The applicant also deleted 32 parking spaces in the area to the south and west of the entry driveway from Parkview. This entire area is to be landscaped. The landscaping adjacent to Fairhaven and Parkview now includes four-foot high berms with trees and a four-foot high masonry wall. The revised plans were presented to ARC at its November 9, 1999 meeting. ARC granted preliminary architectural approval provided the elevations when drawn to a larger scale reflect the detail contained in the latest rendering. The landscape plan is still too conceptual to approve. Several area residents attended the ARC meeting of 11-9-99. Two new ideas were presented including the possible "vacation" of Fairhaven Drive to allow for more landscape planting and it was also suggested by an area resident that a landscape median be installed in Parkview Drive. This would create another layer of landscaping. Commission concurred with the larger landscape areas and supported the suggestion that Fairhaven Drive be vacated to adjacent owners. Planning staff had preliminary discussions with engineering staff on these new ideas, who advised that the street "vacation" idea could be processed if a unanimous request was received from adjacent property owners. Any such street vacation would be structured to prohibit future development on the vacated section. A preliminary review of the landscape median idea presented considerable problems due to proximity of existing driveways at Monterey Sands, the apartment complex to the 11 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 DECEMBER 9, 1999 east and the entry driveway to the Estates at Rancho Mirage. Basically, putting in a landscape median would eliminate the center turn lane which also serves to accept vehicles entering the street via a left turn movement. V. CONCLUSION: The applicant, through the various revisions to the plan, has eliminated most of the negative aspects, and from the staff perspective, this is now an acceptable project. The Architectural Review Commission has granted preliminary architectural approval. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project (4-1 ). The neighbors have been working with the applicant to have operating conditions in place if the project is approved. Staff recommends that the project be approved. VI. CEQA REVIEW: The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The Director of Community Development has determined that there will be no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared and will be recommended for certification (see Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study attached hereto and by reference addended hereto). Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: !�( -4eO STEPHEN R. SMITH PHILIP DRELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT wpdocs\sr\pearl.cc 12 r � CITY COUNCII,✓ACTION: APPROVED V 4- DENIED RECEIVED OTHER •SETI DATE AYES. � ' MUMPAWFMMWN ASSENT: "Aivit) ABSTAIN: Al Rio VERIFIED BY: f hK Oo Original on File with City glerk's Office *1) Waived further reading and passed Ordinance No. 931 to second reading, approving C/Z 99-2; 2) waived further reading and passed Ordinance No. 932 to second reading, approving DA 99-3; 3) continued to the meeting of January 13, 2000, Resolution Nos. 99-116 and 99-117 to incorporate the additional appropriate items identified in the Nancy Singer submittal; neighbors to work with Applicant for resolving minor wording modifications in the 32 existing conditions; determine the responsibilities for construc- tion and long-term maintenance of Fairhaven. Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SENIOR OVERLAY, ZONE CHANGE FROM PR-7 TO PR-7 S.O. (SENIOR OVERLAY), A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INCLUDING A HEIGHT "EXCEPTION" PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.24.310 FOR A 250 UNIT CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT (AGE 62 AND OLDER) COMMUNITY WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO ON 10.3 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE SOUTH OF PARKVIEW DRIVE. CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 99-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of November, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to November 16, 1999, to consider the request of PEARL INDUSTRIES, INC., for approval of the above noted cases; 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 adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The site is suitable for the general plan amendment. 2. The zone change is consistent with the general plan amendment. 3. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the PR-7 zone district and Senior Housing Overlay. 4. The design of the precise plan/conditional use permit will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 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. 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 Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 99-3, Change of Zone 99-2 and Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 99-7 including a height "exception" are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is recommended for certification. 4. That approval of the Development Agreement 99-3 (Exhibit B attached) is hereby recommended to City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of November, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, JONATHAN NOES: FINERTY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SABBY JONA HAN, Chairperson ATTEST: OIL PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 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 herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. 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 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 8. That the project shall operate consistent with the provisions of a development agreement which must be adopted by the City Council, otherwise this approval shall be null and void. 9. That the applicant file necessary map(s) to consolidate the property into no more than two lots so that the buildings do not cross any property lines. 10. That all suggested conditions of approval included in the September 1999 traffic report as outlined below shall be conditions on this project. a. Proposed curb returns shall have a minimum radius of 35 feet. b. Proper signage and striping shall be provided at the driveways fronting Fred Waring Drive indicating one-way traffic. c. Stop sign and right-turn only sign shall be provided at the easterly driveway fronting Fred Waring Drive. d. Stop sign shall be provided at the driveway fronting Parkview Drive. e. Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the assisted living/skilled nursing building. f. Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the Community Center Building and for each of the residential buildings. g. Assisted living/skilled nursing employee parking shall be provided near the building. h. Parking shall not be allowed along the access road. Curb along access road shall be painted red. No parking signs shall be posted along the west side of Fairhaven Drive fronting the proposed project. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 j. Parkview Drive shall be striped to provide a westbound left turn lane for vehicles entering the proposed project. k. Parkway landscaping or monument signing along Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive should not impede or restrict the sight distance of vehicles exiting the site. The proposed emergency driveways at Parkview Drive (west end of the property) and Fairhaven Drive should be used only for emergency purposes only. Proper signs should be posted and the driveway should be gated to prohibit other usage. m. Delivery/trash pick-up trucks shall be allowed to enter/exit from Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. Access road shall accommodate delivery/trash pick- up trucks. 11 . That the applicant shall provide a proper method of disposal of medical waste for the retirement community facility. 12. That the restaurant in the retirement community facility not be open to the general public. Said restaurant to be limited to full time residents of the project and their guests. Department of Public Works: 13. Drainage fees, in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 14. Drainage facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and the Master Drainage Plan. Drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 15. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 16. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be a t the time of building permit issuance. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 17. 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. 18. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.08, Transportation Demand Management. 19. 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. 20. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 21 . All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 22. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. 23. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 24. The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works and shall include right turn only ingress/egress for the Fred Waring Drive access points and full access for the Parkview Drive access points. The proposed Fairhaven Drive access points shall be limited to emergency use only. 25. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In addition to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation related issues. 26. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 27. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit a Waiver of Parcel Map application for lot line adjustment. 28. As required under the Palm Desert Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground in accordance with the respective utility company recommendation. 29. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 30. All traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Study prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates and approved by the city shall be considered conditions of approval for the project. Riverside County Fire Department: 31 . 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 Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, 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. 32. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 33. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 3000 gpm. 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. 34. 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 150' 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. 35. 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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)) 40. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet # 10, but not less than 2A10BC 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. 41 . 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. 42. 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. 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. 43. 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. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 44. 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 option 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 property requirements may be specified during the review process. Typically this applies to educational, day care, institutional, health care, etc. 45. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 46. 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. 47. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 48. Fire sprinkler system must include Class I standpipes per UFC and UBC. 49. Must have 20 foot emergency fire lane around all buildings. Special Conditions: 1 . That the special condition suggested by staff to formalize the applicant's offer to purchase and remodel two units within the Palm Dell Estates area be included in substance with staff directed to refine the condition consistent with Planning Commission direction. 2. That the list of 28 conditions dated November 15, 1999 and presented by Judi Rogers during the public hearing be imposed in substance as conditions on this project with staff directed to assure consistency with Planning Commission's action and make any necessary modifications before it is presented to City Council. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Pearl Industries, Inc. 66 Alviso Drive Camarillo, CA 93010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 250 unit continuing care retirement community and a community center building on 10.3 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. • Abe 16. 1999 PHILIP DREL DATE DIRECTOR 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 EXHIBIT B SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PEARL INDUSTRIES INC. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of ,1999, between Pearl Industries Inc. (hereinafter "Property Owner") and the City of Palm Desert, (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property; B. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit 1 , attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). DEVELOPER has applied for and been granted approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit (PP/CUP 99-7) to construct a 250 unit senior assisted living (age 62 and older) project and zone change to senior overlay; C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan/conditional use permit approval pursuant to Chapter 25.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, Senior Housing Overlay District which 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 allows for significant density increases in return for building specialized housing designed and restricted to residents over age 62 years; D. The City Council of City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Senior Overlay; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1 . Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "City" is the City of Palm Desert. (b) "Project" is the development to be constructed in the City pursuant to Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 99-7. (c) "Property Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property as described in paragraph (3) and includes the Property Owner's successor in interest. (d) "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraph (2). (e) "Useful Life of the Project" is the greater of thirty (30) years or the period of time which the Project remains habitable, with reasonable care and maintenance, as determined by City. (f) "Senior Citizen Household" means a maximum two person household of which all members are 62 years of age or older. 2. Description of Real Property. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 3. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner represents that he has a full legal and equitable interest in the Real Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by the Agreement. 4. Assignment. The rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned; however, Property Owner will remain responsible for all obligations under this Agreement unless the written consent of the City is first obtained, which will not be unreasonably withheld. 5. Binding effect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors in interest to the parties to it. 6. Relationship of parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between the City and Property Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of the City. 7. Agreement by Property Owner and City. (a) Property Owner has been granted permission by the City to construct a 250 unit senior assisted living (age 62 years and older) project, a zone change to senior overlay on the PROPERTY by Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 99-7 City Council Resolution No. . Chapter 25.52 requires senior projects to set aside 25% of total project units as units affordable for very low, low and moderate income senior households. These affordable units are required in exchange for substantial density bonuses (project units in excess of base zone density) which have historically ranged from 10 to 20 additional units per acre. The project is receiving a density bonus of 18 units/acre or 1 59 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 of the 250 total project units. The project's affordable housing requirement shall therefore be established at 62.5 units. (b) The Property Owner shall meet the affordable housing requirement as follows: i. Payment of $12,000 per affordable unit totaling $750,000 to the City to be used for the purpose of providing very low, low and moderate income senior housing. Payment shall be made in increments to the City prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for each and every unit in the project at the rate of $3,000.00 per unit. (c) Property Owner shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color or creed, sex, or national origin. (d) Age limits. The minimum age for all PROJECT occupants shall be 62 years old. (e) Change in Project. No change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the approved precise plan without review and approval by those agencies of the City approving the plan in the first instance. A change, modification, revision or alteration in the approved precise plan/conditional use permit is not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (f) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the PROJECT. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operation referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the PROJECT. Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (g) Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. City Planning Commission shall review this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT whenever substantial evidence exists to indicate a possible breach of the terms of this AGREEMENT. (h) Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code, Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. (i) Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in paragraph (j), this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is enforceable by any party to it 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications. (j) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 (k) Procedure upon default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or successor in interest as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon receipt of notification to take remedial actions. If Property Owner fails to take remedial action within thirty (30) days, the Planning Commission of City shall recommend to the City Council of City that this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT be modified, terminated, or that the remedies set forth in this paragraph be exercised by the City. If the City Council of City concurs with the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission, the City Council may modify this Development Agreement, terminate this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, or may employ one or more of the remedies set forth in this paragraph. Proceedings before the City Council shall be by noticed public hearing pursuant to Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code of the City of Palm Desert. In the event of a default, City may employ one or more of the following remedies, in its sole discretion: i. City may revoke all previous approvals, entitlements and permits granted by the City to Property Owner with respect to this PROJECT and the subject Real Property. ii. City may pursue all other legal or equitable remedies City may have under California law or as set forth in this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and City 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 shall be entitled to specific performance and enforcement of each and every term, condition and covenant set forth herein. (I) Damages upon Cancellation, Termination of Agreement. In no event shall Property Owner be entitled to any damages against the City upon modification, termination of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT or exercise by City of its rights under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (m) Attorney's fees and costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this AGREEMENT or to enforce a provision of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (n) Notices. All notices required or provided for under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepared. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. Notices required to be given to Property Owner shall be addressed as follows: Pearl Industries Inc., 66 Alviso Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010. A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. (o) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. ii. If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 iii. If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their obligations are joint and several. iv. The time limits set forth in this AGREEMENT may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of an agreement. (p) Duration of Agreement. This AGREEMENT shall expire only upon total destruction of the apartment project which is the subject of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (q) Applicable Law. This AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. (r) Severability. If any portion of this AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (s) Authority. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to enter into this AGREEMENT contained herein, that each AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1958 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY OF PALM DESERT A Municipal Corporation By: City Attorney Attest: PEARL INDUSTRIES INC. By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of , 1999, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 20 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 16, 1999 continued from November 2, 1999 CASE NOS: GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion, development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community and a community center building on 10.03 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive at 72-755 Parkview Drive. APPLICANT: Pearl Industries Inc. Pearl Industries Inc. 66 Alviso Drive c/o Charles Sweet Camarillo, CA 93010 43-708 Virginia Avenue Palm Desert, CA 9221 1 BACKGROUND: This matter was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of November 2, 1999 to allow the area residents to consider further the revised plans (i.e., lower building, no towers, extra landscaping). The revised plans were presented to ARC at its November 9, 1 999 meeting. ARC granted preliminary architectural approval provided the elevations when drawn to a larger scale reflect the detail contained in the latest rendering. The landscape plan is still too conceptual to approve. Several area residents attended the ARC meeting of 11 -9-99. Two new ideas were presented including the possible "vacation" of Fairhaven Drive to allow for more landscape planting and it was also suggested by an area resident that a landscape median be installed in Parkview Drive. This would create another layer of landscaping. Commission concurred with the larger landscape areas and supported the suggestion that Fairhaven Drive be vacated to adjacent owners. Planning staff had preliminary discussions with engineering staff on these new ideas, who advised that the street "vacation" idea could be processed if a unanimous request was received from adjacent property owners. Any such street vacation would be structured to prohibit future development on the vacated section. A preliminary review of the landscape median idea presented considerable problems due to proximity of existing driveways at Monterey Sands, the apartment complex to the STAFF REPORT GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 east and the entry driveway to the Estates at Rancho Mirage. Basically, putting in a landscape median would eliminate the center turn lane which also serves to accept vehicles entering the street via a left turn movement. The commission at its November 2, 1999 meeting directed staff to attempt to place this item on the City Council agenda for November 18, 1999. This suggestion was vetoed by the City Manager. If Planning Commission takes action on this application November 16, 1999, it will be scheduled for City Council December 9, 1999. II. ANALYSIS: The main purpose of the November 2, 1999 continuance was to allow the area residents more time to consider the revised proposal. As of the writing of this report, we have not been advised as to the position of the neighborhood. When that position is provided we will forward it to commission and we will cover it in our report to commission at the meeting. In our November 2, 1999 report staff had recommended approval of the project subject to conditions. Depending on the position taken by the neighbors, staff may be suggesting additional conditions. Staff continues to recommend approval. III. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council approval of the revised project related to GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3/ IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. November 2, 1999 staff report and attachments Prepared by > . Ste e Smith Reviewed and Approved by-4-7-"" Phil Drell /tm 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 16, 1999 CASE NOS: GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion, development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community and a community center building on 10.3 acres north of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive at 72-755 Parkview Drive. APPLICANT: Pearl Industries Inc. Pearl Industries Inc. 66 Alviso Drive c/o Charles Sweet Camarillo, CA 93010 43-708 Virginia Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 BACKGROUND: The plan now proposes 250 residential retirement units and community facility on 10.3 acres. The 99 bed skilled nursing facility has been deleted. The applicant and people from the neighborhood met Sunday, November 14, 1999. Through conversations with various people staff understand that the Palm Desert neighbors have arrived at a negotiated settlement. The neighbors have presented the applicant with a list of 28 conditions relating to the operation of the facility. That combined with agreement on the landscape berms on Fairhaven and Parkview brought the issue close to closure. The applicant than has offered to acquire and remodel two properties in the neighborhood. As of the writing of this staff has not received any of these issues in writing. We will talk with the City Attorney to determine how we can put these provisions into proper legal form. We understand that the Rancho Mirage residents may not be a party to this agreement. STAFF REPORT GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 A. OTHER REVISIONS: 1 . Parking 108 above ground spaces 318 underground spaces 426 total The 31 above ground spaces in the area of the entry driveway at Parkview and 32 spaces adjacent to Fairhaven Drive have been eliminated in favor of additional landscaping. 2. Landscaping The landscaping adjacent to Fairhaven and Parkview now includes 4 four-foot high berms with trees and a four-foot high masonry wall. 3. Towers All towers have been deleted from the plan thereby lowering the structure height. 4. Traffic Deletion of the skilled nursing facility takes all that traffic from Fred Waring Drive. Due to the layout of the project there was very little opportunity for traffic from the skilled nursing facility to utilize the Parkview Drive access and for the residential facility to use the Fred Waring Drive access. Therefore the traffic study as it addresses the residential portion is still valid. While 100% of the trips will be assigned to Parkview Drive, the total number of trips will not increase beyond that projected originally (i.e., 891 daily trips). Actually it will be less because the traffic study assumed 256 units versus the 250 units proposed at this time. Based on a close correlation we obtained in the Hacienda de Monterey traffic counts we feel that this traffic study has presented an accurate assessment of the traffic this project will generate. 5. Project Description The continuing care retirement community building(s) is a three (3) story building 25 feet in height above adjacent curb. The south wing faces 2 STAFF REPORT GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 toward Fairhaven Drive and the north wing faces toward Parkview Drive. These two buildings connect at the community center building (28 feet in height above curb line). All of the continuing care structure is at least two stories and 15 feet above curb in height. The three story portion (25 feet in height above curb) has been pushed back from Fairhaven and Parkview and is adjacent to the two story (22 feet in height) One Quail Place. The third story is setback from Fairhaven Drive 120 feet and is setback 1 17'/2 feet from Parkview Drive. The main access to the continuing care building is from Parkview Drive at the east limit of the property. This access leads to surface parking, to underground parking and a valet drop off area at the community building. At the west end of the site on Parkview and at the north end of Fairhaven Drive gated, emergency vehicle only, access points will be provided. The continuing care portion of the project includes: UNIT TYPE CODE SIZE REQUIREMENT SIZE PROVIDED 154 - 1 bedroom units 500 square feet 826 sq ft and 910 sq ft 90 - 2 bedroom units 700 square feet 1 183 sq ft & 1 220 sq ft 6 - 3 bedroom units N/A 1640 sq ft 250 Total Units with 98 in the south building and 152 units in the north building While the project will provide a common dining room, all units will have their own kitchen. As well, each unit has a full bath and living area. PROJECT DATA A. CONTINUING CARE BUILDING Project Code Standard Setbacks: Front (Fairhaven Drive) 60' to 15' section 20' to 1 8' section 1 20' to 25' section 120' for 24' section (Parkview Drive 42' to 15' section 32' to 1 8' section 1 1 7' to 25' section 120' to 24' section 3 STAFF REPORT GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Project Code Standard Side (W) 48' 20' Rear 35' 20' Maximum Height Flat Roof 28 feet* * (above curb) 22 feet Maximum Coverage 32.7% 50% Parking* 426: 318 underground 250 108 above ground Senior Overlay Intensity* * * 462 persons 515 persons * Senior Overlay projects serving persons age 62 and older are required to provide a minimum of one parking space per unit. * * The PR zone limits maximum height to two (2) stories and 22 feet for flat roofed structures. The Senior Overlay standards permit 24 foot high structures if they are setback 120 feet from the property line. The building section for the three stories is 30 feet; however, the applicant proposes to lower the building five feet into the ground creating a net height of 25 feet above the adjacent curb. The applicant is seeking an "exception" to the height and number of stories. * * * The Senior Overlay zone density is a function of the projected population of the project. Projects in excess of ten acres are permitted a maximum of 50 persons per acre with a minimum age of 62 years (10.3 acres x 50 PPA = 515 persons). This project contains a (154 one bedroom units x 1 .75 PPA = 270 persons) + (96 two and three bedroom units x 2.0 PPA = 1 92 persons) (270 + 1 92 = 462 persons). Prepared by Steve Smit Reviewed and Approved by-- Phi Drell /tm 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing CUP 99-8 to December 7, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 99-3, CIZ 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 - PEARL INDUSTRIES INC., Applicant (Continued from November 2, 1999) Request for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion, development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community and a community center building on 10.3 acres north of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive at 72-755 Parkview Drive. Mr. Smith stated that the acreage in question is 10.3 acres. He indicated that the commission received two reports dated November 16, 1999. One as recently as this morning and the commission received a revised resolution and draft development in the commission packets. As well, they received all of the material they received previously and all of any additional written correspondence previously received. Mr. Smith informed commission that it was not his intention to go over the entire project again. He did not that they were now dealing with a 250-unit continuing care facility on 10.3 acres. The most recent renderings and elevations of the buildings were on display. He pointed out the rendering which was presented to the Architectural Review Commission last Tuesday. At that time ARC granted preliminary approval subject to the finished elevations reflecting the detail shown in that rendering. When it was here on November 2, the commission continued the matter because the neighbors asked for additional time to review the revised proposal. He stated that the revised included the additional detailing on the rendering. It also included deletion of surface parking in the area along Fairhaven Drive, where 32 spaces were removed in favor of landscaping, and at the entry from Parkview Drive the most recent plan deleted 31 parking spaces and replaced that area with landscape area. The landscape areas along Fairhaven and 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Parkview were now of sufficient size to provide for four foot high berms with trees and with a four-foot masonry wall located on the top of the berm. All of the tower elements that were on the earlier presentations have been deleted so what they were now dealing with was a three-story building 25 feet above the adjacent curb height except for the community center building which was 28 feet high. As noted, the neighbors asked for an opportunity to review this further and it was staff's understanding that they got together this past Sunday and through conversations with various people was given to understand that the neighbors gave to the applicant a list of 28 operating conditions. He had not yet seen those conditions or heard how the applicant responded to them. As indicated in the most recent report, the applicant at some point offered to acquire and remodel two properties in the neighbhood as part of this negotiation. ARC granted preliminary approval November 9. Several area residents attended that meeting and presented two new ideas; at least they were new at that time. Firstly, the possible vacation of Fairhaven Drive to allow for more landscape planting. There was also a suggestion that they look at a landscape median in Parkview Drive. Both issues were discussed with engineering staff. Regarding the street vacation on Fairhaven, they felt that could be accomplished if there was a unanimous request from the people effected. With respect to the landscape median idea on Parkview, there just seemed to be too many driveways in close proximity to go in and do that and that was just on a preliminary basis that they took that position. Staff recommendation was that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. The commission had a revised draft resolution and development agreement in their packet. It was quite likely that following testimony from the residents and applicant that the commission might be adding some conditions. Staff's recommendation was that the commission recommend approval to the City Council subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. He asked for any questions. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue in Palm Desert, and MR. DAVID MOORHEAD, representing Pearl Development, addressed the commission. Mr. Moorhead stated that they were pleased to announce that the process does work as it was talked about at the last meeting. They have had numerous meetings with the neighbors with the last being a barbeque at Judi and Jerry Rogers' house this past Sunday. They did not go there to hear, but to listen. To take that to heart, they 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 took suggested changes and made compromises with the residents and whereas at this point they didn't have 100% agreement, he thought the commission would hear later from neighbors who were previously opposed to the project that they were very close in the right direction. They heard several concerns, those being an increase in traffic versus the single family neighborhood, delivery trucks coming in at all hours of the night making quite a bit of noise, Parkview versus Fairhaven as an entrance. Some neighbors wanted Parkview as the entrance to the facility. Others wanted Fairhaven, depending upon where they lived. There was a concern regarding taxi van shuttles that would be shuttling these residents to and from different places in the city. Building height was an issue and had been. Density. Commercial usage of the facility was a large issue. One that was probably an umbrella over all these issues was this project's impact on the neighborhood's home values. Regarding the home value issue, he believed there was some good evidence that would alleviate concerns in that area. They also agreed as Mr. Smith noted, to put their money where their mouth is and invest in the neighborhood in some properties that needed some remodeling to improve the neighborhood's overall appearance and value of each and every home there. Their rationale for that was not only that it helps the local neighbors of their facility, but particularly their planned director of this project they would like he or she to be located very close to the facility. It would cut down on maintenance costs in a lot of areas to have a manager or director close by. To go over specific issues regarding what they have done to alleviate the concerns, he asked Mr. Sweet to address those. Mr. Sweet believed the commission was familiar with a lot of the changes made so he would try to be brief in his recap. He said they originally planned primary ingress and egress from Fairhaven. They deleted that and all the primary ingress and egress would be off of Parkview Drive, including the service entry, which would be at the west end of the property near One Quail Place. The project would have no access whatsoever from Fred Waring Drive or Fairhaven except for emergency fire access as required by the Fire Marshal. In other regards to traffic, they have reduced all street parking on the subject property which was on Fairhaven and Parkview. They now had only 56 surface parking stalls which were around the porte cache of the community center and 318 parking stalls subterranean. They designed four foot berms as well as four foot masonry walls, trees and landscaping along 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Fairhaven and Parkview, so virtually the project would not be viewable from Parkview or Fairhaven. The skilled nursing facility had been deleted entirely. This would result in all the traffic on Parkview and Fairhaven would be emergency traffic only. There had been some concerns from Rancho Mirage residents about overbearing traffic by using Parkview Drive. The City of Palm Desert current traffic average daily counts showed 5,200 automobiles both east and west on a 24- hour cycle. Both Planning and Engineering Department at the City of Rancho Mirage as of this morning had indicated to him that they do not have any studies of Parkview Drive, so they had to rely on the Palm Desert numbers. Palm Desert engineers said that Parkview was designed to carry currently 25,000 to 30,000 automobiles per day. This project would probably add 1 ,200 trips per day and the City of Palm Desert verified that since the last meeting by doing a traffic count over at Hacienda de Monterey. That traffic count came out to 1 ,200 cars per day and that was a comparable project in size and density. Regarding the residential buildings, they lowered the grade of the land by five feet. They reduced the building heights so that the residential buildings at maximum were 25 feet above curb and 120 foot setback from curb. The two story buildings would be 15 feet above curb and 60 foot setback on Fairhaven, 38 foot setback on Parkview. They removed all tower elements from both the community center and residential buildings. As far as reduction of the total density of the project, they originally applied for 286 residential dwelling units and were not at 250 residential units and they deleted the 99-bed skilled nursing facility. In listening to the neighbors, which had been very beneficial, they heard the proposed complaints of noise, traffic, odors, ambulance sirens, etc., and they could go back and forth and argue those issues all day long because they were real issues and they would like to be good neighbors. What they did was put their running shoes on and polled house to house the entire neighborhood around Hacienda de Monterey. They did this last Saturday and showed the commission a diagram of the homes that they contacted. They asked each resident a battery of questions. He said they were essentially questions that came to them from their neighbors. They felt it would make a lot of sense to ask the people who live next to these facilities for a matter of years. They had 54 responses. The first question was, "Does Hacienda generate excessive or bothersome vehicular traffic?" They all answered, "No." "Does Hacienda produce any produce any excessive noise at any time day or night?" The 54 residents answered, "No." 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 "Has Hacienda produced any siren problems from ambulances?" They all answered, "No." Several made comments that there were more ambulances on Highway 1 1 1 and Monterey. "Do you know of any local neighbors complaining to each other or to the City about Hacienda de Monterey?" They all answered, "No." "Has the density of Hacienda caused any negative effects on the neighbors?" Mr. Sweet noted that they had 231 dwelling units there plus a skilled nursing facility. They all answered, "No." "Does Hacienda produce odors of any sort bothersome to the area?" They all answered, "No" except for one fellow who lives on San Diego Drive right next to the facility. Twice he smelled odors and he said he thought their chef was French because it really smelled good. The next question was, "Has Hacienda reduced your property value?" They all answered, "No." Most of them, "Absolutely not." "Do you and your friends or family may have a need to live at Hacienda at some point in your life?" About half answered, "Yes" and some answered that they have had relatives live there. "Is Hacienda a compatible use of property in your neighborhood?" They all answered, "Yes." "Are you pleased that Hacienda has no overall negative influences to your neighborhood?" They all answered, "Yes." These were the proposed questions that came to them from their neighbors and they did their best to find factual data by asking the people who live there. In the meantime, his Father, Roland Sweet, who was present this evening, unbeknownst to them, took a very similar poll over at The Carlotta. He polled about 50 homes and had 23 responses. He had similar questions regarding traffic, noise, odors, neighborhood vermin, and if living adjoining next to a retirement community have any other effects. All comments were positive. Everyone had a good word to say about The Carlotta. He submitted that to the Planning Commission to try and diffuse some of the fears of living next to or nearby a retirement community. In short, as Mr. Moorhead mentioned, they had the barbeque, they discussed their proposed operations agreement and it was something they could live with, spare a few minor details that he knew they would come to an agreement on, and their willingness to put financing into upgrading their neighborhood was only better for their project as well. He respectfully submitted that asked if he could answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that Mr. Sweet said that Hacienda de Monterey had 231 units plus a skilled nursing facility. She asked how large the skilled nursing facility was. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Mr. Sweet said it was over 80 beds, but didn't know the exact number. Mr. Drell said it was 99 beds. Commissioner Finerty asked how many stories Hacienda de Monterey had. Mr. Sweet said they had two stories, 22 feet high with 80 foot setbacks. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. NANCY SINGER thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak again about this project. She said she had a couple of comments regarding Mr. Sweet's comments. She didn't know whom he spoke to at Rancho Mirage, but she had a copy of their traffic survey that they faxed to her. It showed that Parkview was designed for 13,000 cars per day, not the numbers he gave. This came directly from Rancho Mirage City Hall. Secondly, on his survey that he did of Hacienda, they would love 80 foot setbacks--give them 80 foot setbacks off of Parkview and 80 foot setbacks off of Fairhaven. They would all be delighted. She didn't think she needed to go through her written presentation since the commissioners all had a copy, but they were still concerned. Regarding the drawings, there was one that several of them were seeing for the first time. Once again, new drawings before a public body where the community had not seen them. She asked how many times they had to go through this and how many times they had to bring it up. In her presentation she set forth certain conditions that they were asking for on pages three and four of the presentation. Possibly the biggest one was the last one. It said to direct the developer to give the community the information in sufficient time to review it. That was one of the things they were asking for. They were willing to work with him. The commission knew that and the developer knew that, but they just couldn't keep taking these surprises. They asked that either this be continued so that they could review it again, or something else occur. They were obviously not in favor of this exactly the way it is presented. It was too massive. If the commission looked at the drawings, they showed the massiveness. Mr. Sweet talked about the four foot wall and four-foot berm. The drawing showed a very low wall and no berm, so even the drawing presented 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 tonight didn't agree with what he testified. They were confused and were asking for current information. Chairperson Jonathan noted that he didn't hear anything that varied from the last meeting and asked for clarification. When Ms. Singer was being hit with surprises, he asked what she was specifically referring to. Ms. Singer said that things kept changing. The skilled nursing. Two meetings ago there was a skilled nursing facility. They now found out that Mr. Sweet had sold the land long before then and why he was still showing it, they didn't know. Chairperson Jonathan said he would be more specific. At the last meeting Ms. Singer brought up the skilled nursing facility. At the last meeting the applicant indicated that was deleted. Ms. Singer noted that Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Sweet about skilled nursing and he confirmed that they would have some. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that Mr. Sweet testified that there would be skilled nursing services. Ms. Singer asked where. That was what they were asking. Where would it be in the community. Chairperson Jonathan explained that Mr. Sweet indicated there would be skilled nursing services for the residents in the 250 units. He said the skilled nursing facility being gone wasn't a surprise because the applicant indicated that was deleted at the last meeting. He asked what the other issues were. Ms. Singer said that looking at the drawings today, the landscaping was different from the last time they saw it and was even different from what Mr. Sweet just said it would be. He had done surveys of the community and, unfortunately, she was not at the barbeque last Sunday because she was in Boston at her granddaugter's birthday party. But she knew these surveys weren't discussed at the party because she had talked with some of the people. That again was a surprise to those of them in the community. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan felt the additional berming was addressed and asked if there was another aspect of the landscaping. Ms. Singer said she didn't see it on the chart. She looked at the chart today and it didn't agree. Chairperson Jonathan said she didn't see it, but there wasn't a change in landscaping that was a surprise to her. She was saying that she didn't see it on the plans. Ms. Singer pointed out that Mr. Sweet was saying that the chart on display was the most current chart. Chairperson Jonathan asked if specifically in terms of changes to the landscaping, if there was anything. Ms. Singer said they would like to see what it would look like. They still hadn't seen it. They would like to see setbacks. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was anything else that was a surprise. Ms. Singer said that there had been so many drawings presented, so much stated that they hadn't seen in writing ahead of time to review, it didn't give them the opportunity to really make informed concessions with him. Some of them have been and there was no question about it. They weren't opposed to senior housing and would rather see single family residences on this property. There was no question about that. Chairperson Jonathan clarified that it wasn't so much that there were surprises or changes tonight as it was that she felt she hasn't been presented with an opportunity to review the final presentation. Ms. Singer concurred. She said they hadn't seen the information and were still concerned with the massiveness of the project and that it didn't fit into the community. Chairperson Jonathan thanked Ms. Singer for her comments. MR. DON GITTELSON, 72-791 Fleetwood Circle in Palm Desert, stated that his home was in the Monterey Sands development north and east 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 of this project. He said he built it 20 years ago and he had been a resident here ever since. His primary concern was density. The existing property had a 70 U prescribed density and he agreed with the senior overlay concept of allowing a benefit for some additional density because of senior overlay problems. He didn't think that overlay should get them much beyond ten or 12 units to the acre, not 25 as now planned. The existing zone on Number One Quail was about 20 units to the acre. He wasn't sure of that number but thought it was close. The existing zone on the east side, single story apartments, was about seven units to the acre. It seemed to him that it would be reasonable to split the difference. If they had 20 on one side and seven on the other side that would mean about 12 or 13 would be a reasonable density for the existing project. His second concern related to the buffer zone to help the people from the north in Rancho Mirage would be the median concept in Parkview Drive. He thought the quick answer of there are too many driveways did not give them enough time to study and understand it and that was an open item that could be done by the cities, their engineering departments, and it took more than a few days to resolve that issue and he was well aware of that. The third concern, and he only mentioned the vacation of Fairhaven as an added opportunity for the residents of the single family area, to help buffer the project from their residences. That part was purely up to them and didn't impact him or his neighbors in any way, shape or form. He did think that architecturally the building was mis-oriented, but if they were going to originally plan the building they would put the recreation center on Parkview Drive in the middle and put an access in the middle or near the middle so that they could line up the access to the existing property to the north. That was another item that didn't impact him at all but he thought it was a good design consideration. In final comment, he didn't have any idea what the 28 conditions were, whether they were acceptable to the parties or not, and he had had no opportunity to either see them, read them, understand them or see whether he could agree or disagree with them. He thanked the commission. MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive, stated that her home was possibly one of the most impacted by this proposed facility. She said that yes, they had the barbeque because they told the commission they would and they needed the time and the atmosphere to get their neighbors to come and see the project. The developer rose balloons at various stages of the project showing the berm, the wall, the trees, and 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 the heights and setbacks of the buildings. She said it was hard to tell with a white balloon up against the sky, but they did get somewhat of an idea of the setbacks and that was reassuring. Again, their primary concern with everything they had discussed with the developer had been that they were really being asked to put the cart before the horse. They loved what the developer had done so far to mitigate some of the concerns that they have had.' They didn't have anything in writing. They were concerned that things could change when they weren't quite as available to be at these meetings and find out and continue to hear what was going on. They were lay people and didn't understand the democratic process of this meeting, of these approvals, and that sort of thing. What they would ideally like to see in their neighborhood was senior housing. They loved that idea. They were a known quantity. They were wonderful human beings given that our youth in this day and age weren't something to brag about, the seniors were people they absolutely admire. She thought she spoke for everyone here. They didn't worry about a lot of things with them that they would with condominiums, single family residences, people working on cars in their neighborhood, teenagers racing up and down, etc. Could they live with a senior facility nearby? Yes, they could. Their concern was that this building at some portions of it were 1 ,350 feet long. Three stories high concerned them, 250 units concerned them. They asked the developer to explain why they couldn't go to two stories. The developer indicated that it did not work out for them. She raised issue with the landscaping. She agreed it would be beautiful for them and their neighborhood. They already had wide open desert to look at which they loved, but in its absence the vegetation would be welcome. The vacation of Fairhaven would be wonderful for them, obviously. One of the architecture people pointed out though that if this project didn't go in and they did have a landscape easement, they could at some point be subject to having housing very near to their house, rather than farther away, like the senior center was projecting. Would this be a transitional buffer from commercial development to their neighborhood? They didn't think so. Having an entrance off of Fairhaven would definitely be detrimental and that had been mitigated. She hoped it would always be that way. She said that as a citizen if they were to put their wholehearted support behind this project, she asked where they would stand when they wanted something to be taken care of as far as a concern that they have. What if they were two years into building and they had some issues and they needed to get them resolved. She asked 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 if they had to hire an attorney at their own expense and come back to the city and say this wasn't what was agreed on or if they had a right to step in. The 28 things they came up with were a compilation of several facts that had been part of neighborhoods that have had commercial development come inside. She said she had a copy to give the commission that they have written up, but various things like delivery hours limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Landscape maintenance shall occur from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., not on weekends. The restaurant would not be open to the general public. There would be no lighting above the perimeter walls. They didn't see the need for them to have lighting above the perimeter walls. They had driven by various other facilities and had been basically amazed at how the neighborhood was impacted by the lighting from certain facilities. It looked like daylight at 9:00 p.m. They didn't want that. All loading docks must be enclosed. Noise control restrictions. Post signs requiring all loading doors remain closed. Requires all engines to be shut off if a delivery vehicle was parked more than five minutes. Prohibit all horn blowing, loud talking, loud radios. Prohibit the use of forklifts, exiting exhausts and any other mechanical equipment must be located in or directly adjacent to the main building structures. Prohibit the parking of delivery trucks. Require that refrigeration equipment mounted on trucks be shut down while they were delivering. Remain on no longer than one hour. The trash collection use the maintenance road closer to One Quail instead of their neighborhood. At 5:00 a.m. they hear them now on the various commercial developments nearby them. All onsite vehicles be clean natural gas or electric so they didn't have to whiff diesel fuel. Property owner maintain perimeter/interior landscaping in a healthy and living condition. That all entrances, main service and emergency, be approved by all necessary agencies, especially the city Fire Marshal, to ensure that Fairhaven would not be considered as an entry to the facility other than for emergency purposes. Those were things they had come up with just as lay people doing their research. They didn't know what else might come about for a facility of this size. They appreciated the developer's willingness to put in landscaping to cover it up. A question she continued to have was why they needed to cover it up. The possibility of them putting their money where their mouth is a buying into their neighborhood meant a lot to them. It meant that basically they would have a few more houses in their neighborhood that were worth $350,000 like she has and like Mr. and Mrs. Scarna have and several other people who 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 were rehabbing right now. Then they spoke of a development agreement that they had been handed and she wondered if that was available to the public and if the residents could see what they had given to the commission to decide. She knew what they told them, but wanted to see what they had decided. Finally, they would respectfully request that they have the ability to have an open door policy for future concerns that might come up. This was a three-year building project and then it would be forever more a commercial project and they would like to know that they could come and raise their issues and not have it be said that this was a done deal and that it was done. Chairperson Jonathan informed Ms. Rogers that the development agreement was available to the general public. If she wanted to pick one up, there might be copies available tonight and certainly first thing in the morning at the Planning Department. In terms of recourse for any problems, there were a number of avenues for it. For people who don't know the democratic process, he thought Ms. Rogers was utilizing the process very well. That was what this was all about. In terms of any recourse, when a project is approved, particularly when subject to a conditional use permit, then there were various conditions of approval and they were all listed in the public documents that were part of this application, things that the applicant had agreed to, the standards the applicant was subject to, in addition to the normal Zoning Ordinance standards. All those were standards that any developer was held to once a project was approved. Sometimes staff immediately becomes aware of violations and they take care of it directly and sometimes they relied on citizens to report any violations. There was a reporting process and it began with staff and with the city, but she heard him at the beginning of the meeting that if there were any items not on the agenda, this was the time and place to talk about them. Once in a while they had people come up and say hey, I have a problem with this and this situation and then they deal with it. Hopefully effectively. There were various recourses available if anyone feels a developer has not complied with conditions of approval. Mr. Drell pointed out that typically citizens didn't need an attorney and were far better advocates as citizens of Palm Desert than attorneys from L.A. Chairperson Jonathan agreed. MR. KEN SAVAGE, Pastor at University Baptist Church, 72-700 Fred Waring Drive, stated that their church and congregation had a stake in this project because they were selling the developer a half acre. In exchange they were getting a new parking lot that would meet city 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 code that was properly lit and landscaped. It would clean up the corner of Fairhaven and Fred Waring. They would underground the power lines which would certainly be attractive to Fred Waring in that area. They were part of the neighborhood and it would enhance the neighborhood. He had been hard pressed to see why this wasn't a win-win situation for everyone because he couldn't imagine a more benign neighborhood than a senior's development. They entered this thinking it would be good for all and they still felt that way. He said he would like to share some of concerns as he heard some of the things discussed along the way. At the very first meeting at the Realtor's Board, a group of people there were very angry. That sort of puzzled him a bit. It was like road rage in a building. He wanted to let the commission know that one person said "over my dead body will this project happen." He said he didn't want to take responsibility for that person's suicide so he wanted to pass that along to the commission and he was concerned because Dr. Kavorkian was no longer present since he was in jail and they guy would have to do it on his own. That did bother him and was a concern. He lived in Los Angeles in the 60's in a changing neighborhood and people were very concerned about property values. That was a code word for race. People occasionally said why don't they stay in South Central Los Angeles, why are they ruining our neighborhood, and that always bothered him that property values could be a code word for different things. He had been bothered by statements made before the commission. He knew one person said the project belonged near the freeway. That bothered him. He wasn't sure what was behind that but he wished someone would explain it to him. Furthermore, since the beginning everyone had been so concerned about their view. His sister lives in Sedona. They designed their house so that every window would view a red rock formation. Their picture window looks right out at Bell Rock. It was a beautiful view. He looked across at Fairhaven at the four houses on Fairhaven and even those houses that have a Fairhaven address didn't face Fairhaven. He asked where their picture windows were to take in the view. The house that hosted the barbeque Sunday didn't have a single window to the west, which was the view. The house across the street had 12-15 foot oleanders all the way around it. He came to the conclusion that people talk about view, but they were really concerned about privacy. He chuckled to himself because now that the street is closed, the only time they see their view is when they back their cars out, but since the street has been closed they had to go the other way and could only see 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 their view in the rear view mirror. He detected a little bit of hypocrisy here. He was concerned about one other thing. In the commission's presence the objection to the care facility was presented by a person who works at Eisenhower, was deeply concerned about toxic waste, hypodermic needles that could be scattered around the neighborhood, and he was still trying to understand that one. It seemed to him that if that person knew something about Eisenhower that the rest of the citizens didn't know, she had a moral responsibility to bring that up in the right venue. As a matter of fact, if she was sincere, she would do that. This wasn't the place to bring that up and he really wondered about that one. It seemed to him that the commission's responsibility was to give the answer that they gave to the people who were concerned about their homes on Portola. The street widening they were told was for the community good and in the long run it was for their good whether they realized it or not. It seemed to him that the commission's decision would be similar for this project. MR. JOE SCARNA, 72-840 San Juan Drive, said that as a homeowner in that neighborhood, he just invested quite a bit of money to remodel his home. He has a 4,000 square foot house there on San Juan Drive. To the Pastor that just spoke, the code word for property value is money. Nothing else. His concern was property value and had nothing to do with seniors, race or any others. Anyone who knew him knew he wasn't that type of individual. He felt the property value was going to be an issue and that was the first statement that came out of his mouth because it was one of protectionism. He put $250,000 into his property knowing the vacant property was R-7. The money was spent and now it was something else and it scared him. They had the barbeque and he was vehemently against this project. He made no bones in saying that. After meeting with the developers at the barbeque, they talked and he was against it on that day for those reasons. He wasn't against the senior citizens and thought it was a great project. He thought if he had a choice that would be the neighbor he would want next to him, not a bunch of homes. But he heard the word density and thought that meant a lot of people or a big building, either or and 250 units of senior citizens couldn't be a bunch of trouble. He wasn't concerned about that. In talking with these folks, he had a brainstorm and he threw it out to them and they were telling him that his property values wouldn't be impacted negatively. He asked how he was supposed to know that. Just because they told him that? That 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 didn't make sense to him. He would be very angry sitting there while his property was devaluating and they were making a whole lot of money. That would be very upsetting to him. So they talked about that and the developer saw his points so he just threw out the suggestion that they buy a couple of houses in the neighborhood. These houses were falling down and most didn't meet code just standing there, but there were third acre lots and a lot of people have shown interest in those properties and were starting to development them into $300,000 homes. That was neat and was a change over. He wanted to see that momentum keep going for selfish reasons. They were willing to do that. That to him meant they feel the same about their project that strongly that they were willing to do that, to invest some money. He thought it was imperative. That was a $50 million project and this was a couple hundred thousand per house. That was a lot to them and their neighborhood. That could be enough to jump start them and keep their neighborhood up on the rise and to keep up with the new homes being built in Rancho Mirage and that whole area. He thought the conditional uses that they put on the CUP they had given them were fair and reasonable. The applicant thought it was and it met all of their issues as neighbors. He didn't think they as neighbors should get involved in how they conduct their business. He saw a lot of that going on. They weren't in the care facility business. He was only interested in appearance, if it would be well-taken care of and he didn't want Halloween 13 going on in there. He wanted tall those folks in there being taken care of nicely and it fairly represented the city of Palm Desert. He said we are a very aggressive city and have a great reputation and he felt a facility like this one run right would enhance it. Run wrong, it could really damage them. As long as they maintain the decorum necessary and use the proper ethics that was required for business, he didn't see that problem. He was for the project now because it would help their neighborhoods because they were investing in it and they were allowing the neighbors an opportunity in their neighborhood. Regarding traffic, he said that traffic would be horrendous no matter where they were. He didn't know what they were going to do to avoid that. He thought we were spoiled. We have been living here so many years when there isn't anyone around. We have growth, more cars and that's just what was going to be a fact of life. How long they could fend that off he couldn't say. But Parkview was a great street to go down. They could zip though it pretty quickly right now and they wouldn't be able to in the future. Whether that 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 project goes in or not, they put 70 homes in that project. That was two and a half cars per house. He thought that was going to be more traffic than the senior citizen project. No matter what was developed there, it would be an issue for everyone. On vacating Fairhaven, he thought the city could help them and their neighborhood by vacating Fairhaven and creating cul-de-sacs there. That would be an important piece to help out their neighborhood and would create a nice buffer between the project and their neighborhood. He kind of heard in the background that the developer buying into their neighborhood was like blackmail. He said it was his idea and no one blackmailed anyone into anything. He put it out there and they accepted it and he thought it was a great idea. Property value was not a code word and he was really upset about that comment from the Pastor. It was representative of him and his neighborhood and he didn't know anyone who was a bigot. That was a genuine concern and it was about dollars. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wanted to give rebuttal comments. Mr. Sweet said he didn't think there was anything to rebut. Mr. Drell asked if Mr. Sweet accepted all of the 28 conditions. Mr. Sweet said the 28 conditions they could live with. There were just a few small items that had to be tweaked. Chairperson Jonathan asked to see the 28 conditions. Mr. Moorhead said there were a couple of small items. It noted that the highest point on the project would be 25 feet and at the community center that one point in the project was either 27 or 28 feet, just that one piece. The setbacks might be wrong on that document, but it would be the setbacks as they presented. Mr. Drell asked what the setbacks were in the document. Mr. Moorhead said that in one case they were a little better than what was requested because they used from the curb instead of from the property line, so the setback off Fairhaven was 12 feet further than they've requested. 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Commissioner Beaty asked about the condition that required all delivery vehicles be natural gas or electric. Chairperson Jonathan clarified it would be onsite vehicles. Mr. Sweet said they weren't going to use smoky vehicles, smog producing vehicles, noisy vehicles. The type of vehicles at the time that are appropriate (i.e., today there were natural gas). Commissioner Beaty asked for clarification that they weren't talking about delivery vehicles, just vehicles used by the facility. Mr. Sweet concurred. Chairperson Jonathan said that provision 17 was about maximum height being limited to 25 feet. Mr. Sweet said that was one of those small details that would have to be tweaked. They could live with that, however, the community center was 28 feet and that one had to be 28, but the other could be 25. The community center was the building that was set back 300 feet from Parkview and 175 from Fairhaven. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Sweet if that was the extent of the controversy as far as he was concerned. Mr. Sweet said he didn't know. Ms. Rogers readdressed the commission and explained that Rancho Mirage had some concerns that they weren't able to get on that draft as of today because she just got it faxed to her. She didn't think it was anything that they couldn't work with (i.e., tile roofs consistent with the neighborhood). Chairperson Jonathan asked for clarification on what she meant by Rancho Mirage. Ms. Rogers said the Rancho Mirage contingency included the Ridgeview Estates, etc., which had been at every meeting. So the 28 conditions they submitted there were a draft. Those were things they came up 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 with as lay people and they would like to have some sort of open door policy to be able to add and work with the developer more. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Commissioner Beaty said he would make a few comments and indicated he felt very qualified to comment on living near a senior center because he lived right across the street from The Carlotta. He was not apparently home when Mr. Sweet did his survey, but he had about three conditions that weren't as bad as the barking dogs that he has. At times the delivery trucks sat out there and idled and tried to get in and he thought the neighbors had addressed that one. He said it was irritating on those nights when the windows were open. It didn't matter when the air conditioner was running. At one time they had a PA entry system and sometimes people would be yelling at that at 6:00 a.m. and that was kind of offensive, but he didn't complain. They were there before he was and they had corrected that, although not at his request, but they reconfigured the entrance and that was no problem. They did have one spotlight that tipped and shined into his backyard and he made a phone call and they fixed it immediately. Their parking lot lights were a little high and he liked the condition they came up with to keep lights below the wall. He thought that was an excellent on and he would like to go back and ask The Carlotta to do that, but he couldn't. He said they were wonderful neighbors. They didn't cause any problems and they didn't cause any problems. There was never any noise from there other than from the delivery trucks. They never had any odors. His garbage pick up service was a whole lot more offensive and they violate the pick up hours routinely and that has bothered him because those trucks are noisy, everyone knew that. He said there weren't any traffic issues, but didn't know how many units were at The Carlotta and whether or not there was a skilled nursing facility. Commissioner Finerty said they did have skilled nursing and needed to add more beds. Commissioner Beaty said it just wasn't a problem. He thought there were some concerns that were unnecessary, truly. However, he couldn't condition the 28 things the commission just received and some of them might need to be tweaked, but he couldn't act on that at this short notice. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Beaty. She thought the developer had done everything in his power to go ahead and help the neighbors and be in tune with them to see what there needs are and what they could do. She was very happy to have Mr. Sweet go to Hacienda de Monterey 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 to check those neighbors because nobody really knew or most of the commission didn't know that they had a 99-bed facility in there when Mr. Sweet originally started with his. From the survey made of the neighbors, there was no problem whatsoever. As far as the two stories and three stories and 28 foot clubhouse facility, the pictures showed that they couldn't even tell there was a third story there. She was willing to recommend that this go to the council for their approval. They would look at all the conditions or staff would clean them up before they were given to council for their recommendation. Commissioner Lopez stated that he had to commend Mr. Sweet, Mr. Moorhead and the residents for working very hard on what he thought at first was a very difficult and controversial project. He thought they had all come a long way from the first meeting. The density issue as far as population had been addressed, the height issue was brought more in line and he felt comfortable with that, the commercialism had been addressed and the restaurant and gift shop were now going to be for the use of the residents and that was going to be incorporated in there. He thought that the 28 points the commission just received, there had been a statement by staff that we would try to incorporate them, but asked how that was going to be done. Mr. Drell said that as an exhibit they would incorporate that agreement as a condition of approval. Basically they were talking about issues like light problems, noise problems, odor problems which were the conceivable ongoing operational impacts of the project and they couldn't always foresee every activity and how it was going to impact those things. He said that for The Garden on El Paseo they inserted a condition because we weren't sure what all the impacts were going to be, and reserved the right to add more mitigations for those unforeseen problems regarding lighting, noise and odor. He said there was an odor problem which took a lot of work after the fact and it was solved. Creating an ongoing sort of a potential for review by the Planning Commission of those sort of issues to act as a kind of final arbitrator of these things that were unforeseen might be a way to deal with it. Commissioner Lopez said the only area that has popped up a couple of times, and he guessed he had personally been affected by it, was the speed on Parkview. He said he has gone down that road to take his son to a friend's house several times and he found himself maybe going a little too fast and one evening when it was dark out someone decided to run across the road in front of them and they were almost hit. The road wasn't lit well, so he was concerned about that and didn't know how that would be addressed in the 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 future, but the road was dark and at times people do travel down that road awfully fast. Other than that, he thought everyone had done a great job on making this work and he would vote for approval. Commissioner Finerty stated that she also appreciated the communication between the applicant, developer and the neighborhood. However, she was opposed to the project for the following reasons. As Mr. Sweet indicated, the project won't be viewable due to landscaping and there would be 318 subterranean parking spaces. That said to her that the project was simply too big for the parcel. She had addressed all along her concern for the mass of the building. A 1 ,350 foot long building was too big. As noted in the staff report as mentioned before, they needed to wait until the landscaping took hold to hide the building. Again, it was just too big. The comparison with Hacienda de Monterey was three stories versus two stories, so it was not really comparable. Other assisted living projects throughout Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage were in fact two stories. She still felt that there was a need to go back and reduce this project to two stories with fewer units and less mass and the recommendation would be that now that they have eliminated the skilled nursing as far as the 99-bed facility was concerned, not necessarily what might be the need of the residents in assisted living on Fred Waring, but perhaps if the project was more spread out, then it might be something she could support. Essentially the commission was being asked to grant two height exceptions. One was 25 feet and the other 28 feet. Again, it was just too big for the area and she again asked the applicant and the developer to find something that would fit nicely into the neighborhood. She thought it had been made clear that no one is opposed to senior housing and she thought senior housing would be an asset. She would just like to see it fit into the neighborhood and thought the project before them now was simply too large. Chairperson Jonathan said he shares those concerns and initially he was opposed to the project for the same reasons the residents expressed tonight: the density, the height, some of the traffic and parking issues and so forth, but he had to say that in his mind the metamorphosis of what they saw initially compared to what they have now before them was persuasive. Deleting the street parking, having only 56 above ground parking spaces, the additional landscaping, the berming, deleting the skilled nursing facility entirely, lowering the grade by five feet, an overall height limitation of 25 and 28 feet, the setback for the three story portion, removing the tower elements, which he found objectionable, and reducing the number of units from 286 to 250. He • felt this was comparing apples to oranges and in his opinion they had before 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 them now a project that makes sense, not just for the immediate neighborhood, but for the entire community and he also felt they had to be careful. They got used to having raw dirt and that's great, but raw dirt in this desert didn't last long, especially in this economic climate. He thought for not only this project but contrasted to what else could come in and the overall impact of this particular project to the neighborhood and to the community was far less invasive that some of the other possibilities for what could go on that raw dirt. Regarding the list of 28 items, he wasn't sure they could incorporate them as conditions, but as he looked through it, most of them already were in one shape or another, but he felt the 28 items could act as a framework for meeting the concerns of the residents because they defined very nicely the areas of concern both during development and then operationally when the project is up. They were part of the record and were an expression of the very legitimate concerns of the residents and he thought they could act as a framework for that. So for the reasons he enumerated, he thought the project was right for the neighborhood and right for the community and thought the impact was very reasonable. He asked for a motion. Mr. Drell asked how the commission wanted staff to deal with the 28 conditions. Chairperson Jonathan said his suggestion was that the 28 items would simply act as an informal framework for meeting the concerns of the residents. Mr. Drell asked why he didn't think they could at least somehow be incorporated and if there was a problem with putting them in some form of a condition so they have a somewhat of a binding nature. Chairperson Jonathan said that the problem with making them into formal conditions, and maybe there were other alternatives and he was open to that, but he shared Commissioner Beaty's concerns that they were just presented with them tonight and some of them were either not consistent with or were in actual conflict with the existing conditions: some of the setback references, some of the height references. Mr. Hargreaves said he hadn't seen them either, but this was going on to council and there was going to be a period there where they could iron out those inconsistencies, so what the Planning Commission could do if they were so disposed was to recommend approval with the conditions as presented by staff and with the substance of the conditions of the 28 subject to modifications between now and then. The applicant and residents would have an additional opportunity before the City Council to express any concerns they might have with the conditions as they eventually get presented. Mr. Drell said there would be another three weeks and as opposed to everyone coming back again, he thought that as long as the applicant was saying that there was nothing in the conditions that were a shop stopper as far as they were concerned, that again would give the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 neighborhood some time to also refine them. Conceptually recommend that they also ultimately be incorporated into the conditions once the inconsistencies were ironed out. Mr. Smith asked if the conditions included the provision relating to investing in two homes in the neighborhood. Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't see that listed. Mr. Smith asked if that was commission's intention to impose such a condition, because he had some draft language if the commission wished. Chairperson Jonathan said that the applicant expressed his intent to do that but didn't know if he'd want to see it as a condition of approval because properties might not be for sale, or whatever. He asked how the other commissioners felt about that. Commissioner Beaty said he heard the expression of yes that was a good idea and makes a commitment and again he would like to see it incorporated. He asked Mr. Smith for the language. Mr. Smith stated, "To mitigate possible aesthetic concerns and property value impacts, the applicant has agreed to acquire two properties in the Palm Dell Estates area within (and he left blank the number of feet) feet of the project to remodel and upgrading. The first property to be acquired and remodeled prior to the applicant obtaining Certificate of Occupancy for the 100th unit in the project. The second property to be acquired and remodeled prior to the applicant obtaining Certificate of Occupancy for the 200th unit in the project." Mr. Hargreaves said they would need to have some operational parameters in there so that everyone understood what we meant by remodel and the scope of the remodeling. Those were details they could work out between now and the time it goes to City Council. Commissioner Beaty said he would like to see that incorporated pending details to be worked out. Mr. Moorhead said that if they incorporate such language into the agreement itself there was going to have to be some cause regarding reasonableness of the pricing there. There were a small number of units that come up for sale at anyone time and they currently had an offer on one property that they put on Monday. They were sincere about moving forward toward this, but at the same time it was a small neighborhood relatively and they made it clear when they were talking to individuals at the picnic that they weren't paying over market price for these properties to give someone a bonus. They would sincerely pay market price and move the values up because they believe in the neighborhood. If the requirement is really narrow and tight, it had a way of forcing a price on the property, so that wording needed to be incorporated if it was mandatory. 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Smith knew how many homes they were talking about and of those homes how many were available for sale at this time. Mr. Smith said no. Chairperson Jonathan said he was concerned about having that kind of condition. Commissioner Beaty stated that if there was some way to document that a fair and reasonable market value offer was made and rejected, and those were easy to come up with because there were lots of people who do appraisals. Chairperson Jonathan said that would be okay, but Mr. Smith's language was that the applicant had to actually acquire and close prior to certain points. If they wanted to make it, a little more open ended to say that good faith offers/formal offers were made within the appraised value, as properties become available. Mr. Drell said that if he was somehow unable to perform, a showing of good cause back to the Planning Commission, and if suddenly no house was for sale, he could be compelled to buy something that was not for sale. Chairperson Jonathan asked if they could say something more broad, like the applicant shall make a good faith effort to acquire a minimum of two properties at their fair market values prior to the project's completion. Something along those lines. Mr. Smith deferred to the City Attorney. Mr. Hargreaves said that he was sure that between now and the time this goes before City Council that they could work out something. At this point they could incorporate the substance of that idea subject to refinement. Commissioner Beaty asked if this was on Thursday night's council agenda. Mr. Drell said no, it wouldn't go until December 9. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that would meet Commissioner Beaty's concerns. Commissioner Beaty said yes. Chairperson Jonathan said that with regard to the list of 28 items, the commission was saying to staff to incorporate them into the conditions of approval and ensure there are no conflicts with the existing conditions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a motion subject to those two changes. Mr. Hargreaves clarified that the changes would have the conditions as recommended by staff, plus the substance of the 28 conditions, plus the substance of the idea that the applicant would purchase and invest in two additional residences in that area. There was a question with respect to the Rancho Mirage additions. Chairperson Jonathan said they have dealt or chosen not to deal with that. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission ResQlution No. 1958, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no). C. Case No. PP 99-17 - DONALD PECK, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for an 8,000 square foot retail building on the north side of El Paseo, 250 feet west of Lupine Lane, 73-300 El Paseo. Mr. Smith noted that plans were on display. He stated that this property was the last remaining vacant piece of dirt in this section of El Paseo. It has a width of 100 feet and depth of 233 feet. It fronts on El Paseo and extends through into a common parking lot to the north. The parking lot situation he chose to describe as semi-organized. It was going to need some work. This applicant had chosen to connect to the parking lot situation to the west of the site. He aligned with and connected with it. With the area to the east there would not be connections. He couldn't do it both ways. He could either connect to the east or to the west and it made more sense to connect to the west. The 8,000 square foot building met code requirements for the height of the building, the parking, and setbacks. He noted that this building was higher than the buildings on either side of it. Buildings on either side of it rise taller further back on the building, so Architectural Commission for that reason and because of the colonnade section across the front of this building, they suggested and requested that Planning Commission require the building to be moved five feet further back from El Paseo which would put it in line with the adjacent buildings. There was room to accomplish that, in fact, there was a copy of the plan showing that but there were only two copies. That was the only change that would be affected on the project. Staff was suggesting that commission certify a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact which was included in the packet. There was also a draft resolution with conditions. Staff was recommending approval, subject to conditions. He said he had photographs of the adjacent buildings if anyone wished to see them. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty noted that the Hartman Jewelry building she was told was 12'/2 feet at the front and 21 feet as it rises to the back. Mr. Smith said 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1955, approving TT 29469, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. D. Case Nos. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 - PEARL INDUSTRIES INC., Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion), development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, a community center building and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive. Mr. Smith stated that staff would be recommending a continuance. He noted that on September 21 Planning Commission denied this request. At that point in time it was the applicant's preference for a denial as opposed to a continuance. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal. The matter was set for hearing at council on October 14. On October 6 the applicant revised his plans significantly. At the Council meeting of October 14 the council felt the changes were significant enough that the matter needed to be referred back to Planning Commission. Staff renoticed the matter for hearing, prepared a revised report, the environmental documentation, a resolution of approval, and conditions. At that time the changes staff was looking at included the lowering of the three-story section from 28 feet to 25 feet, lowering the two- story section from 17 feet to 15 feet, deletion of all the tower elements and in so doing that, the maximum height on the site became the community facility building at 28 feet. Additionally, the applicant deleted the parking adjacent to Fairhaven Drive, some 29 or 30 spaces, in favor of additional landscaping. That was what staff noticed for tonight's meeting. Last Wednesday, the 27th of October, the applicant and neighborhood met. Thursday morning Mr. Smith was contacted by both the applicant and 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 neighbors. The applicant came away from the meeting with the neighborhood convinced that the issue that was causing the problem with the project involved the commercial aspect of the skilled nursing facility. Consequently, they agreed to delete the skilled nursing facility. Staff learned of that on Thursday. In talking with Jerry Rogers on Thursday, one of the people in the neighborhood, he felt that they were now in a position to possibly come to some type of agreement on this proposal, but they did not have enough time to work out the final details and at that point he requested a continuance until November 16 and any time where there is a concerted effort going on in a neighborhood to arrive at a compromise, staff didn't want to stand in the way of that possibility. Staff also at that point decided to issue an addended report where staff recommended a continuance until November 16. He indicated that on display, there were renderings of the most recent artist rendition of one of the sections of the building which was received earlier in the day. They were finally getting some detail that staff hadn't seen earlier. He noted that other plans were also on display. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. CHARLIE SWEET, 43-708 Virginia Avenue in Palm Desert, said that they were on the cusp of making peace with the neighborhood and coming to an amicable agreement which he believed would be in the best interest of everyone. Certainly the time constraints didn't avail themselves to have that done by this evening. He concurred with a continuance to November 16. However, one of the considerations on their behalf was their lender. He was requesting from the Planning Commission direction to staff to prepare a public hearing notice for the City Council meeting of November 18. If they continued Planning Commission to the 1 6th, they would like to go to council two days later. On behalf of Pearl Industries, they respectfully requested that. Chairperson Jonathan asked if staff had considered that request and if they had an opinion on the matter. Mr. Smith said it didn't give staff a whole lot of time after commission on the 16th to have information to council in a timely fashion for the 18th. Just like Planning Commission doesn't appreciate staff walking in with revised reports the day of a hearing, council was no more appreciative than this commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was their second meeting in November. Mr. Smith explained that it was their only 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 meeting in November. Their next meeting would be December 9, 1999. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was possible to put together a preliminary report for council on the assumption that there would be approval based on what the applicant would bring to staff's attention earlier than the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Smith said normally yes there was that possibility. In this case the problem is that next week Thursday, November 1 1 , is a non work day and then the cut off for the council meeting for the 18th is next Tuesday. It wouldn't be a good situation, but it was something the commission could consider. Mr. Drell said that theoretically staff could get an updated report Friday morning since council packets would be distributed then. Basically with the consent and understanding of the City Manager, they could have the updated report available Friday. They would have to have committed that it was going to be on the agenda. The main thing was that it had to be given to the City Clerk. The City Clerk had to know it would be on the agenda and that the report would be coming. The Commission could give direction that it was their desire to see staff accommodate the time constraints of the applicant as much as possible depending on what sorts of changes occur and how soon staff knew when they occurred. Staff would try to their best ability to get it on. Mr. Smith indicated that it had to be noticed to the newspaper tomorrow. Mr. Drell said the down side was inviting folks to come to these meetings when they weren't sure there would be a full show for them to participate in. Commissioner Finerty stated that ever since this process began they have been on fast track. They haven't given Architectural Review adequate time, plans had not been received in a timely manner, the commission was asked at their September 21 meeting by the applicant for a denial rather than try to work with the neighborhood, commission and staff, and she felt it was time to slow down and if there was something that could be worked out here and there was some common ground to be found, they should let the process work. It was her understanding that this project has been in the works for quite some time. If they had a problem with financing that respectfully was the applicant's problem and didn't mean it was something that the rest of them needed to try and accommodate. Chairperson Jonathan asked for further comments from the applicant. Mr. Sweet said that the continuance to November 16 was fine. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Lopez pointed out the newest rendering and asked the applicant what view they were looking at. Mr. Sweet said that it was a portion of the residential structure going toward the street, the two story element. In that particular view, they didn't actually see the front of the two-story structure. Commissioner Lopez asked if that was identical for the other two. Mr. Sweet said yes. He pointed out the two story view with the proposed landscaping on top of the second story. Commissioner Finerty noted that on September 21 there was testimony given that skilled nursing was an important phase of this project for the World War II veterans, who were especially noted. The convenience of having both the assisted living and skilled nursing located on the same property was essential. Now due to neighborhood concerns, it was being eliminated. She asked what he would do with a person in the assisted living project that breaks a hip or has a stroke and requires skilled nursing before he/she is able to return to their assisted living units. Mr. Sweet said they could be taken to JFK or Eisenhower hospitals. Commissioner Finerty indicated that generally there was a time between the hospital and returning to assisted living that would require some sort of skilled nursing. She asked if his proposal was to move them to a hospital and no phase in between. Mr. Sweet said that onsite they would have the independent residential living plus the assisted living. By theory they would also have the skilled nursing facility on site. With the deletion of this particular building, didn't mean they couldn't have some skilled nursing on the interior of the project, not open for the public but solely for the benefit of the residents. Commissioner Finerty asked if by theory they would still be providing skilled nursing. She thought she just heard in staff's report that skilled nursing was being deleted. She asked if he could provide clarification. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Mr. Sweet said they deleted the proposed detached skilled nursing facility. Commissioner Finerty asked if it was his intent to still have skilled nursing in the facility. Mr. Sweet said they hadn't decided that. Commissioner Finerty asked if that was something he discussed with the neighborhood when he agreed to eliminate it. Mr. Sweet said sure, that building on Fred Waring Drive. Commissioner Finerty said that as she understood the neighborhood's concern, skilled nursing dealt with it being more commercial than residential. She asked if that was correct. The neighborhood was concerned with the effect of a commercial establishment with skilled nursing rather than residential. One of the reasons they wanted the skilled nursing facility removed was to eliminate the commercial effect so that it would all be residential. Mr. Sweet's testimony tonight was saying that they would eliminate a building, but there would be skilled nursing elsewhere in the remaining buildings. Mr. Sweet said no, that was his problem in the vernacular. They would have residential living and assisted living. The assisted living was commonplace in the residential building. For example, the patient who has the hip problem and needed the medicine and couldn't go down the hall to secure the medicine, it would be brought to them. Or if that patient needed help getting dressed or bathed, a medical assistant would go to their room and assist them. That was the assisted living portion. Commissioner Finerty asked what Pearl Industries' long term intention with regard to the need for skilled nursing. What she thought she heard Mr. Sweet say tonight was that he felt that eventually they would need some portion of that in the existing buildings. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Sweet said no, that was his mistake. The intent of his comment was that they would have assisted living inside the residential building for that resident who couldn't leave his unit. 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Finerty pointed out that they weren't debating the assisted living portion, but the skilled nursing. She asked if it was Mr. Sweet's intent really to never come back and ask for skilled nursing in the future because in September this was a critical phase. This was part of the marketing phase and was fulfilling a need to go from assisted living right to skilled nursing on the same premises and what a great idea and convenience for the seniors. Now he was saying they would get rid of it and didn't need it and she was trying to determine if he was sure he didn't need it. MR. DAVID MOORHEAD, with Pearl Development, stated that the reason for having a potential for a skilled nursing facility on the location would be strictly driven by State regulation for this type of facility. They might have to have a skilled nursing ability, but not a complete facility. The property they deleted on Fred Waring was a 100-bed skilled nursing facility, far larger than this project needed and too commercial for the residents of Palm Desert to use that would not have to be living or previously living in their facility. That was the commercial aspect that was taken out. The only thing they were proposing was the assisted living would potentially have a requirement by the State to take care of those people until they were able to be moved to Eisenhower or one of the longer term places. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that he wasn't currently aware of what the State's requirement was. Mr. Moorhead said he was, but it depended on how the project was marketed. Commissioner Finerty asked how he planned to market the project. Mr. Moorhead stated that it depended on the market at the time the project was built and approved. Commissioner Finerty said that if he was giving a commitment to the neighborhood that they weren't going to have skilled nursing and then they were saying that it depended on how the project was marketed and didn't know how they were going to market it at this time, she asked how honest they were being with the neighborhood. 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Mr. Moorhead felt the line of questioning was making the answer appear not straight forward. Basically they were not proposing a skilled nursing facility. He wanted to make it clear that they might have to have a State regulation skilled nursing activity on that location. Chairperson Jonathan thought that what he was saying was that they have deleted the public skilled nursing facility which was to provide 99 beds of skilled nursing. They were deleting that. However, the project may have skilled nursing services for the 250 unit continuing care retirement community. Not for the public. They might have the services for the rest of the project, but they deleted the skilled nursing facility. Mr. Moorhead said that was correct. Commissioner Finerty noted that there was a condition that the restaurant was only open to residents and their guests. Another issue of concern to the neighborhood had to do with the commercial nature of the gift shop. She asked if he was amenable to the same conditions being placed on the gift shop. Mr. Moorhead said yes. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JOHN MARTINEZ, 72-777 Fleetwood Avenue in Palm Desert, said that except for the few residences on Fairhaven, he was the only one in the room that was really directed by this project. He was on the east side of the project. Also, he owned the 26 units there and was also an owner that was diagonally across the street from this project. Every time he has met the applicant/developer or been at one of the meetings, everything has changed. When it first stated that driveway was to be on Fred Waring. Now the driveway is on Fred Waring and Parkview. It was going to be 43 feet high, now it was 27. The renderings have changed every time they met. He was at the meeting last Wednesday and it was very informative. It was his understanding that the applicant offered to do away with the convalescent hospital, the 99-bed hospital, because it was broken down to exactly what was wrong with the project as far as the neighborhood and he was concerned was density. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 He had no problem with the restaurant because it served the existing persons. He had no problem with the hospital because it didn't affect him directly. The commercial property could go into an office building or into any kind of commercial there or maybe another hospital. What he was concerned about was the three stories. They dug the project five feet into the ground and lowered some of the things. He was concerned with the height, the three stories. It didn't affect the people at First Quail Run because it was owned by the city. He was approached and asked why he would object to a project that was given a free rental market that was right next to him. It was the same thing with Quail Run. They wouldn't object to it because the city owns it and there was a market for the potential 150 people that were supposed to work there. With the hospital gone, he didn't know how many people would work there. He thought it should be two stories, eliminate the third, and should have its proper setbacks. They were shown one rendering of the entrance of the facility itself. Because Parkview was an attractive street from the Latter-day Saints Church, the residences, radio station, Monterey Sands and then the Estates in Rancho Mirage. Even First Quail Run and his building. It was all attractive and all of a sudden with this project they would have a three-story wall. And it was the back side of the project. It wasn't the front side. He noted that there was assisted living on Monterey across the street from the shopping center which was very attractive. That was what he was concerned about. The applicant was asking for 250 units on an R-7 or P-7. He was restricted to it and even on a senior overlay, and they could give him all the arguments in the world that it doesn't create a lot of traffic and didn't have school children, didn't need playgrounds, or garages, but it still created traffic, still created more extensive density. Someone would build on that property and someone would probably do this, and he had no objections if they would just lower the density. He was the only one here that was really affected directly than the few people on Fairhaven that were single family houses. That was the reason he would like to change it. The other thing was that all these continuances and all the meetings, he would like to have a permanent draft because everything seemed like it changed every week. The applicant offered to get rid of the convalescent home if it would change the density. He didn't think that solved the problem. He wanted the third floor eliminated. 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Finerty asked if Mr. Martinez was aware that by eliminating the skilled nursing facility that the density actually increased. Mr. Martinez said he didn't know that. All he was saying was that he wasn't against the hospital. His problem was the structure itself. Everyone had to have senior housing, there was no question about it, and with the money they were giving the city ($16,000 per unit per the applicant), and that was over $3 million and he was sure it was good for that. His problem was the height and the size. He would like to see it come down. He listened very carefully at that meeting and people were more concerned about the restaurant, the noise, traffic than they were about the convalescent hospital. The applicant offered to eliminate it for the density, but he didn't think that was the answer. DR. DAVID MIDDLETON, 72-799 Arboleda, stated that the residence was right next door to the lot. Since the matter was going to be continued, he only had two comments. Earlier there was an item from Baxley Properties and a previous project had been denied and now they proposed residential. It seemed like a similar situation here where there was some residential area that was being converted into zoning. He agreed with Mr. Martinez in that he was also concerned about the restaurant and gift shop that was going to be a commercial enterprise. With the restrictions on it being only available to the residents and their guests, perhaps that concern had been diminished a little bit. He was most concerned about how this project seemed to be changing so much and then to meet again on the 16th with the Planning Commission and go right to the City Council two days later he didn't feel gave the neighbors time to digest what the final project was all about and come to a decision as to whether or not they could live with it or if they needed to continue working with the developers. He asked the commission to vote against whatever motion it would be to make a decision on the 16th and go to council on the 18th. That wasn't enough time for them. MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive in Palm Desert, stated that was directly across from the proposed development. The project was immense, dense, and it was too high. At first, most of the neighborhood was against this development entirely due to the impact they strongly believe it will have on their quality of life. Collectively 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 they still felt that it wasn't in their best interest. They were currently surrounded on Fred Waring, Monterey and somewhat on Parkview with commercial developments. When they considered that One Quail Place was just across the way, they would soon be isolated. The building of this facility would put two of the biggest projects in Palm Desert right next to each other, resulting in continued inconveniences to their neighborhood. With the McCallum Theater, the College of the Desert and its weekend Street Fair, Trader Joe's plaza and all the other development that have been manufactured after most of them bought their homes, she asked where they went. Another point was the fact that if this facility did get approved, they would have to put up with two years of construction, noise, etc. After several meetings with the developer and Charlie Sweet, it had become apparent that they want to work with the neighbors to come up with some terms they could live with. One proposal was to eliminate the hospital facility which none of them were so naive to think was something the developer did just for them. The neighbors asked to put some of the density that would have been used for the hospital facility from the 250 bed units over onto the other property. That was completely negated. She thought it was because the applicant probably had the property sold for a good profit. They had been told that if this project didn't go in this location that they could be looking at affordable housing or something less desirable. That was scary to the residents who have improved their properties and couldn't afford to buy a like property anywhere else in the valley. They felt they had no choices. So far most of these adjustments had been verbally taken into consideration, however, they had no written assurances. They were asking for this continuance simply because they as a neighborhood have not had any time to review and discuss the proposed changes and/or any other issues that they hadn't thought of yet. This project had been in the works for several years and the developer was intimate with what he could and couldn't to it to make it feasible for him. They as concerned neighbors have had less than two weeks to digest and disperse this information to all homeowners and get their opinions since the latest changes. They have had two neighborhood meetings so far and feel that in this short time it proved their willingness to address the situation, good, bad or otherwise. As she was sure the commission was aware, they were a working class neighborhood and to find time for all of them to get together was next to impossible. Due to the urgency that has been imposed on them, the 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 first possible date they could meet was at a self-promoted barbeque on Sunday, November 14. They hoped to have great neighborhood attendance and hoped to be able to come back to this commission on the 16th of November and have some viable options to present. They further understood that Pearl Industries had asked to be put on the agenda for Council on the 18th. She asked if that was fair for them. They didn't think so. They hadn't decided one way or the other if this project was something they could live with, but they were at least entertaining ideas to that end. She asked that the commission grant the continuance to allow the residents a fair amount of time to digest the changes that were indicated a few days ago. MS. NANCY SINGER, 6 Navato Terrace in Rancho Mirage, stated that she was on the Board of Directors for The Estates at Rancho Mirage, the project directly across Parkview, kind of. There was Ridgeview Estates, too, but they didn't have any homeowners yet to get up and speak. She had spoken with Mr. Kearney the developer who is a Palm Desert resident and he concurred with their concerns. They had quite a few discussions about that. She had the opportunity to address Planning Commission in September and she appreciated the opportunity to do it again tonight. In her opinion and in the opinion of homeowners whom she represented, not a lot has changed. All that has happened was they were being pushed, and pushed and pushed more. Even the renderings shown to the commission tonight no one in the community had seen. It seemed incredible to her that it changed constantly. They didn't know what was going on and obviously the commission didn't know what was going on, the Planning Department was given changed information constantly and asked how any of them could absorb it. She commended Judi Rogers for planning the barbeque on the 14th and for hosting the other community meetings that had been held. Even meeting on the 14th was going to push a lot to get here on the 16th to get everyone's opinion gathered. Her guess was that they will have changed some of the plans again by then. She asked when it was going to stop and when they were going to see renderings. She thought that was why the Architectural Review Board had not passed on this project yet. It was because they hadn't seen renderings yet to meet the needs they have. This just kept going on. The traffic went up. The developer told them he has done a traffic study and that Parkview will allow 30,000. He maintains that Rancho Mirage never did one. 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 She called Rancho Mirage and they did one that says a maximum of 13,000. That was less than 50% of what the developer said. This was in their general plan, so there was a lot of going back and forth on this. Even the 16th might be pushing it for everyone. Then to go to council on the 18th was absurd in her opinion. There was no way that anybody could absorb anything to know what was going on here. They were being given a development that didn't fit into their community at all. When she said "our community" she was referring to those of them on the north side of Parkview which was both Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert and those on the south side of Parkview and in the Fairhaven area which was all Palm Desert. They needed some time to absorb this and time to work with the developer. Obviously Mr. Baxley had heard from the commission some time ago that a commercial building in a residential area was not satisfactory. He converted to a residential community which the commission applauded him for. That was what they would like to see here, but the developer wasn't willing to do that. At last week's meeting he let the discussion go on for close to an hour about the skilled nursing part then he offered to get rid of it. They all knew that was planned from the beginning and asked why they wasted a whole hour on it. She thought it was another example of him trying to ramrod everything down their throats. She wanted to work with him and with the community. She had been trying to work very closely with Ms. Rogers but they had to get some information and it had to not keep changing. MS. BEVERLY VORWALLER, 72-875 Parkview Drive, informed commission that she also owns property at 72-445 Cholla Drive on the other side of One Quail P►ace between the Downey Savings project. For the record, she stated that this proposal was opposite of the Palma Village Plan, Palm Desert Commercial Core Plan Specific Plan, and the General Plan. She believed that if the commission would envision plopping down Embassy Suites on her little neighborhood, they would see this project. Three floors. Embassy Suites is located on the land that floats toward the wash. This is the flat land next to the wash. She has lived in this area for about 30 years and when it rains in this particular area, which is why Parkview is designed as a flood channel, and if the commission looked at the maps, it wasn't actually a road but a storm channel because off of the little mountain there came tons of rain. This little neighborhood has been flooded out a number of times. 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 She didn't know where this project would drain the water. She could see so many problems with it. The wrong building in the wrong place and everything about this project was wrong, but she wanted to let the commission know that she wasn't opposed to having a senior residence next door to her. She thought that was a grand idea. She wasn't opposed to having a two-story building there as long as it was within code and not asking for all kinds of exceptions at the last hour. They were told that it just didn't pencil out to have less than three floors but there were no less than five new senior facilities going in Rancho Mirage and none of them were three floors and they were all located close to hospitals, close to emergency facilities, and they all have two entrances and exits that weren't going through neighborhoods or through residential areas at all. It just seemed that even though Palm Desert would be a prime place to live as a senior resident, this would be the wrong design to put here. Hacienda de Monterey was fine. The Carlotta was fine. They were in residential areas, but the whole impact and design was not like Embassy Suites. This was like putting a huge hotel here and it was wrong. This was a time when these two little neighborhoods were finally seeing an increase in property values for their one single family units and with this property coming in that would almost nullify what has been going on there. She wanted it on the record that waiting in this instance was a good plan and that something good would come along. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicant wished to give rebuttal comments. Mr. Moorhead said that the reason for the changes that they made were the result of meetings with the neighbors and making the property smaller. They were trying to change the facility to fit in with the neighborhood and the neighbors would appreciate the changes. He thought they had appreciated the changes they made and it seemed like a double-edged sword to be criticized for making changes. They had been working very hard to trim the building facility so that it would please the neighbors and that was all he wanted to say regarding the changes. Chairperson Jonathan said that the public hearing would be continued and asked for commission comments. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Commissioner Finerty stated that she was concerned about the mass of the structure. If it looked like it would be continued, she wanted to share some of her thoughts so that maybe they could finally get this right. The staff report pointed out on page six that until the landscaping treatment takes hold to minimize the mass of the buildings, this would be one of the largest structures in the city. Her preference, as testimony alluded to tonight, would be for the project to be two stories, up to 20 feet high with fewer units and less mass. She was also concerned about having two large high densities projects side by side. She asked if that was a good precedent to set for the city. She didn't think so. Would this project enhance the city? She doubted it. When architectural changes were made, they received updated plans at the 1 1 th hour and the Planning Commission didn't have the benefit of Architectural Review's comments. She understood that additional plans were just dropped off today. She asked how staff could be expected to evaluate the project when plans were not submitted timely. As she understood it, Architectural Review had not reviewed the plans where eight parking spaces were eliminated on Parkview and 30 on Fairhaven for additional landscaping to help with the mass of the building and create a berm with trees and also a wall to be placed on top of the berm. This revision was scheduled for Architectural Review last week but no plans were available to review. Additionally, Architectural Review didn't have enough detail to approve the building elevations. She preferred to wait until Architectural Review has received adequate plans and the commission had the benefit of their comments. The applicant was in a hurry on September 21 . He didn't care to discuss the modifications and requested a denial. Now a letter from Mr. Rogers, who she understood was pretty much the representative of the community, was requesting a continuance. And now they had Mr. Sweet again trying to jump the gun and push it to the council's agenda on November 18. She felt there was something disingenuous about the entire application. The applicant was always in a hurry and in her conversations with the neighborhoods, unfortunately they felt they were stuck with this project. They had been led to believe by the applicant that the project is a slam dunk. That he has the votes of the council and that the neighborhood must compromise because they had to, not because they had a real choice in the matter. She felt this was sad. As she understood it, most neighbors would prefer residential homes if they felt they had a fighting chance. She understood that Mr. Sweet and the developer met with the Rogers this past Saturday and more or less implied that if the neighborhood wasn't willing to go along with the project, perhaps some of the costly mitigating factors such as the landscaping 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 might disappear. And the commission heard testimony tonight that if this project wasn't approved, there might be affordable housing down the road. She didn't believe the applicant had any intention of working with the commission at the September 21 meeting and she didn't think he cared what the commission had to say. The perception of the neighborhood really bothered her and the attitude of the developer left much to be desired. She would agree to a continuance tonight, but she was in favor of slowing down the process, getting all of the revised plans, meet with ARC, meet with the neighborhood, and see if there is some common ground before this matter appears on a future commission agenda. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that in the staff report on page six it also said that with the building depressed five feet into the ground, the two story sections were more in keeping with a single story structure and the three story section at 25 feet was very much in keeping with a typical two story building. So the three story building would be similar to a two-story building. That was what was in the staff report per staff. She would be in favor of a continuance to the 16th and would leave it up to staff to see if there was any way they could get it before council on the 18th. Commissioner Lopez said his original concern was on the density and height of the building. The fact that it was in such a high residential area it concerned him that it was in that particular location. Those feelings still existed. He would be in favor of a continuance from the standpoint of the neighborhood. He felt they deserved the opportunity to review what the commission has seen tonight and have the opportunity to meet again with the developer to express their concerns. But he was concerned with the assumption that it would be before the City Council on the 18th. That bothered him a little bit and he didn't know if they could make it happen. He thought there was an awful lot that had to be done, but he was in favor of the continuance based on the comments he had heard tonight from the neighbors. Commissioner Beaty said that he was in concurrence with the continuance and they all knew the council was not shy. If they didn't feel they have had time to digest the matter by the 18th, they weren't going to hesitate in continuing it, but he didn't have a problem with going ahead and getting it on the agenda in case they wanted to review it. 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan shared the concerns and comments. He was a little bit saddened to hear some of their comments directed at a personal level with regard to the applicant and he said he took exception to those. He thought they were an unfair characterization of someone he has known personally for nearly 20 years and has a great deal of respect for. He thought those kind of comments were unwarranted. On the face of it, they had to recognize that the application before them was apples and oranges compared to what it was at the beginning. For whatever reason, changes had taken place. Was that adequate? He didn't know and wasn't addressing that. There had been substantive changes and perhaps efforts to accommodate the needs and desires of the surrounding residents. Whether they were enough or not, whether they were adequate or appropriate, he didn't know and they would discuss that in detail at a future date, but he would encourage everyone to continue to keep an open mind and to see if there was a workable solution and if there wasn't, they would move on. But it was possible that perhaps by working together they could do something that wasn't just good for the neighborhood, but good for the entire desert community because he felt that everyone expressed agreement that senior housing and this type of facility was appropriate somewhere in some way. If they could make that happen, that would be terrific. If not, they would move on, but he hoped they could continue working in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect. He favored a continuance and felt they needed to give the process time to resolve itself. He absolutely agreed with Commissioner Beaty that if they posted the matter for the council's agenda on the 18th or if staff could find a way to do that, council was not bashful and if they felt unprepared they would not hesitate to continue the matter on their own. But if for some reason they lucked out and if there was not unanimity, then at least a consensus at the commission meeting, then why not move it forward while it was fresh on everyone's mind while everyone was here and dispense with the matter. He would be in favor of a continuance to the commission meeting on November 16 and if staff could find a way to post it on the council's agenda for the 18th. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 to November 16, 1999. Motion carried 5-0. Staff was requested to see if they could find a way to place the matter on the council's agenda for November 18. Chairperson Jonathan thanked everyone for attending. 24 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 2, 1999 CASE NOS: GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion, development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, a community center building and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive. APPLICANT: Pearl Industries Inc. Pearl Industries Inc. 66 Alviso Drive c/o Charles Sweet Camarillo, CA 93010 43-708 Virginia Avenue Palm Desert, CA 9221 1 BACKGROUND: Based on the revision to the plan made October 6, 1999 the council referred this matter back to Planning Commission and staff scheduled the matter for a new hearing November 2, 1999. Staff prepared a complete report and recommendation on the revised plan (see report attached). Wednesday, October 27, 1999, the applicant and the neighborhood met. Thursday morning staff was advised verbally that the applicant was deleting the skilled nursing facility in order to address neighborhood concerns that the project was a commercial operation. In talking with Jerry Rogers, staff was convinced that there is a concerted effort by the residents to work out an acceptable compromise on this project. Both the applicant and Mr. Rogers wrote to the city outlining their impressions of the meeting. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Staff indicated to the applicant that it appears that a continuance would be in order to allow the details to be worked out. The applicant resisted the continuance because of financing concerns. As of the writing of this report staff have not had an opportunity to review the new revised plans although we have been verbally advised of the changes. II. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a real opportunity for consensus to be reached. Considering that the revision to a 25-foot high building was not made until October 6, 1999, it seems reasonable to give the residents a little more time to work on a list of conditions that would make the project acceptable in their view. III. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission continue Case Nos. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 to November 16, 1999 and that Planning Commission commit to the applicant that it is commission's intention to take an action at its November 16, 1999 meeting. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits E. Letters of objection received from neighbors Prepared by Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved byr_- >ct A._ Phil Drell /tm 2 October 28, 1999 Palm Desert Planning Department RFC F.F V F Attn: Mr. Steve Smith 73510 Fred Waring Dr. OCT 2 9 1999 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: Paseo Village Neighborhood Meeting Dear Steve, Last evening Pearl Industries hosted a meeting with representatives of both the Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage neighbors near the proposed "Paseo Village" project. Following our presentation of the significant changes to the project (as they are currently submitted to you) we had several hours of exchange. Their concerns include traffic overload on Parkview Dr., noxious odors from the kitchen, noisy diesel vehicles, rats and vermin. These issues follow their chief concern: Commercial activity and density. This issue they "believe" will generate employee/service traffic impacting the equity of the neighborhood even though the traffic study, logic and the fundamental rationale for a senior overlay as a zone, all indicate that less traffic would be generated than by a typical neighborhood of 13 plus acres. The ONLY way to further reduce the scope of this project (i.e.commercial activity and density) is to delete the 99 bed Skilled Nursing Facility. Through considerable internal debate and financial expense we have agreed to reduce the project's scope by approximately 25% by deleting the skilled nursing facility. In addition, Jerry and Judy Rogers, speaking on behalf of the neighbors, asked for several "conditions"to be applied-to-the project and incorporated into the development agreement. Several of these conditions would be the use of non-noise producing vehicles, odor and pest control, etc. Pearl agreed to this concept and incorporate any of these issues within reason. The neighbors are well aware of the significant development changes Pearl has addressed to mitigate the "causes" of their concerns, they include: 1) Primary ingress/egress changed from Fairhaven to Parkview Dr. 2) Reduced building grade 5 feet below curb 3) Building height reduction to 25 feet 4) Delete Skilled Nursing Facility on Fred Waring Dr. 5) Intense street and project landscaping 6) Reduced residential density from 300 dwelling units to 250 dwelling units. Pearl Industries thanks you and staff for your efforts in this process. Charlie Sweet David Morehead October 28, 1999 Mr. Stephen Smith Via fax Planning Manager City of Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re:Pearl Industries Inc. Proposed Senior Assisted Living Project Dear Steve: As you are aware, numerous members of the Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage neighborhoods met with representatives of Pearl Industries on October 27 at 5:00 pm to discuss concerns and possible solutions regarding this proposed Senior Assisted Living Project. Neighborhood concerns run across the board but with a reasonable amount of time could be discussed and possibly solved. Collectively, we want to conclude on issues related to the zone change, building design, conditions of the CUP, operating requirements and restrictions and important issues related to the development agreement before any public meeting is held. It is my understanding that this issue is before the Planning Commission on November 2. Since the majority of the changes to the original plans have only been made over the last few weeks, I do not think it is reasonable that the Planning Commission, City Council or the developer should expect that this is enough time for us to digest the changes or even have the opportunity to suggest further mitigation to make the project more acceptable. It fact, the neighborhood representatives are supposed to receive the revised plans and elevations sometime today. I would suggest that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing until November 16. In that time, the neighborhood representatives will meet numerous times to work through the issues at hand with the intent to meet with Pearl Industries again. This effort will culminate with a neighborhood barbeque on November 14th. The outcome of all of our efforts can then be discussed at the Planning Commission Public Hearing on November 16th. When we suggested this time frame to Pearl representatives, they indicated that their funding sources might have a problem with the delay. I do take exception to that position. This project has been in various stages of concept and design for many years, I do not think it is unreasonable that the neighborhoods are allowed an appropriate amount of time, in this case 30 days from when the changes were made, to digest the project. Pearl Industries, by their own admission last night indicated that this meeting should have taken place long ago. I thing the possibility that Pearl Industries and the two neighborhoods can work something out does exist, but we do need a reasonable amount of time to do so. Since Aip RUSSELL & HALINA MOCH 1 FLORENTINA DRIVE RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 (760) 346-1968 October 26, 1999 RECEIVED 0t;1 9 1999 Palm Desert Planning Commission UiAu L�t!TYG dLiOP ;NTDEPARTMENT Palm Desert City Hall cr^rot•PALM DE;ERT 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: Re: Proposed Pearl Industries development issues Even though we have previously written to you expressing a few concerns about the proposed Pearl Industries development, several other issues have since surfaced that we would like to share with you. 1. SAFETY - The current development plan has the major traffic outlet for the complex funneling on to Parkview. To have an additional 500 - 1,000 potential residents accessing Parkview daily creates an enormous safety hazard. Parkview, from the 'wash' going east to the College of the Desert is a 1 mile drag strip; it is not unusual to have traffic zooming by at 60mph after literally becoming airborne going through the dip in the wash. We are frequently tailgated by anxious motorists wanting to exceed the speed limit - in fact, we have been passed, both on the right and on the left on our way to Monterey. It is only a matter of time before an unsuspecting motorist is broadsided by one of these frequent racers...it would be tragic for one of the new senior residents to be critically injured or become permanently disabled. We strongly recommend a major traffic outlet elsewhere - perhaps on Fred Waring Drive which is striped and already designed for denser commercial traffic use. 2. GIFT SHOP & RESTAURANT - Besides the continued commercial aspect of the entire project, both a restaurant and a gift shop are also in the plans. This further emphasizes the true commercial nature of the proposal; it is not just residential. We are very opposed to the gift shop, the restaurant and the 99 bed facility; they smack of pure commercialism and are certainly not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Page One of Two Palm Desert Planning Commission October 26, 1999 With these two concerns, coupled with our previous issues of 1) unbelievable density, 2) noise, 3) traffic, 4) project height, and 5) decreased surrounding property values, we urge you to very seriously review and amend the existing Pearl Industries project. As it is currently planned, it would produce a strong negative impact on the surrounding residents and the environment. Please feel free to call us on this matter at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, Russell S Moch Halina A Moch Cc Steve Smith, Palm Desert Planning Department Nancy Singer, The Estates at Rancho Mirage Homeowners Association Page Two of Two CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 2, 1999 CASE NOS: GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, approval of a change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion, development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, a community center building and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive. APPLICANT: Pearl Industries Inc. Pearl Industries Inc. 66 Alviso Drive c/o Charles Sweet Camarillo, CA 93010 43-708 Virginia Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 BACKGROUND: This application was before commission September 21 , 1999 at which time commission voted 4-1 (Jonathan voting nay) to deny the request. At that time commission did not feel that a height exception was warranted and expressed other concerns with respect to mass, height, landscaping and density. The Planning Commission denial was appealed by the applicant to the City Council where it was scheduled for hearing October 14, 1999. October 6, 1999 the applicant revised his plans by reducing the three story sections to 25 feet (previously 28 feet), reducing the two story units from 17 feet to 15 feet, deleted the tower elements, reduced the community building from 42 feet to 28 feet and replaced the 29 parking spaces along Fairhaven Drive with landscaping. At the October 14, 1999 hearing the Council was advised of these changes and the Council subsequently referred the matter back to Planning Commission for hearing on the revised plan. Staff renoticed the matter and scheduled it for hearing November 2, 1999. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PROPERTY BACKGROUND: A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is an irregularly shaped site comprising 13.04 acres generally located on the west side of Fairhaven between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. The property is generally flat with a slight slope to the southeast and is lightly scattered with native vegetation. The site has never been improved. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: Rancho Mirage/single family residential South: PC(3)/Trader Joe's center East: R-1 and PR-7/single family residential and apartments West: PR-22 AHD/One Quail Place C. SITE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The site is currently zoned PR-7 and is designated medium density residential 5-7 units per acre. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes a 99 bed skilled nursing facility and a 250 unit continuing care retirement community which provides individual living and assisted living. The skilled nursing facility is a single story, 18 foot high structure which is located adjacent to Fred Waring Drive. This facility has access from Fred Waring Drive and connects to the rest of the project to the north through an on-site driveway system. The continuing care retirement community building(s) is a three (3) story building 25 feet in height above adjacent curb. The south wing faces toward Fairhaven Drive and the north wing faces toward Parkview Drive. These two buildings connect at the community center building (28 feet in height above curb line). All of the continuing care structure is at least two stories and 15 feet above curb in height. The three story portion (25 feet in height above curb) has been pushed back from Fairhaven and Parkview and is adjacent to the two story (22 feet in height) One 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Quail Place. The third story is setback from Fairhaven Drive 120 feet and is setback 1 17'/z feet from Parkview Drive. The main access to the continuing care building is from Parkview Drive at the east limit of the property. This access leads to surface parking, to underground parking and a valet drop off area at the community building. At the west end of the site on Parkview and at the north end of Fairhaven Drive gated, emergency vehicle only, access points will be provided. The continuing care portion of the project includes: UNIT TYPE CODE SIZE REQUIREMENT SIZE PROVIDED 1 54 - 1 bedroom units 500 square feet 826 sq ft and 910 sq ft 90 - 2 bedroom units 700 square feet 1 183 sq ft & 1220 sq ft 6 - 3 bedroom units N/A 1 640 sq ft 250 Total Units with 98 in the south building and 1 52 units in the north building While the project will provide a common dining room, all units will have their own kitchen. As well, each unit has a full bath and living area. PROJECT DATA A. SKILLED NURSING FACILITY Project Code Standard Setbacks: Front (Fred Waring) 94 feet 32 feet Sides (E/W) 60 feet/20 feet 20 feet Rear 20 feet 20 feet B. CONTINUING CARE BUILDING Setbacks: Front (Fairhaven Drive) 60' to 15' section 20' to 18' section 120' to 25' section 120' for 24' section (Parkview Drive 42' to 15' section 32' to 18' section 1 1 7' to 25' section 120' to 24' section Side (W) 48' 20' Rear 35' 20' Maximum Height Flat Roof 28 feet* * (above curb) 22 feet 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Maximum Coverage 34% 50% Parking* 455: 318 underground 300*** 137 above ground Senior Overlay Intensity* *** 561 persons 652 persons * Senior Overlay projects serving persons age 62 and older are required to provide a minimum of one parking space per unit. ** The PR zone limits maximum height to two (2) stories and 22 feet for flat roofed structures. The Senior Overlay standards permit 24 foot high structures if they are setback 1 20 feet from the property line. The building section for the three stories is 30 feet; however, the applicant proposes to lower the building five feet into the ground creating a net height of 25 feet above the adjacent curb. The applicant is seeking an "exception" to the height and number of stories. * * * Based on one for each residential unit and one for each two beds in a skilled nursing facility. ** * * The Senior Overlay zone density is a function of the projected population of the project. Projects in excess of ten acres are permitted a maximum of 50 persons per acre with a minimum age of 62 years (13.04 acres x 50 PPA = 652 persons). This project contains a (99 bed skilled nursing facility 99 persons) + (154 one bedroom units x 1 .75 PPA = 270 persons) + (96 two and three bedroom units x 2.0 PPA = 192 persons) (99 + 270 + 192 = 561 persons). III. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The project will require a general plan land use amendment to add senior housing, change of zone adding the senior overlay and a development agreement. The senior housing designation was designed to provide increased density and special development standards to encourage the development of various forms of senior housing. When the senior overlay was created, it was anticipated that senior projects would be requesting densities in excess of 20 units per acre. Due to the significantly lower traffic and other impacts of senior housing, the overlay allows these densities based on a population per acre land use intensity formula. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 The overlay also requires that senior housing projects include up to 25% affordable housing in exchange for these large density bonuses. For example Hacienda de Monterey, the first project approved under the overlay, received a density increase from R-1 10,000 (three units per acre) to 23 units per acre. Total allowable units increased from 31 to 233. This project if approved would increase the permitted number of units from 91 to 300 units. For projects in excess of 100 units the affordable housing inclusionary requirement mandates 10% moderate income units, 10% low income units and 5% very low income units. Several previous projects were high-end congregate care and assisted living projects providing a wide range of services (meals, recreation, maid service, medical care, etc.) beyond basic housing and it was difficult to determine an appropriate affordable housing cost. As a result, the City and developer of these projects have historically agreed through a development agreement to substitute an in-lieu fee which would be used by the City to subsidize senior housing. In the case of Portofino (Royce International Investments Co., approved in 1999) a $12,000 per required affordable unit was assessed. In this instance the applicant will be allowed to meet the affordability requirement either through a one time payment of $12,000 per affordable unit (i.e., 75 units). Planning staff and the applicant met with the housing manager with a view to coming up with a program to put affordable units in this project. Unfortunately due to the cost structure it doesn't appear that we could be any more successful at putting low cost housing units in this development than at Bighorn. Any units would need substantial ongoing subsidy and staff concluded that the city would be further ahead to take the in-lieu fee and spend it on more units elsewhere. Staff recommends that if this project proceeds that the applicant be required to pay the in-lieu fee described above. IV. STAFF CONCERNS: At the beginning of the processing of this application staff had a long list of concerns but gradually the applicant has taken care of many of our concerns. These concerns were itemized in the September 21 , 1999 report. Staff will limit the comments of this report to the current request. 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 A. BUILDING HEIGHT, NUMBER OF STORIES AND MASS: The PR zone limits height to two stories and 22 feet for flat roofed structures. The senior overlay limits height to 24 feet with a minimum setback of 1 20 feet. The plan originally proposed three stories and 33 feet in height. In an effort to reduce the height impact, the applicant proposed to depress the structure five feet into the ground. The first floor would be five feet below curb height reducing the apparent building height to 28 feet. The most recent changes reduced the height to 25 feet for three story sections and 15 feet for two story sections. The applicant previously eliminated several of the third story units to help break up the roof line and lower the appearance and eliminated the third floor units closest to Fairhaven Drive and Parkview Drive (the project originally had 280 units in the residential portion versus 250 currently proposed). The basic design concept provides a linear building with wing sections extending closer to the streets. This too helps to lower its appearance. The applicant also removed all the tower elements so that the maximum height is the community facility building at 28 feet. Even with all these changes the applicant still requires a height "exception" for the three stories, the 28 foot community facility building and the 25 foot building. Staff feels that the project now is within the parameters used in previous height exceptions. The design of the project is unique with the two story building sections extending out to 60 feet from the property line while the three story sections maintain 1 20 feet and 1 1 7 feet of setback. With the building depressed five (5) feet into the ground, the two story sections are more in keeping with a single story structure (15 feet). The three story section, at 25 feet, is very much in keeping with a typical two story building. From staff's perspective the matter of the three story limit is moot especially when one considers that the people per acre density is consistent with the senior overlay (i.e., the third story does not push the project over that limit). Staff is concerned with the building mass. While the building mass is less now because the building is three feet lower in height and two story portion is two 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 feet less it is still over 1 ,350 feet in length when measured from south end to west end. The extra setback area will allow for substantial landscape treatment which should reduce the impact of the building once the landscaping matures. Until that happens it will appear as one of the largest structures in the city. B. TWO LARGE HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER: The proposed project has a unit density of 23 units per acre. One Quail Place is 22 units per acre. This will put a lot of units in close proximity. The density of units is partially offset by the lower occupancy levels in the senior facility. The applicant indicates that other similar projects have slightly more then one person per unit. Using the people per acre formula from the Senior Overlay District, we could expect 1 .8 persons per unit. We feel that number is on the high side but it is still much below the number of people per unit at One Quail Place which is family oriented. This lower persons per unit factor also carries through to the traffic counts. As was shown in the RBF traffic study, the expected traffic generation from this project has only a minimal impact on area streets. In addition, staff carried out traffic counts at the entrances/exits to/from Hacienda de Monterey during the week of October 18 through 22, 1999. Hacienda de Monterey is a similar project in that it has skilled nursing, assisted living and individual living but it has only 231 units. The traffic study projected 1 ,212 daily trips in the 300 unit Paseo Village project. The count at the 231 unit Hacienda de Monterey project on Tuesday, October 19, 1999 was 946 trips. When this count is adjusted to compare it with the 300 unit project, then 1 ,229 trips are expected. This compares very closely with the projected 1 ,212 daily trips. C. LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURE: As suggested by staff in the earlier report, the applicant has removed 29 parking spaces adjacent to Fairhaven Drive and replaced them with landscape area. This increases the landscape depth by 20 +/- feet and retains the emergency access roadway. 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 The plan has surface parking to the west and south of the access point from Parkview Drive. Staff suggests that the eight (8) parking spaces adjacent to Parkview, west of the driveway, be removed and replaced with landscaping. The revised plans were presented to ARC at its October 12, 1999 meeting. This was before the matter went to City Council on October 14, 1999. ARC concurred that the building impact would be less with the height reduction but was not ready to grant preliminary approval until they could review more detailed building elevation plans. ARC reaffirmed its "conceptual approval" of the revised plans. D. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS: This hearing on the revised plans was advertised and mailed to area residents October 18, 1999. We have received a few pieces of correspondence (form letters) from residents in Monterey Sands. This letter expressed the following concerns: 1 . The proposed project requests an approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay. Any plan amendment should be carefully scrutinized and considered to evaluate the impact on neighboring property owners and demand for city services. Response This application has been given careful consideration particularly with respect to its impacts on its neighbors. As a result of ongoing discussion with the applicant the effective building height has been reduced from 33 feet to 25 feet, the number of units has been reduced from 280 to 250 in the individual/assisted living section, removed surface parking in favor of landscaping and removed many third story units and tower elements to reduce building height and its impact on view corridors. 2. The proposed project requests a change of zone from PR7 to PR7S0. Such change of zoning will not only result in an increase of density of development of the property but will further result in added traffic to and from the project on city streets. Such streets in primarily residential areas were not designed to carry such added number of vehicles including trucks servicing the proposed project. 8 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Response In order to access and reduce impacts on city streets and services we required that the primary access be moved from Fairhaven (a local street) to Parkview Drive (a secondary roadway). The general plan prescribes five levels of roads - local, collector, secondary, major thoroughfare and arterial. In addition we required the applicant to have a traffic study prepared. This study looked at impacts on nearly intersections and on traffic flow on Parkview Drive. The traffic study at page 2 concludes that the project "will have a minimum impact at studied intersections during the peak hours." On page 3 the study states that "Parkview Drive is forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS C or better). The density of units on the property would be increased from 7 units per acre to 23 units per acre. The number of people per acre based on the land size of the proposed units will be within that prescribed in the senior overlay ordinance (i.e., 561 persons versus 652 persons). 3. The proposed project is a disguised business operating in a residential area. As such, it should not be authorized or permitted in such area but should seek an alternative location in compliance with not only the general plan but existing zoning. The proposed project which includes the operation of a skilled nursing facility will result in a 24 hour round the clock need for city services including ambulances and other care providers. This will add a further nuisance to nearby property owners. Response The site is zoned PR (planned residential) which permits a wide range of residential uses. "Institutional uses" are permitted upon approval of a CUP. The skilled nursing facility is located adjacent to Fred Waring Drive, across from Trader Joe's center, one of the busiest centers in the city. This skilled nursing facility has its own access and parking. We feel that this is an acceptable use in this location and will have little, if any, impact on nearby residential properties. 9 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 V. CONCLUSION: The applicant through the various revisions to the plan has eliminated many of the negative aspects and from the staff perspective this is now an acceptable project. The applicant and several area residents met Wednesday evening, October 1 7, 1999, to discuss the revisions. We have been advised that the applicant, in response to neighborhood concerns of the commercial nature of the skilled nursing facility, has agreed to delete the skilled nursing facility from the project. This reduces the project to just the residential and assisted living, 250 units on 10.3 acres (see addended report dated November 2, 1999). VI. CEQA REVIEW: The project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA. The Director of Community Development has determined that there will be no adverse impacts on the environment as a result of this project. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared and will be recommended for certification (see Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study attached hereto and by reference addended hereto). VII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to the City Council approval of the revised project related to GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies 10 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOVEMBER 2, 1999 D. Plans and exhibits E. Letters of objection received from neighbors • Prepared by 'Steve mith Reviewed and Approved 4-< " A Phil Drell /tm 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SENIOR OVERLAY, ZONE CHANGE FROM PR-7 TO PR-7 S.O. (SENIOR OVERLAY), A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INCLUDING A HEIGHT "EXCEPTION" PER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.24.310 FOR A 250 UNIT CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT (AGE 62 AND OLDER) COMMUNITY AND 99 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO ON 13.04 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND PARKVIEW DRIVE. CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, CIZ 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 99-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of November, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of PEARL INDUSTRIES, INC., for approval of the above noted cases; 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 adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The site is suitable for the general plan amendment. 2. The zone change is consistent with the general plan amendment. 3. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the PR-7 zone district and Senior Housing Overlay. 4. The design of the precise plan/conditional use permit will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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. 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 Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of General Plan Amendment 99-3, Change of Zone 99-2 and Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 99-7 including a height "exception" are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is recommended for certification. 4. That approval of the Development Agreement 99-3 (Exhibit B attached) is hereby recommended to City Council. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of November, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 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 herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. 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 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 8. That the project shall operate consistent with the provisions of a development agreement which must be adopted by the City Council, otherwise this approval shall be null and void. 9. That the applicant file necessary map(s) to consolidate the property into no more than two lots so that the buildings do not cross any property lines. 10. That all suggested conditions of approval included in the September 1999 traffic report as outlined below shall be conditions on this project. a. Proposed curb returns shall have a minimum radius of 35 feet. b. Proper signage and striping shall be provided at the driveways fronting Fred Waring Drive indicating one-way traffic. c. Stop sign and right-turn only sign shall be provided at the easterly driveway fronting Fred Waring Drive. d. Stop sign shall be provided at the driveway fronting Parkview Drive. e. Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the assisted living/skilled nursing building. f. Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the Community Center Building and for each of the residential buildings. g. Assisted living/skilled nursing employee parking shall be provided near the building. h. Parking shall not be allowed along the access road. Curb along access road shall be painted red. No parking signs shall be posted along the west side of Fairhaven Drive fronting the proposed project. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. j. Parkview Drive shall be striped to provide a westbound left turn lane for vehicles entering the proposed project. k. Parkway landscaping or monument signing along Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive should not impede or restrict the sight distance of vehicles exiting the site. The proposed emergency driveways at Parkview Drive (west end of the property) and Fairhaven Drive should be used only for emergency purposes only. Proper signs should be posted and the driveway should be gated to prohibit other usage. m. Delivery/trash pick-up trucks shall be allowed to enter/exit from Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. Access road shall accommodate delivery/trash pick- up trucks. 1 1 . That the applicant shall provide a proper method of disposal of medical waste for the skilled nursing facility and the retirement community facility. 1 2. That the restaurant in the retirement community facility not be open to the general public. Said restaurant to be limited to full time residents of the project and their guests. 13. That the eight (8) parking spaces adjacent to Parkview Drive west of the main access point be removed in favor of additional landscape area. Department of Public Works: 14. Drainage fees, in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 15. Drainage facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and the Master Drainage Plan. Drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 16. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 17. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be a t the time of building permit issuance. 18. 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. 19. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.08, Transportation Demand Management. 20. 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. 21 . As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 22. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 23. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. 24. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 25. The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works and shall include right turn only ingress/egress for the Fred Waring Drive access points and full access for the Parkview Drive access points. The proposed Fairhaven Drive access points shall be limited to emergency use only. 26. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In addition to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation related issues. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 27. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 28. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit a Waiver of Parcel Map application for lot line adjustment. 29. As required under the Palm Desert Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground in accordance with the respective utility company recommendation. 30. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 31 . All traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Study prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates and approved by the city shall be considered conditions of approval for the project. Riverside County Fire Department: 32. 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 Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, 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. 33. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 34. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 3000 gpm. 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. 35. 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 150' 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. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 36. 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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)) 41 . Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet # 10, but not less than 2A10BC 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. 42. 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, 1 7, 17a. 43. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. 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. 44. 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 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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". 45. 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 option 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 property requirements may be specified during the review process. Typically this applies to educational, day care, institutional, health care, etc. 46. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 47. 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. 48. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 49. Fire sprinkler system must include Class I standpipes per UFC and UBC. 50. Must have 20 foot emergency fire lane around all buildings. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Pearl Industries, Inc. 66 Alviso Drive Camarillo, CA 93010 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A 250 unit continuing care retirement community, a community center building and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. November 2, 1999 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PEARL INDUSTRIES INC. THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of ,1999, between Pearl Industries Inc. (hereinafter "Property Owner") and the City of Palm Desert, (hereinafter "City"), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. RECITALS This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 authorize the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property; B. DEVELOPER is owner of certain real property located within the City of Palm Desert, California, which property is described in Exhibit 1 , attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter "PROPERTY"). DEVELOPER has applied for and been granted approval of a precise plan/conditional use permit (PP/CUP 99-7) to construct a 250 unit senior assisted living (age 62 and older) project, a 99 bed skilled nursing facility, and zone change to senior overlay; 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan/conditional use permit approval pursuant to Chapter 25.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, Senior Housing Overlay District which allows for significant density increases in return for building specialized housing designed and restricted to residents over age 62 years; D. The City Council of City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Senior Overlay; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree: 1 . Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "City" is the City of Palm Desert. (b) "Project" is the development to be constructed in the City pursuant to Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 99-7. (c) "Property Owner" means the person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property as described in paragraph (3) and includes the Property Owner's successor in interest. (d) "Real Property" is the real property referred to in paragraph (2). (e) "Useful Life of the Project" is the greater of thirty (30) years or the period of time which the Project remains habitable, with reasonable care and maintenance, as determined by City. (f) "Senior Citizen Household" means a maximum two person household of which all members are 62 years of age or older. 2. Description of Real Property. The real property which is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. Interest of Property Owner. Property Owner represents that he has a full legal and equitable interest in the Real Property and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property are to be bound by the Agreement. 4. Assignment. The rights of the Property Owner under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned; however, Property Owner will remain responsible for all obligations under this Agreement unless the written consent of the City is first obtained, which will not be unreasonably withheld. 5. Binding effect of Agreement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the successors in interest to the parties to it. 6. Relationship of parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between the City and Property Owner is such that the Owner is an independent contractor and not the agent of the City. 7. Agreement by Property Owner and City. (a) Property Owner has been conditionally granted permission by the City to construct a 250 unit senior assisted living (age 62 years and older) project, and 99 bed skilled nursing facility, a zone change to senior overlay on the PROPERTY by Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 99-7 Planning Commission Resolution No. . Chapter 25.52 requires senior projects to set aside 25% of total project units as units affordable for very low, low and moderate income senior households. For purposes of this agreement every two beds in the skilled nursing facility counts as one unit. These affordable units are required in exchange for substantial density bonuses (project units in excess of base zone density) which have historically ranged from 10 to 20 additional units per acre. The project 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. is receiving a density bonus of 16 units/acre or 211 of the 300 total project units. The project's affordable housing requirement shall therefore be established at 75 units. (b) The Property Owner shall meet the affordable housing requirement as follows: Payment of $12,000 per affordable unit totaling $900,000 to the City to be used for the purpose of providing very low, low and moderate income senior housing. Payment shall be made in increments to the City prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for each and every unit in the project at the rate of $3,000.00 per unit. (c) Property Owner shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color or creed, sex, or national origin. (d) Age limits. The minimum age for all PROJECT occupants shall be 62 years old. (e) Change in Protect. No change, modification, revision or alteration may be made in the approved precise plan without review and approval by those agencies of the City approving the plan in the first instance. A change, modification, revision or alteration in the approved precise plan/conditional use permit is not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (f) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of Property Owner's activities in connection with the PROJECT. This hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operation referred to in this paragraph, regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications or both for the PROJECT. Property Owner further agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, pay all costs and provide a defense for City in any action challenging the validity of the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (g) Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement. City Planning Commission shall review this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT whenever substantial evidence exists to indicate a possible breach of the terms of this AGREEMENT. (h) Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT may be amended or canceled in whole or in part by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in Government Code, Sections 65868, 65867 and 65867.5. (i) Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled as provided in paragraph (j), this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is enforceable by any party to it 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications. (j) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. (k) Procedure upon default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or successor in interest as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon receipt of notification to take remedial actions. If Property Owner fails to take remedial action within thirty (30) days, the Planning Commission of City shall recommend to the City Council of City that this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT be modified, terminated, or that the remedies set forth in this paragraph be exercised by the City. If the City Council of City concurs with the recommendation of the City's Planning Commission, the City Council may modify this Development Agreement, terminate this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, or may employ one or more of the remedies set forth in this paragraph. Proceedings before the City Council shall be by noticed public hearing pursuant to Chapter 25.86 of the Municipal Code of the City of Palm Desert. In the event of a default, City may employ one or more of the following remedies, in its sole discretion: City may revoke all previous approvals, entitlements and permits granted by the City to Property Owner with respect to this PROJECT and the subject Real Property. ii. City may pursue all other legal or equitable remedies City may have under California law or as set forth in this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and City 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. shall be entitled to specific performance and enforcement of each and every term, condition and covenant set forth herein. (I) Damages upon Cancellation, Termination of Agreement. In no event shall Property Owner be entitled to any damages against the City upon modification, termination of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT or exercise by City of its rights under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (m) Attorney's fees and costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach of this AGREEMENT or to enforce a provision of this AGREEMENT, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs. (n) Notices. All notices required or provided for under this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepared. Notice required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. Notices required to be given to Property Owner shall be addressed as follows: Pearl Industries Inc., 66 Alviso Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010. A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. (o) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. ii. If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. iii. If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their obligations are joint and several. iv. The time limits set forth in this AGREEMENT may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of an agreement. (p) Duration of Agreement. This AGREEMENT shall expire only upon total destruction of the apartment project which is the subject of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. (q) Applicable Law. This AGREEMENT shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California. (r) Severability. If any portion of this AGREEMENT is for any reason held to be unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. (s) Authority. Each of the parties hereto covenants and agrees that it has the legal capacity to enter into this AGREEMENT contained herein, that each AGREEMENT is binding upon that party and that this AGREEMENT is executed by a duly authorized official acting in his official capacity. 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT has been executed by the parties on the day and year first above written. Approved as to form: CITY OF PALM DESERT A Municipal Corporation By: City Attorney Attest: PEARL INDUSTRIES INC. By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of , 1999, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 20 TEROFFICE MEMORAN- M TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Steve Smith FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: P.P. 99-07, C/Z 99-02; PEARL INDUSTRIES INC. /CHARLES SWEET DATE: September 3, 1999 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1) Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. (2) Drainage facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and the Master Drainage Plan. Drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. (3) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. (4) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. (5) 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. (6) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.08, Transportation Demand Management. (7) 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. (8) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. (9) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. (10) Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. (11) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. (12) The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works and shall include right turn only ingress/egress for the Fred Waring Drive access points and full access for the Parkview Drive access points. The proposed Fairhaven Drive access points shall be limited to emergency use only. (13) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In addition to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation-related issues. (14 Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (15) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit a Waiver of Parcel Map application for lot line adjustment. (16) As required under the Palm Desert Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground in accordance with the respective utility company recommendation. (17) Prior to start o- istruction, the applicant shall sub satisfactory evidence to the _..ector of Public Works of intended __..ipliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. (18) All traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Study prepared by Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates and approved by the city shall be considered conditions of approval for the project. R CHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. (pplans\pp9907.cnd) RIVERSIDE COUNTY ~ 281999 0.0FOR,,, e+`-•. !i-x. FIRE DEPARTMENT 00ENT of FOR 0.�601wt FROTfC7 oN r • ri EVEiroi:'.,..,,T;;_Fhifcii: ' -J „•• IN COOPERATION WITH TI. CITY Of �r',lP ) SE •f , '`� , " COUNTY si �.':• CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY C ItX '�.'. RIVERSI 0. DE..,,,;.; AND FIRE PROTECTION p GLEN J. NEWMAN ••.A- FIRE CHIEF ?� RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE (1`e .` 1 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE COVE FIRE MARSHAL PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 70-801 HWY 111 TELEPHONE (714)657-3183 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 - (619) 346-1870 To: S7'E'vG SA Air 8 REF: pp 94 ,7 If circled, underlined or noted, condition applies to project IPWith 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. 2. 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. IPProvide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 3000- 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 . 41110 The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant( s) ( 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 1 it2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25 ' nor more than - • • aim 150' limoimmaiM 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. 9/ Provide written c ':ification from the appro] ' ate water company having jurisdiction tha ,ydrant(s) will be insta d 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. © }I. 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. (Dik2. 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. g)0. Certain designate areas will be required to ' maintained as fire lanes and shall be clE .y marked by painting an, r signs approved by the Fire Marshal . Q . 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) ) D;/S. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet 110, but not less than 2A1OBC 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. 1/ >lg. 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. @ )Ar. 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. ' - - - - - - -- - ''- ' , i - —4- _ ..1b rA'aKlA cu,_:;146i. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided w th 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. 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 widr -lien parallel parking is e" lwed on both sides. • 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. 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. 23. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. ® . 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 FireDepartment approval . Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the Cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 0 Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. Q . 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. @I/4 . Conditions subje to change with adoption new codes , ordinances , laws, or when bu---ing permits are not obtai l 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: Fiffe 5P C thL€YK sys yin ML51` 1NcLvo& cuiss I s i Yopipcs PER_ ufc, auc( (I.8,c . ► q MV5T- hAve 20' EWr(cC kcy Fr(?( LANG iltWokO ALL 641Lhis Sincerely, MIKE HARRIS Chief by MIKE MC CONNELL - Coves Fire Marshal bbm LARRY D. SMITH, SHERIFF ','r , -.6-f` \-Ctr- 73-520 FRED WARING DRIVE • PALM DESERT, CA 92260 • (760) 836-1600 PROUDLY SERVING AS THE PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT April 15, 1999 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Cal. 92260 Attention Steve Smith Re: PP 99-7 Change of Zoning Paseo Village (280 Senior Residential Units and 97 Bed Skilled Facility) Dear Mr. Smith The Sheriffs Department has no objections to the proposed change of zoning for a 280 Senior Residential Unit and 97 Bed Skilled Nursing Facility. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project from a law enforcement point of view. Sincerely, La . S ith, Sheriff Dan Miller, Captain Palm Desert Station Commander CO I 1.10L1JflCV II\ 1110 lJ I'1 r VGULIL. f,71.11.l °fsTRICI ,,1. 1 1 1999 I_ _ ACHELLA VALLEY WA' R POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760)gai>6ff.L.ki OLJERT DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RUSSELL KITAHARA, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN W. McFADDEN May 7, 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 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: Subject: Plot Plan 99-7, Change of Zone 99-2, Portion of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps 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. 54 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. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Department of Community Development -2- May 7, 1999 City of Palm Desert 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. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager-Chief Engineer cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 JEC:j I\eng\sw\may\pp99-7 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT JVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOnivi 1 . Project Title: Paseo Village Continuing Care Retirement Community 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: 13.04 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Peal Industries, Inc. 66 Alviso Drive Camarillo, CA 93010 6. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: PR-7 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) General plan amendment to add senior overlay designation, change of zone to add senior overlay designation, precise plan of design and conditional use permit for a 250 unit continuing care retirement facility and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) NORTH: Single family residences SOUTH: Commercial EAST: Single family residences WEST: One Quail Place 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" C� ,i5" 6-6 e- - � ( / `77'- �� �i/ '%l- 12/71 • ENVIRONMENTAL FACTurc POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: • The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards& Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. )75. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Si 7'?7: /-tc 47-66 y6 - l Dare , Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 2 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRC ENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A beef explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropnate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each issi uld identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. SAMPLE QUESTION Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 / '< , 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 0 0 0 would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ..7 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the - project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of 0 ❑ ❑ g Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? j- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 0 0 0 125 Williamson Act contract? CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 85 FORM "J" Page 4 of 14 Lcss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ B due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? 1 III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ l ❑ air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ ❑ fl ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? `l./ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ El Cl criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? j-_, d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ El 0 concentrations? _, :.., e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? `, l k I CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "I" Page 5 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ 'at ❑ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 , c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 0 'El 0 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 ❑ zi ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? J i e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ it. 0 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ E] ❑ Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 ❑ Fj 0 historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? i b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ') c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 0 0 0 0 resource or site or unique geologic feature? /J- • d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? j _ 0 0 DI CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J„ Page 6 of 14 Lcss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ 0 ❑ effects,including the risk of loss, injury or death involving. i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the ❑ ❑ .- 0 most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolou Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ,4 ❑ ❑ AEI ❑ iii Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 1 0 0 a 0 iv Landslides? _, LI ❑ ❑ E ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? l,11 0 0 21. ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that ❑ 0 El ❑ would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ❑ la ❑ the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? )c) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 0 ❑ 0 II septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems Jam' where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? /,'N • VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 0 0 K( 0 through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? /` CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM"T' Page 7 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? I i :�Z c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ El ❑ hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 1,_.) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ iC materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ' section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? i e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 i )4/1 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ Sr ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? I ; ,, q g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ IZI 0 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? t r --,7, h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 0 ❑ Et 0 injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? j 1 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ 0 requirements? /C / J/ CITY/RVPUB/I 999/313785 FORM"J" Page 8 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact . Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? j L c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? '.// Ati- d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ 5 ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? / L, e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ q 0 capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? �l, , f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? // ❑ ❑ El 0 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ E' ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? CI! - h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ 0 tEl. 0 would impede or redirect flood flows? C1 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 0 0 g 0 injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1 cl /0 j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? 0 0A ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"I" Page 9 of 14 Less Than 1SSUes Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: • a) Physically divide an established community? l/ /A/ ❑ ❑ tEf, ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ D 81 ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (/ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ a ❑ natural community conservation plan? ( i X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ a ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1 , /y b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 0 ❑ P ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? lL , A/ XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ 0 gi 0 excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (, '2 _ _ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ .® 0 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (,;2_ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 0 0 ,® 0 the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? t i a d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient 0 0 g ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 , a CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 10 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted_ within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 'l f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? y c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? y XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? / I ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? 1 27 0 Schools?11 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "J" Page 11 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Parks? �� ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? j b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑ �. the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 3 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ /21 ❑ to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? !_ /capacity, b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1 G i c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ ❑ ❑ an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 3 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ Pf- (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? I.r 2 e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ( / ❑ 0 0 CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM"T' Page 12 of 14 • Less Than 1SSueS: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2 ❑ El 15. 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 0 0 0Ea supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 fa ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 4 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 El q wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1'1 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ El MI drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? L i e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 0 0 provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand - in addition to the provider's existing commitments? i f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 0 0 to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?4_ g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and 0 0 0 regulations related to solid waste? 1 CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' Page 13 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With 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 or a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 14 of 14 • 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. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park View Drive Land Use Study. 6. Paseo Village Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared September 1999 by RBF Associates. 7. (Intentionally not used) 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. (Intentionally not used) 14. Riverside County Fire Department 15. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch CITY OF PALM DESERT INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUME LOCATION: HACIENDA DE MONTEREY-NORTH DRIVEWAY EXIT DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1999 TIME 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 NORTHBOUND LJTHBOUND N/S TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 0 0 3 0 7 2 11 10 5 10 20 36 28 25 27 35 21 12 19 7 3 2 5 288 O 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 3 9 4 10 8 17 7 3 3 1 0 2 0 O 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 4 1 0 6 7 8 8 2 9 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 O 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 3 0 7 5 10 8 5 5 2 7 6 10 4 3 0 4 O 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 4 2 6 10 8 2 12 7 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 E/W TOTAL 0 0 0 3 0 7 2 11 10 5 10 20 36 28 25 27 35 21 12 19 7 3 2 5 288 TOTAL 0 0 0 3 0 7 2 11 10 5 10 20 36 28 25 27 35 21 12 19 7 3 2 5 288 H m m z z -I r o m D , O O > o 40 CO O = = m )> >-I O 0 -I co m C C > 0 0 O r- Z Z C C Z 0 0 Z Z 0 0 o I D J -1 0 ()) 0 -• J 0000 0 0 0 n N.) rn 0 Z A A 0 0 - N CJ 0 0 -, 0 0 0 0 D CO 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 0 0 0 rn A O O A A 0000 0 N O O N A 0 0 Z U1 -4 o rn O (7 - N O A N000 N 0 0 X rn o N N 0 - 00 A NGIN O 0 I (n 0 v C O 0 0 NJ NJ 0 A C 71 C T cm - O) O o H I corn 0 0 ) 0 ) CO CJ 0 Ul CO A C.) 0) C.) 0 0 H Z >D rn CP o Z �1 0 (-, 01AAN O CA U1 01 cc) 0) 0 0 0 rn rn n _ _ o D -I O v J A J U H HN A A ( 1 0) N.) 0 O 6 0 T Z -U O X H F— a) O0) co co co CD CO A 0 NJ NJ CO 0 0 -1 D T Q N T rn 0 n � 0)) 0) 0 CT) N.) A A v N.) CT) 0 CT1 0rn < X C) O 0 A A CO �1 O J CO -, N A CO 01 0 0 C 4 rn co 0 NJ co NJ U-101A 0) - CT) CO C 0 0 U1 CCO CCO CD - (JD (J1 CW OO O -A N v - 0 co O co cNJ o00 CT) CA NJ -10 CO UI O 0 0 v co 0 01 CT) NJ NJ CO CO 0 A A - 0) Ul O 0 co 0 CO OCo 0 UI N.) NJ COO A A A -1 CO 0 O co O 0 0 U1 NJ -1 01 W CO UI A Ul 0 0 NJ 0 0 N N J A 0) G) H A CJ 01 W Ul 0 0 NJ 0 --i -1 J 0 - - Q) OD N - - 01 CO 0 0 T N O N co co G00N U1 - 0 - - CJ O 0 o N 0 GI co N00N A (3) - 00 v 0 0 f N O CD 01 U1 O A CT1 0 CO O N - CJ 0) 0 0 -I CD 0 CD H CD A ( A NJNJ 0 D INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) AESTHETICS a, b, c. The site has a scenic vista to the mountains to the west. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive due to blow sand problems. The proposed development must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission. The proposed building height exceeds maximum permitted by code. In order to warrant an "exception" to the height limit, the applicant has designed the project with street setbacks considerably in excess of the minimum required by code. Line of site drawings confirm that any loss of scenic vistas will be less than would occur with conforming height buildings constructed at the minimum setback. d. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a, b, c. The site is vacant other than tumbleweed growing sporadically. Approval of the project will not remove usable agricultural land from production. III. AIR QUALITY a, b, c, d. 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 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. INITIAL STUDY GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. The property is not within the designated area of any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c. No locally designated species. d. The site is an infill site in an existing urbanized setting and consequently will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e. See (a) above. f. See (a) above. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the General Plan EIR 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. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a (I-iv), b, c, d, e. Project is not in a fault rupture zone. 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 2 INITIAL STUDY GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 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 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. 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. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards. c. There is no school within 1/4 mile of the site. Project will be conditioned to properly dispose of any medical waste from the skilled nursing facility. d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites. e. Site is not within two miles of a public airport. f. No private airstrip in area. g. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or evacuation plan. 3 INITIAL STUDY GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or trees. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage and the grading ordinance. b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. c, d, e. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality. g. Site is not within a 100 year flood hazard. h. See (g). Area is not subject to flooding. j. Area is flat desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mud flow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The site is an infill situation in an existing residential/commercial area. b. Project includes general plan amendment and zone change to increase density. This is consistent with the Housing Element where the housing will be affordable to needy seniors. c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 4 INITIAL STUDY GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 X. MINERAL RESOURCES a. No known mineral resources. b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general plan. Xl. NOISE a, b, c, d. Construction and subsequent operation of a senior continuing care residential project use 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. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise to be mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. e & f. Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a. The project is a senior continuing care residential project on vacant land within a long established residential community. b. See (a). c. See (a). XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated for 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 5 • INITIAL STUDY GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. All property tax generated on the site after 1979 including those generated by the improvement of this project will go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. Fire and Police Protection Police and Fire service has indicated that they can service the proposed project. Schools The project will be restricted to persons age 62 years and older and therefore will not negatively impact schools. Parks The project will be limited to persons age 62 years and older. Impacts to area parks will be minimal in that the project will provide many recreational amenities on site. Other Public Facilities See discussion above. XIV. RECREATION a & b. The project will be restricted to persons age 62 years and older. Impacts to area parks will be minimal. On site recreational facilities will be within proposed buildings except for pool areas. Construction of recreational facilities will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a-g. The applicant had a traffic report prepared by RBF Associates which is hereby adended by reference. Said report is on file at the Department of Community Development. The report concludes that the proposed project will not significantly impact existing traffic load and levels of service for nearby intersections. 6 INITIAL STUDY GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 The traffic report recommends conditions of approval to mitigate identified traffic impacts. These conditions of approval will be imposed should this project be approved. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and the project will not include incompatible uses. The project will take access from two accesses: one to Fred Waring Drive and one to Parkview Drive. Emergency access will be provided to Fairhaven Drive and to Parkview Drive. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project on site in compliance with city code. Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street improvements will minimize traffic hazards to motor vehicles. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Project will not exceed limits. b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project. c. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They will occur with or without this project. d. See (b) above. e. See (b) above. f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available at Eagle Mountain. g. City will enforce these statutes through Environmental Conservation Department. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. See IV (a). b. None. c. None. 7 RECEIVED off 2 5 1999 ;AMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT September 29, 1999 The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Case No. GPA 99-3, C/Z99-2, PP/CUP99-7 & DA99-3 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive Gentlemen: The undersigned an owner of a condominium located in Monterey Sands immediately adjacent to the proposed project hereby expresses their opposition to the appeal by Pearl Industries, Inc. to the decision of the Planning Commission denying requests for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay,change of zone from PR-7 to PR-7S.O.,precise plan of design/conditional use permit, a development agreement and negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to the proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, community center building and 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fair Haven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring and 72-755 Parkview Drive, Palm Desert, California and requests that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. The proposed project is not in the best interests of nearby property owners or of the city. In such regard: 1. The proposed project requests an approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay. Any plan amendment should be carefully scrutinized and considered to evaluate the impact on neighboring property owners and demand for city services. 2. The proposed project requests a change of zone from PR7 to PR7SO. Such change in zoning will not only result in an increase of density of development of the property but will further result in added traffic to and from the project on city streets. Such streets in primarily residential areas were not designed to carry such added number of vehicles including trucks servicing the proposed project. 3. The proposed project is a disguised business operating in a residential area. As such,it should not be authorized or permitted in such area but should seek an alternative location in compliance with not only the general plan but existing zoning. The proposed project which includes the operation of a skilled nursing facility will result in a 24 hour round the clock need for city services including ambulances and other care providers. This will add a further nuisance to nearby property owners. For the reasons outlined above, the undersigned hereby requests that the city council deny the appeal of Pearl Industries, Inc. in this matter and affirm the decision of the planning commission. Very truly yours, Uttit_"--ecri '7 7/ J STATE OF CALIFORNIA—HEALTH AND HUMAN: DES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES RECEIVED 3737 Main Street, Suite 600, Riverside, California 92501 � o OCT 2 5 1999 = ��,. October 21, 1999 OitiIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT RE: Applicant Name: Sally & Martin Brown Palm Desert Community Development Facility Name: B And B Adult Residential Fac. 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Facility Address: 77672 Missouri Drive Palm Desert, California 92347 Palm Desert, Ca. 92251 Facility Type: Adult Residential Facility ATTN: Planning Director Facility No.: 336403228 Requested Capacity: 06 Dear Planning Director: This office has received an application for a license to operate a residential care facility referenced by Health and Safety Code, Secton 1520.5. This code section sets forth the State's policy and requirements regarding the over concentration of residential care facilities. It defines over concentration as "facilities which are separated by a distance of 300 feet or less, as measured from any point upon the outside walls of the structures housing such facilities." The law requires the Director of the Department of Social Services to deny an application for license if the proposed facility is 300 feet or less from another residential facility unless approval is obtained from the city or county in which the facility will be located. The law also requires the Department of Social Services to notify the local agency 45 days in advance of approving an application for license. The local agency may request denial based upon over concentration. • X We have determined that the proposed facility is more than 300 feet from any other licensed residential home as defined by the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, should the referenced applicant meet other requirements for licensure, we will approve the application. Should your agency's review determine that the proposed facility is 300 feet or less from another residential facility, please notify us within 45 days. _ We have determined that the proposed facility is 300 feet or.less from an existing facility. We remind you of your option to approve an exemption from the existing requirement based upon local needs and conditions. If you do not approve this exemption within 45 days, we will deny the application without further review. Please include the above facility identifying information in any correspondence regarding this subject. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, I1f ) Al Utk, TERESA AGUIAR Licensing Program Analyst Inland Empire Office c: Applicant RECEAVEr 1 8 1999 .L MLNIiY'„EYELOPMENTDEPARTMAENi CITY Of-PALM DESERT September 29, 1999 The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Case No. GPA 99-3, C/Z99-2, PP/CUP99-7 & DA99-3 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive Gentlemen: The undersigned an owner of a condominium located at/V-77 in Monterey Sands immediately adjacent to the proposed project hereby expresses their opposition to the appeal by Pearl Industries, Inc. to the decision of the Planning Commission denying requests for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay,change of zone from PR-7 to PR-7S.O.,precise plan of design/conditional use permit, a development agreement and negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to the proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, community center building and 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fair Haven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring and 72-755 Parkview Drive, Palm Desert, California and requests that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. The proposed project is not in the best interests of nearby property owners or of the city. In such regard: 1. The proposed project requests an approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay. Any plan amendment should be carefully scrutinized and considered to evaluate the impact on neighboring property owners and demand for city services. 2. The proposed project requests a change of zone from PR7 to PR7SO. Such change in zoning will not only result in an increase of density of development of the property but will further result in added traffic to and from the project on city streets. Such streets in primarily residential areas were not designed to carry such added number of vehicles including trucks servicing the proposed project. 3. The proposed project is a disguised business operating in a residential area. As such,it should not be authorized or permitted in such area but should seek an alternative location in compliance with not only the general plan but existing zoning. The proposed project which includes the operation of a skilled nursing facility will result in a 24 hour round the clock need for city services including ambulances and other care providers. This will add a further nuisance to nearby property owners. For the reasons outlined above,the undersigned hereby requests that the city council deny the appeal of Pearl Industries, Inc. in this matter and affirm the decision of the planning commission. Very truly yours, IRE(E VE! 181999 L MMUNiTY CE'JELoPMENT UEPAHIMEN I CfTY OF PALM DESERT September 29, 1999 The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Case No. GPA 99-3, C/Z99-2, PP/CUP99-7 & DA99-3 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive Gentlemen: L_ The undersigned an owner of a condominium located at in Monterey Sands immediately adjacent to the proposed project hereby expresses their opposition to the appeal by Pearl Industries, Inc. to the decision of the Planning Commission denying requests for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay,change of zone from PR-7 to PR-7S.O.,precise plan of design/conditional use permit, a development agreement and negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to the proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, community center building and 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fair Haven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring and 72-755 Parkview Drive, Palm Desert, California and requests that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. The proposed project is not in the best interests of nearby property owners or of the city. In such regard: 1. The proposed project requests an approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay. Any plan amendment should be carefully scrutinized and considered to evaluate the impact on neighboring property owners and demand for city services. 2. The proposed project requests a change of zone from PR7 to PR7SO. Such change in zoning will not only result in an increase of density of development of the property but will further result in added traffic to and from the project on city streets. Such streets in primarily residential areas were not designed to carry such added number of vehicles including trucks servicing the proposed project. 3. The proposed project is a disguised business operating in a residential area. As such,it should not be authorized or permitted in such area but should seek an alternative location in compliance with not only the general plan but existing zoning. The proposed project which includes the operation of a skilled nursing facility will result in a 24 hour round the clock need for city services including ambulances and other care providers. This will add a further nuisance to nearby property owners. For the reasons outlined above,the undersigned hereby requests that the city council deny the appeal of Pearl Industries, Inc. in this matter and affirm the decision of the planning commission. Very truly yours, .//'� (.../,‘ L-:,44 6 � y L. J 1(.,-{-6 /� LV K/i RECEIVED UC ' 1 8 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CRY OF PALM DESERT September 29, 1999 The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: Case No. GPA 99-3, C/Z99-2, PP/CUP99-7 & DA99-3 72-650 Fred Waring Drive and 72-755 Parkview Drive Gentlemen: The undersigned an owner of a condominium located at7o in Monterey Sands immediately adjacent to the proposed project hereby expresses their opposition to the appeal by Pearl Industries, Inc. to the decision of the Planning Commission denying requests for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay,change of zone from PR-7 to PR-7S.O.,precise plan of design/conditional use permit, a development agreement and negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to the proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community, community center building and 99 bed skilled nursing facility on 13.04 acres on the west side of Fair Haven Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive, 72-650 Fred Waring and 72-755 Parkview Drive, Palm Desert, California and requests that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. The proposed project is not in the best interests of nearby property owners or of the city. In such regard: 1. The proposed project requests an approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay. Any plan amendment should be carefully scrutinized and considered to evaluate the impact on neighboring property owners and demand for city services. 2. The proposed project requests a change of zone from PR7 to PR7SO. Such change in zoning will not only result in an increase of density of development of the property but will further result in added traffic to and from the project on city streets. Such streets in primarily residential areas were not designed to carry such added number of vehicles including trucks servicing the proposed project. 3. The proposed project is a disguised business operating in a residential area. As such,it should not be authorized or permitted in such area but should seek an alternative location in compliance with not only the general plan but existing zoning. The proposed project which includes the operation of a skilled nursing facility will result in a 24 hour round the clock need for city services including ambulances and other care providers. This will add a further nuisance to nearby property owners. For the reasons outlined above,the undersigned hereby requests that the city council deny the appeal of Pearl Industries, Inc. in this matter and affirm the decision of the planning commission. Very truly yours. PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * XVI. PUBLIC HEARINGS With Council concurrence, Mayor Spiegel suspended the agenda at this point in order to consider Public Hearing Item D. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and action. A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, DENYING A REQUEST BY PEARL INDUSTRIES, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADD SENIOR OVERLAY, APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-7 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL - 7 UNITS PER ACRE) TO PR-7 S.O. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SENIOR OVERLAY), PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (INCLUDING A HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR THE THREE (3) STORY PORTION), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO A PROPOSED 250-UNIT CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, A COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING, AND A 99-BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY ON 13.04 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF FAIRHAVEN DRIVE, BETWEEN FRED WARING DRIVE AND PARKVIEW DRIVE, 72-650 FRED WARING DRIVE AND 72-755 PARKVIEW DRIVE Case Nos. GPA 99-3. C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7. and DA 99-3 (Pearl Industries, Inc., Applicant/Appellant). Mr. Drell stated that subsequent to the Planning Commission decision, which was appealed, the Applicant made significant changes to the project. He said those included a lowered height, which was the main reason for denial; therefore, staff recommended the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for review of said modifications. In response to question, he affirmed Architectural Review Commission would also be involved in the process. In further response to question whether Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission would review the additional issues raised by concerned residents in their communication to City Councilmembers (i.e. architectural style, location of certain project components, suitability, etc.), Mr. Drell answered the entirety of the project would be reviewed. While he could not promise changes, he said all the requirements of the senior overlay zone, including the affordable housing element, would be considered. He went on to respond that there would be renotification of the Planning Commission public hearing, as well as for City Council at the appropriate time. Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing ogen and invited testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING the subject appeal, reminding the audience that the matter would again be considered by the Planning Commission, as well as possibly by the City Council. 24 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MR. PAGE QUILLING, 72-845 Arboleda Avenue, Palm Desert, asked for notification when the matter was again considered by Architectural Review Commission. Further, he asked that it go through the entire process again, starting at Architectural Review Commission, then to Planning Commission, ending up at City Council so that residents had opportunity to review the plans and express their ideas or concerns for same. Since the zoning needed to be changed, he asked for consideration of forming a neighborhood committee that could be directly involved in planning the project. Mayor Spiegel felt that was an excellent idea and asked the Applicant, Mr. Sweet, to work directly with Mr. Quilling to get the group together, along with Community Development staff. MR. ROY WESTWOOD, 72-781 Fleetwood Circle (Monterey Sands), Palm Desert, stated only half of the members of his association received notification of the matter; and when he inquired about it, the explanation was that there was a certain 300-foot limit for providing notification. However, he said it was all one unit, and when discussion arose at their recent board meeting, members were ill prepared to address the issue. Mayor Spiegel responded it was a State limitation, but the City could provide notice to a wider area. He suggested Mr. Westwood get in touch with Mr. Drell tomorrow to provide details for future notification. Councilman Ferguson added that in past cases, homeowners' associations had been notified to provide the information to their respective members. He felt it was the City's desire to make the process as thorough and fully open as possible to solicit all concerns so the Architectural Review and Planning Commissions could incorporate that information in their consideration processes. MR. JERRY ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive, Palm Desert, drew Council's attention to its May 1999 decision on a very similar project to Pearl Industries', The Damone Group project proposed for the corner of Hovley Lane and Monterey Avenue. He stated that was a 60-bed facility on a four-acre site, zoned PR-5, which, after much consternation, was denied 3-1 with Councilman Ferguson abstaining. As a neighbor to the subject project, he felt it was impossible to understand the difference between denial of the Damone project and denial of that proposed by Pearl Industries. MR. FERN STOUT, 37 Lake Shore Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA, stated he had lived in Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage continuously for the past 35 years. He said in contemplating the socioeconomic development of the area in that time, including the need for senior housing, retirement properties had a tremendous impact on the City's support by raising the economic level of the area and promoting its cultural values. Feeling that hadn't changed substantially, 25 PRELIMINARY MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1999 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * he believed Palm Desert had a great need for senior housing of the type proposed by Pearl Industries. He urged approval of the project at the appropriate time. Mayor Pro-Tempore Crites commented that on an evening when the Council was involved with higher education, he asked that Dr. Stout be recognized as a well-known former president of College of the Desert. MS. JUDI ROGERS, 43-840 Fairhaven Drive, Palm Desert, said her residence was directly adjacent to the property under consideration. She felt it was important for Councilmembers to see how many of her neighbors were opposed to the project at this time, as they sincerely believed it would have a serious negative impact on their neighborhood. She then asked the audience for a show of hands of those opposed to the project, demonstrating that many were. She appreciated Council's consideration and asked to be notified of the upcoming reconsideration of the project by the aforementioned bodies, further asking that all of the adjoining residences be so notified, especially the homes at Ridgeview and White Sun Estates that would also be seriously impacted. MS. NANCY SINGER, 6 Novato Terrace (Estates at Rancho Mirage), Rancho Mirage, CA, said she was a member of the board of directors of the Estates at Rancho Mirage, directly across the street from the proposed project. She said Ridgeview Estates residents were very concerned about the subject project in their residential neighborhood, as it was felt Pearl Industries was proposing a commercial enterprise with restaurant, full-time staff, a medical facility, etc. She said no one doubted the need for senior housing, everyone favored that, but not when it was done in a commercial fashion. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing close11. Mayor Pro-Tempore Crites moved to, by Minute Motion, refer the issue back to both the Architectural Review and Planning Commissions for consideration of all items. Motion was seconded by Councilman Ferguson and carried by unanimous vote. With Council concurrence, Mayor Spiegel recessed the meeting at 7:28 p.m. to allow audience members in attendance for Public Hearing Item A to exit the Chamber. He reconvened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. 26 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 AGENDA 5. CASE NO.: PP 99-7 and C/Z 9-2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PEARL INDUSTRIES, INC. , c/o Charlie Sweet, 43-703 Virginia Avenue, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of revised plans for 256 senior residential units and community center on 10 acres LOCATION: West side of Fairhaven between Fred Waring and Parkview ZONE: PR-7 to be rezoned PR-7 SO (Senior Overlay) Mr. Smith reported that the revised landscape plans show that the parking along Fairhaven has been eliminated in order to add more landscape area, including a four-foot bermed section with a four-foot wall and plantings along the top, including trees. The revised plans have deleted the entire parking area along the Parkview entry. This project will be presented to the Planning Commission on November 16, 1999, and the comments of the Architectural Review Commission will be forwarded for consideration. Charlie Sweet noted that the tower elements have been deleted, and the residential buildings have been compacted to 10-foot floors so the highest residential building would be 25 feet above curb, while the height of the community center would be 27 feet. Don Gittelson, a resident of Monterey Sands, which is northeast of the proposed project, noted that the project no longer includes a skilled nursing facility, and has been reduced from 13.04 acres to 10 acres, which was confirmed by Mr. Sweet. Mr. Gittelson indicated that his primary concern is density, because the area is currently zoned for seven dwelling units per acre, not 25 units per acre. He suggested installing a median on Parkview, and suggested that the City vacate all of Fairhaven, which would give adjoining property owners additional land. Mr. Gittelson felt that the buildings should face north rather than east. 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 MINUTES Judy Rogers of Fairhaven stated that the project is too massive, too high and too dense, and added that she is glad the height has been reduced somewhat and is also pleased that additional landscaping will be included. Lena Moch spoke on behalf of the Homeowners Association at the Estates at Rancho Mirage and expressed opposition to the density and height. Mr. Sweet liked the idea of a median on Parkview. Chairman Gregory liked the idea of vacating Fairhaven. Commissioner Holden pointed out that if the street were vacated, and the developer chooses not to build the proposed project, single-family homes could be built within 10 feet of the property line, which would impact the neighbors. Commissioner Urrutia liked the idea of vacating Fairhaven, but felt that a landscape easement for the project should be maintained. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that the project design has improved, and noted that the massiveness of the buildings is tied to the density. Commissioner Van Vliet noted that the project did not receive preliminary approval at its last presentation due to a lack of detail in the plans and asked what type of veneer would be used, to which Mr. Sweet responded by indicating stone veneer and stucco. Commissioner Urrutia felt that as long as the developer adheres to the detail presented in the artist's rendering, everything should be okay, even though the actual drawings don't show detail. Action: Commissioner Urrutia moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet, to grant preliminary approval on the architecture only, based on the artist's rendering presented. The motion carried 5-0. 10 Josef/Rosli Riemhofer 8 Vistara Dr. Rancho Mirage CA. 92270 ��, Nov./ 15 /1999 fit? City of Palm Desert73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 - 2578 ('1" 1 5 1999 `'"^4MLMPYD�1 LC2d/�E T Attn. City Council City of Palm Desert 0f PALM DEStRT��' " Attn. Planing Commission and Steve Smith, Planning Manager Ref: Senior Housing and Nursing Facility-Park View Dr. and Fred Waring Dr. After long and careful consideration and assurance from both, the City of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage, that the vacant land in this neighborhood will be, low density, single story, single family residences. On this premiss, we decided to make Rancho Mirage,joining Palm Desert, the location for our final retirement residence. Only to find out, after 16 months living in the Estates at Rancho Mirage, that there is planing under way to drop a colossus of a building, in the midst of residential zoning. What are zoning laws good for?If any time, some one with sufficient clout and a 20 year buddy ship with the chairman of the planing commission, is able to overturn them. In our opinion, this is a most inappropriate location for this type of building, given the established residential areas of both Cities. Alone the outlook of 2/3 years of construction "war zone" incl. excavation, landscape ect., is hard to imagine in its reality. My guess is, property sales will at least experience a "wait and see" period. True! the applicants have made some changes; some, no doubt in my mind, were anticipated for bargaining purposes. They also showed very smart artists renderings at the B.Bqu. meeting 11.10.99. The applicants vaguely mentioned that there will be skilled nursing facilities, "may be in unsold units". An additional change has the entire traffic to and from the senior facility, on Parkview Dr. Traffic and noise are certain to increase immensely, staff for restaurant, nursing and the facility itself; maintenance crews, landscape and gardeners, delivery trucks, visitors and the residents. There are 123 households accessing Parkview Dr. directly, from the Estates and Ridgeview development. Plus traffic from the White Sun Project and old neighborhood. In conclusion, we would like to register our strongest objection, and appeal to the wisdom of the Palm Desert Planing Commission and City Council, to use their foresight and not betray the surrounding residential communities, most impacted. It can hardly be expected, that the applicants make or agree to any negative presentation. Sincerely 9 VGV ad(ctpf-- 1 copy: Palm Desert Planing commission Mr. Steve Smith, Planing Manager. 1 copy. Palm Desert City Council Neighborhood Opinion Poll ;V 2 1999 ( residential area of Hacienda De Monterey ) cnYar6;DL.4 i The following are questions addressed to the local neighbors to determine the impact and/or computability of the Hacienda De Monterey within the existing residential neighborhood. 1) Does Hacienda generate excessive or bothersome vehicular traffic? 2) Does Hacienda produce any excessive "noise" at any time, day or night? 3) Has Hacienda produced any "siren" problems from ambulances? 4) Do you know of any local neighbors complaining to each other or the City about Monterey? 5) Has the "Density" of Hacienda caused any negative affects on the neighbors? 6) Does Hacienda produce odors of any sort bothersome to the area? 7) Has Hacienda reduced your property value? Why? 8) Do you know of friends or family that may need to live at Hacienda at some point in their life? Why? 9) Is Hacienda a "compatible " use of property in your neighborhood? 10) Are you pleased that Hacienda.has no overall negative influences to your neighborhood? i/ 79.9? name address date A49,e/ � ��i �� � Nov / /9 RE `7TIrt-7; November 29, 1999 NOV 2 9 1999 COMMUNITY EEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Mark Greenwood CfTY OF PALM DESERT Transportation Engineer City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Dear Mr. Greenwood: At Steve Smith's suggestion, I stopped by to see you last week regarding the Paseo Village project on Parkview but unfortunately you were out of the office. One of the issues we have been discussing is the presumed significant increase in traffic on Parkview. I have discussed with Steve and with Councilman Ferguson a proposal I have to alleviate one problem at the Parkview/Monterey intersection. Currently on eastbound Parkview there are two lanes—a left turn lane and an open lane for both right turns and those proceeding straight into the college. Between these two lanes there is a large triangular area surrounded by a solid white line that is unused by traffic. I suggest that the far right lane be designated for right turn only and that the middle area currently in the solid triangular area be lined for a"straight ahead" lane. I recognize that the entry drive to COD is slightly off center from Parkview but that shouldn't cause a problem for drivers. Steve informed me that you were opposed to a stop sign or traffic light at the entrance to the Paseo Village project, if the City Council gives approval to the project. In lieu of those conditions, I will include suggestions in my comments to the City Council for a left turn lane into the project, for left and right turn collector lanes exiting the project, and for the possibility of a speed bump to slow down the traffic on Parkview that currently routinely exceeds the speed limit. I would be pleased to discuss these ideas with you. Sincerely, Nancy D. finger Board Member, The Estates at Rancho Mirage 6 Novato Terrace Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Phone: 760-3416066 c: Councilman Ferguson Steve Smith 1P'Mif Kathleen Hudgins, RNC, MBA jq99 72-799 Arboleda Dr. Usery L O p�-NTr- RT N 1AV 1��ti{.t. CSC.:.. i:i.'"i9fll10T Palm Desert, CA 92260 CRY o R��A DESERT • .. • CO to Mayor of Palm Desert Palm Desert City Council 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 r 9 Subject: Planning Commission Meeting of November 2, 1999 0 Case Nos. GPA 99-3,C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7, and DA 99-3 T; c Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members I wish to share with you my concerns about events and decisions made at the Planning Commission meeting on November 2, 1999. As you will recall, the City Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission on October 14, 1999. At that time the council recommended that Mr. Sweet work with the neighbors to see if there were something we could all live with. The neighbors met and indeed are not opposed to the senior housing residence. We are, however, still concerned about the skilled nursing facility and the three story facility. On October 27, 1999, Mr. Sweet met with a small group of the neighbors. It is my understanding that discussions at that meeting are not what was presented to the Planning Commission on November 2. Mr. Sweet was unable to answer questions asked of him about the project. He stated that the skilled nursing facility has been eliminated. Yet at the last meeting he stated that it was an integral part of the plan. But he is not sure of the regulations and the facility may have to make some provisions for skilled nursing. When a representative from Pearl Industries was asked to respond to the question, he stated that it depended on how the facility was marketed. When asked how the project was to be marketed, he could not respond as it depended on approved plans. Architectural Review has approved concepts, but not plans. How can this project be approved until there is a plan? After hearing public testimony, Commissioner Finnerty read a statement of concern about Mr. Sweet's failure to file plans and papers as per procedure. Her statement of concern is factual as far as the neighbors have experienced them. However, Commissioner Jonathon stated that he has known Mr. Sweet for 20. The message I received from this meeting is that it does not matter what is good for the City or the neighborhood, what is important is who you know. Commissioners Jonathon and Campbell completely ignored the statements of concern and indicated that they would approve the project despite Mr. Sweet's disregard for the process and the integrity of the City. I would encourage Council members to review the tape of the meeting and read Commissioner Finnerty's statement. I believe the proceedings of this meeting would be an embarrassment to the City Council. Personally, I have never known the city to do business based on personalities rather than what is best for the City. However, Commissioners Jonathan and Campbell certainly made it appear that their decisions are based on personal relationships and interests. The Planning Commission continued the matter until November 16, 1999 at the request of the neighbors. However, Mr. Sweet requested to be placed on the Council agenda for the meeting scheduled November 18, 1999, for the purpose of obtaining final approval. If there are additional changes in his plans, the neighbors will be unable to participate and address them intelligently. In closing, I again urge you to review the proceeding of the meeting and make your own judgements. Sincerely/ r--D Kathleen Hudgins, RNC, MBA NOV- 16-99 1 3 : S6 FWOPl:F I NANCE DEPT I L): 90J'/6'CSbd.i November 15, 1999 Members of the Planning Commission Members of City Council At the request of the City, an itemized list of concerns related to the proposed senior assisted living project have been assembled for review. As the result of numerous meetings between neighbors and a few with the developer, we have tried to list our concerns as they relate to the development itself or operational requirements if the project is built. Before that list is presented, it is necessary to discuss how this neighborhood really feels about this process. As the result of discussions at the Planning Commission meetings and with select City Council members, this project seems to be Iooked on favorably in'spite of the fact that it triples•the allowable density of current zoning and places two of the highest'density projects in Palm Desert side by side. Hence the dilemma for the neighborhoods. Do we really have any say as to what happens concerning this project or are we simply-talking about mitigating the effects of this facility, that in many minds is already approved. ideally, both neighborhoods agree that a gated residential development,similar to White Sun Estates would be our first choice. With that said, the list below itemizes the outcome of numerous discussions between the neighborhood members and in some instances between the. neighborhood and the developer. It should not be considered an all inclusive list as many neighbors may have other issues, but hopefully represents the majority of the issues at hand. , OPERATING RESTRICTIONS . , 1. Delivery hours for the entire complex shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. , . . 2. Landscape maintenance and refuse collection of any kind shall occur from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 3. The restaurant on site will not be open to the general public and shall provide an effective means of odor control from cooking units satisfactory to the Director of Community DeveiopmentlPlanning prior to issuance of a building permit . NOV-16-99 13 : 57 FROM:FINANCE DEPT ID=9097925683 PAGE 3/5 LIGHTING RESTRICTLONS 4. That there shall be no security or parking lot lighting mounted above the perimeter walls. There shall be no lighting mounted on the exterior of any structure above six feet. All security and parking lot lighting shall not be visible from the northerly and easterly residential areas. • NOISE CONTROL RESTRICTIONS That the following conditions shall be imposed to control noise: 5. All loading docks must be enclosed or accessed through underground parking structure . 6. Post signs requiring all loading doors remain closed . . • 7. Requires all engines to be shut off if a delivery, maintenance or transport vehicle is parked more than 5 minutes. Requires appropriate posting. 8. Prohibit all horn blowing, loud talking and,loud radios. Post accordingly. • 9. Prohibit the use of forklifts except within the loading area or underground parking area. 10. Exiting exhausts and all other mechanical equipment must be located in or directly adjacent to the main building structures.-. 11. Prohibit the parking of delivery trucks and trailers overnight 12. Require that all refrigeration equipment mounted on trucks or trailers to be shut down if not required for on-board contents, and in no event. shall they remain on for longer than one hour. 13. Ali trash containers shall be placed only on the service road on the west side of the facility with the only point of entrance being the north/west site entrance on•Parkview. All mechanical and hydraulic equipment involved with the on site handling of solid waste requires enclosure with an 8' wall. • 14. That all on-site vehicles used for maintenance and transport of residents be CNG-or electric to reduce noise levels and have a positive environmental impact. • • NOV- I I8-U9 1:i : 57 F12O14:1- I NANCE DEPT- Ill:OIA .i /IJL�bu.i L 1; • SITE DEVELOPMENT 15. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director for checking approval before construction begins. Any changes to the basic project as it relates to the items listed herein, shall be communicated and discussed with the impacted neighborhoods before approval is given. 16_ All electrical distribution, telephone, television cable and similar service wires shall be installed underground. • 17. The maximum height of the entire facility shall be limited to 25 feet above existing curb face on Fairhaven Drive and Parkview. 18. The building setback shall be 60' from existing curb for the bvitil two story structures with a.height limitation of 15' (excluding roof landscaping) and 120'from existing curb for the three story structures with.a height limitation of 25' from both Fairhaven Drive and Parkview. 19. Property owner shall maintain perimeter and interior landscaping in a healthy and living condition. 20. No equipment of any kind, mounted on top structures, shall exceed the maximum height of the complex at 25' for the third story or 15' for the second story. No equipment of any kind will be located on the roof an any structure within 120' feet of'the:Fairhaven Drive and Parkview_existing curb location. • 21. All mechanical equipment, trash containers, compactors and electrical equipment of any kind will be located inside the structure and there shall be no grills,.louvers;ar. other openings on the north or east sides of the complex. The interior areas shall be thoroughly sound insulated. • 22. That the perimeter service road shall have speed bumps installed at 100' -150' intervals. 23_ That all entrances, main, service and emergency be approved by all necessary agencies, especially the City Fire Marshal, to ensure that Fairhaven Drive would not be considered as an entry to the facility.other than for emergency purposes. , • r.. IVUV- lb-`-1J l.i = b / 1-liUAl= 11NNNL.L UL-k-'1 . , .�i. • • LANDSC&PJNG 24. That for the subject property located on both Fairhaven Drive and Parkview a 5' berm and a 6' masonry wall on top of said berm be constructed along with immediate planting of dense landscaping to effectively shield the complex from exterior Iine of sight. 25. Allow the neighborhood representatives to review and approve the final landscaping plan. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSIDERATIONS 26. That consideration be given to the possibility of vacating a section of Fairhaven Drive from San Juan to the site property line and•cui-de- saccing Arboleda and San Juan. This would not only permanently solve some local traffic issues but would also provide additional landscaping to buffer the complex from the neighborhood. If approved, condition the owner of the proposed project to share in the cost of maintenance of vacated area. It is further conditioned that if Fairhaven Drive is vacated at any time during the design or construction of this project, the developer agrees to pay all associated demolition, construction and other costs. 27. That a neighborhood advisory-committee be established that would work with the developer and the Planning Department to solve site development and operating problems as they-occur. 28. That any substantive changes to the agreed upon conditions of approval must be properly noticed and a public hearing conducted to consider said changes. , We would request specific language be placed in all required documents to allow any interested person the ability to enforce these restrictions, independent:of the City_ We would also request that the City impose these restrictions as conditions of any development on these parcels, whether this development-proceeds:or;not We look forward to your thoughts and comments related to this project, Sincerely, Jerry & Judi Rogers November 16, 1999 Presentation to the Palm Desert Planning Commission by Nancy Singer Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again about Pearl Industries' Paseo Village Project. It has been an interesting experience working with the neighborhood. We have definitely felt that we have been at a disadvantage in reviewing the proposal since the developer has been working on the project for years and we have only known about it for a short while, even as the developer has continued to make changes that haven't been shared with us in a timely manner and has made veiled threats that we could like something else even less. At the outset, let me say that we in the community are definitely not opposed to senior housing. We've just been opposed to many of the parameters presented here, especially to the massiveness of the project. Although our preference for this parcel of land would be single family residences or single story condominiums, we would graciously accept life-estate senior apartments as long as the development blends with the neighborhood and could be viewed as transitional from the single family homes in the area to the commercialism on Fred Waring Drive. Unfortunately, what has been presented to us is not compatible with the neighborhood which includes single family residences at densities of 2 to 4 per acre, single story apartments, and the two-story sunken Quail apartments. This is a residential neighborhood. The proposed project is more a commercial venture, with its high density, building height, and services planned to be provided on site. This parcel of land is zoned for 7 housing units per acre; we do not believe that should be changed. You may also know that the City of Rancho Mirage has gone on record as opposing the project due to its massiveness as underscored by the need for underground parking. An issue that hasn't been explored in depth yet is whether another senior project is needed in the area. There are currently several other senior housing projects under development in the area. None have any construction greater than two stories, and most are single story. Why does this one need to be three stories? Maybe more importantly, is this really needed here? As I said, this is more a commercial venture than a residential one. A restaurant, a snack bar, a beauty salon, a barber shop, a gift store -- these are all commercial in nature. Even if a condition is placed on the development that these facilities, and any others in the community center, are for the exclusive use of residents and their guests, these facilities will still increase the negative environmental effects of this project. And at your meeting two weeks ago, the developer first said there wouldn't be any skilled nursing care, then changed his testimony to say there will be. We haven't seen any plans to show where this would be. This is a serious concern to us. There is great concern with the building height and density. Even with the elimination of the towers, the developer is still seeking a code variance to the height restrictions that you have in place. If granted, this will surely open the door to further requests for height exceptions and for the proliferation of multi-story developments. The density being requested is now 24.5 per acre, compared to the zoning of seven. Earlier this year, you denied a 16 per acre senior living project without the restaurant and other services as being too dense for a residential area. What could possibly justify a 50% higher density than the one you already denied? Although the developer's traffic study on Parkview differs from the one done by the City of Rancho Mirage, neither study takes into account the traffic generated by three shifts of staff going in and out on staggered work schedules. The speed limit is 45 mph, but many people whiz right through between Highway 111 and Monterey at speeds of 60 and more. A serious accident is just waiting to happen now; this project will only aggravate the seriousness of this problem. We believe that there is probably the need for a traffic light at the entrance/exit driveway at the east end of the project. A left turn lane is also needed. And we believe that contractors who will be on the development site need to be restricted to where they can leave their equipment. There is also great concern with the potential for environmental problems, such as odors from the restaurant, and vermin and waste from the various commercial ventures. There isn't the feeling of"open space" that both Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage have successfully accomplished in most developments in both cities. Even the proposed landscaping, which has changed repeatedly and I'm not sure what it is now, creates a feeling of massiveness. Contrary to what the developer said at an earlier Planning Commission meeting, this is not a convenient location for seniors. Just envision a group of seniors, possibly many with canes or walkers, crossing through the church area, then crossing busy Fred Waring Drive,just to get to Trader Joe's. And they'll never make it to the TownCenter. Seniors don't do a lot of shopping; they need to be closer to medical facilities that they do frequently visit. And there aren't any medical facilities proximate to this parcel of land. No one disagrees with the notion that seniors want and deserve nice living facilities. That is why there are so many being developed in this area right now. But note where they all are — not directly next to or across from residential areas. There are a number of conditions that we request be imposed, if this project goes forth, to make it less objectionable. They include the following: 1. Building height should be limited to two stories in all areas, with no height exceptions granted. 2. Tile roofs shall be consistent with the neighborhood. 3. All trash shall be maintained in commercial trash compactors, not in regular trash bins. 4. Electric service vehicles shall be used throughout the project and the restaurant shall have a heavy duty exhaust system. 5. Landscaping berms shall be in place on both Parkview and Fairhaven, to shield the view of the buildings. 6. The pool currently facing Parkview shall be relocated to an interior courtyard area. 7. The use of the various services and facilities shall be strictly limited to residents and their guests. 8. A traffic light or stop sign should be installed at the entrance driveway. 9. "No parking" signs shall be placed on Parkview during construction and after the project is operational. 10. Effective dirt/dust/waste control shall be in place during construction. 11. All construction vehicles shall be parked on the parcel, not on Parkview. 12. The developer shall be required to present details of the building and landscaping plans plus any proposed changes to the community, allowing sufficient time for review, comment and modification. Again, on behalf of many residents of the community, I ask you to not let the quality of life of your neighbors in the area be jeopardized. Don't violate the integrity of the community. This senior project, if truly needed in the valley, belongs in a commercial area, not a residential area. This parcel of land is zoned appropriately R-7 for residential use; it should not be changed. From : 24. 1999 01:30 PM P01 11-24-99 Delivered by FAX to 760/341-7098 To: Planning Commission & City Council/City of Palm Desert/Att'n: Steve Smith, Planner 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Tel.#760/346-0611 From: Dr. Harold Cozen Tel.#310/378-5976 1600 Cataluna Place, Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 Re: Case Nos. GPA 99-3,C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 and DA 99-3 Public Hearing December 9, 1999 Transmittal: This single page Message: I have received the most recent Legal Notice regarding the subject development announcing a review of the project by the City Council on December 9, 1999. Since 1979,we have been the continuous owners of a condominium in Monterey Sands addressed as 72.808 Fleetwood Circle, Palm Desert. I have reviewed the subject development and again wish to go on record as strongly objecting to any changes in City of Palm Desert guidelines as they apply to this development, including, but not limited to, changes in zoning, height limits, planned residential units per acre and use. Overall,the project appears to be too dense and overbearing for the site. Signature by fax is deemed equivalent to signature on original document. Signed: ---Z- C--e Harold Cozen PDMNT951-part i x © � o �� o� eseR 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CONSIDERATION OF REVISED PROPOSAL CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 99-3, C/Z 99-2, PP/CUP 99-7 AND DA 99-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by PEARL INDUSTRIES, INC., for approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, change of zone from PR-7 (planned residential 7 units per acre) to PR-7 S.O. (planned residential senior overlay), precise plan of design/conditional use permit (including a height exception for the three (3) story portion), a development agreement and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to a proposed 250 unit continuing care retirement community and a community center building on 10.3 acres on the west side of Fairhaven Drive south of Parkview Drive, 72-755 Parkview Drive. .4." L i J�±1i 1 Ill , , o rakernrr ell' i N / I I;I u i F(; � i ma -tI t�ii:::_ . `� �y _. _ Q S.P.C-1 --- c =MP OMB IIVW kb'IMIR 1 .---• amiIC14A\•1 �. ,� •e . H.P.R. e IP23alLUJ _-� S.P. AHD '.,,i — c-t L :.r;:lam WIZ= 1 `WIMP' . .� � '_r FRI WANING -DRIVE ,. 1Ni1iI'• giVIV IIIII ,_•••Itvo' s 0'/ S.P. -� s rr � ,•, - IN F 2-11 11111111Q1, ` . "-o/ , tti \ P.C.-(3) , 1•Y•co o. . 1 II a ill11111i1iSIMIN S.P. '11IIINIGIMi11 v14/ . 714 CRO 4.1.1•‘00'.'D• _ SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, December 9, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk November 22, 1999 City of Palm Desert, California RECEIVED SEP 1 6 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT AN ASSISTED LIVING/SKILLED NURSING AND RETIREMENT RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER, 1999 GRO Robert Bein Lilian Frost t Associates pitrLssiovAL ENCIW." , FLAMERS k ARvrr Rs 1t/Iam.cdmi in Paim Desert,Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7481 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 5 PROJECT LOCATION S EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 Existing Peak Hour Level of Service 11 EXISTING PLUS FUTURE CONDITIONS 12 Existing Plus Future Projects Peak Hour Level of Service 13 EXISTING PLUS FUTURE PLUS PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS 14 Project Trip Generation 14 Project Trip Distribution 16 Project Trip Assignment 16 Existing Plus Future Projects Plus Project Peak Hour Level of Service 16 PARKVIEW DRIVE ADT ANALYSIS 17 Existing ADT 17 Existing Plus Future Projects ADT 18 Existing Plus Future Projects Plus Project ADT 18 PARKING DEMAND 20 ONSITE CIRCULATION 24 APPENDIX A - Existing Peak Hour Traffic Count Data Existing Daily Traffic Count Data APPENDIX B - HCM TRAFFIX Calculation Sheets ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS , PLANNERS & SURVEYORS September 15, 1999 JN 20-100028 Mr. Mark Greenwood, P.E. Transportation Engineer CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis Report - Paseo Village City of Palm Desert Dear Mark: Robert Bein. William Frost and Associates (RBF) has completed a traffic impact report for the proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community in the City of Palm Desert. This report outlines existing and proposed conditions, potential traffic impacts. parking demand and site circulation generated by the proposed project. Supportive data has been included in the Appendix. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (760)346-7481. Sincerely. %' cAUFEss/O --� P�S A. N9< r 9 Carlos Ortiz, P.E., T.E. 2 ���; T`''�?z Project Manager I NO.57535 y w NO. 2025 mrn Public Works/Traffic Engineering * \ * *r\ ,5. CIVIL �Q TRAFF\G �Q grFOF CAUOP� glFOFCAI\FOPS CC: Bill Dickson. RBF H:\GRP70\PDATA\20I 00028\Office\W pwin\028STDY.W PD Professional Service Since 1944 74-410 HIGHWAY 111 • PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260-4114 • 760.346.7481 • FAX 760.346.8315 OFFICES LOCATED THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA ARIZONA AND NEVADA • WEB SITE www rb1 corn Traffic Impact Analysis Repo' co Village Continuing Care Retirement Commune., September 15, 1999 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Traffic Impact Analysis Report reviews and analyses existing and future traffic conditions, parking demand and on-site circulation for the proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community. Below is a summary of our findings. Traffic Impact Analysis Summary Five signalized intersections near the proposed project site were analysed to determine the Level- Of-Service under existing conditions, existing-plus-future projects conditions and existing-plus- future projects-plus-proposed project conditions. The intersections of Highway 111 at Parkview Drive/Painter's Path, Fred Waring Drive at Town Center Way/One Quail Place, Fred Waring Drive at Monterey Avenue, and Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/College of the Desert Entrance under existing conditions, existing-plus-future projects conditions and existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project conditions are all forecast to operate at an acceptable Level Of Service (LOS) of C or better during the morning and afternoon peak hour. The LOS at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive at Town Center Way/One Ouail Place changed from "B" to "C" during the afternoon peak hour with the addition of the future project traffic and remained at "C" under existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project conditions. The intersections of Highway 111 at Fred Waring Drive under existing conditions, existing-plus- future projects conditions and existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project conditions is forecast to operate at an acceptable Level Of Service (LOS) of C or better during the morning peak hour. The LOS at the intersection of Highway 111 at Fred Waring Drive changed from "C" to "D" during the afternoon peak hour with the addition of future projects traffic and remained at "D" under existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project conditions, which does not meet the City's performance objective. The LOS remained at "D"since the intersection peak hour volumes were increased by 13 vehicles (or 0.0023°o) due to the proposed project. During the afternoon peak hour the intersection of tfonterev Avenue at Parkview Drive/College of the Desert Entrance, the LOS changed from "B" to "C" under existing-plus-future projects- plus-proposed project conditions, which it remains acceptable. During the morning peak hour. the delay increased slightly but the LOS remained the same at the intersections under the different scenarios. Based on the analysis, the proposed project trips generated by the Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community will have a minimum impact at the studied intersections during the peak hours. !N 20-100028 • Traffic Impact Analysis Repot to Village Continuing Care Retirement Commun , September 15. 1999 Page 3 The project traffic will not have an impact on Fairhaven Drive, since the project trips will not be lentering/cxiting$thet' tl elrtmil? �lg}1!• 2')`i a f JlY1 Ids� van'` " ''4 , �..�:, remain. Parkview Drive Analysis Summary Parkview Drive is a two lane roadway. The City of Palm Desert General Plan Transportation Circulation Element indicates that for a two lane road operating at a LOS of"C" the maximum capacity is 10,000 vehicles. Under existing-plus-future projects-plus-project conditions, the forecast ADT on Parkview Drive will be approximately 6,751 which is below the maximum roadway capacity for a two lane road. Therefore, Parkview Drive is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) under existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project conditions. Parking Demand Summary The Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community will provide a total of 484 parking spaces; which the Retirement Residential Community will provide a combination of above and underground parking for a total of 432 parking spaces and the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing will provide a total of 52 parking spaces. Based on the City of Palm Desert parking requirements. the total number of parking spaces required is 306. Therefore 178 additional parking spaces will be provided by the proposed project. Residential/employee/guest/valet parking should be designated accordingly. Non-parking areas should be posted with signs or curb face painted red. Valet parking operations must conform to Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 10.50 "Valet Parking". On-Site Circulation Summary The proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community will have two driveways fronting Fred Waring Drive. The easterly driveway will serve as an entrance and the westerly driveway will serve as an exit. These driveways will serve primarily visitors and employees for the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. Access to the residential buildings will be allowed by providing an access road easterly of the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. Another driveway will be provided at Parkview Drive that will serve as an entrance/exit. This driveway will be primarily used by residents living in the Retirement Residential Community and will be located at the east end of the property. IN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Report o Village Continuing Care Retirement Communi September 15. 1999 Page 4 Two emergency fire access driveways will be provided by the project. One emergency driveway will be located at the west end of the property fronting Park View Drive. Another emergency driveway will be located at Fairhaven Drive. These driveways will be gated and will serve only emergency vehicles. In order to provide adequate circulation within the Retirement Residential Community, on-site traffic circulation shall be allowed in two directions. Proper signage shall be provided at the two main entrances indicating location of specific buildings and designated parking areas. Vehicles entering from both entrances should be allowed to continue to the designated parking and pick-up/drop-off area. Proper signage should be posted indicating pick-up/drop-off area. Pick-up and drop-off locations shall be properly marked. Delivery/trash pick-up trucks shall be allowed to enter/exit from Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. Access road shall accommodate delivery/trash pick-up trucks. Although no access will be provided from Fairhaven Drive. no parking signs shall be posted on the west side of the street fronting the proposed project to discourage usage of the residential streets. The emergency driveway at Fairhaven Drive shall be used for emergency purposes only. Employees or residents shall not be allowed to enter/exit the property at any time. The following items should be considered for the proposed Paseo Village: - Proposed curb returns shall have a minimum radius of 35 feet. - Proper signage and striping shall be provided at the driveways fronting Fred Waring Drive indicating one-way traffic. - Stop sign and right-turn-only sign shall be provided at the westerly driveway fronting Fred Waring Drive. - Stop sign shall be provided at the driveway fronting Parkview Drive. - Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. - Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the Community Center Building and for each of the residential buildings. - Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing employee parking shall be provided near the building. - Parking shall not be allowed along the access road. Curb along access road shall be IN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repo co Village Continuing Care Retirement Commur September 15. 1999 Page 5 painted red. -No parking signs shall be posted along the west side of Fairhaven Drive fronting the proposed project. - Parkview Drive shall be striped to provide a westbound left turn lane for vehicles entering the proposed project. The following items should also be considered: - Parkway landscaping or monument signing along Fred Waring Drive and Park-view Drive should not impede or restrict the sight distance of vehicles exiting the site. - The proposed emergency driveways at Parkview Drive (west end of the property) and Fairhaven Drive should be used only for emergency purposes only. Proper signs should be posted and the driveway should be gated to prohibit other usage. INTRODUCTION This traffic study analyzes the forecast traffic impact of the proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community in the City of Palm Desert (see Vicinity Map). This study also analyzes the proposed parking demand and on-site circulation generated by the proposed project. The City of Palm Desert staff suggested that five existing signalized intersections should be analysed for potential traffic impacts. These are: • Highway 111 and Parkview Drive/Painter's Path • Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive • Fred Waring Drive and Town Center Way/One Quail Place • Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue • Monterey Avenue and Parkview Drive/College of the Desert Entrance The City of Palm Desert also requested to analyzed Parkview Drive for potential project impacts. PROJECT LOCATION The site for the proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community is bounded between Fred Waring Drive, Fairhaven Drive and Parkview Drive in the City of Palm Desert (see Vicinity Map). The proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential TN 20-100028 THOUSAND (.1.) cc PALMS 0 NORTH, CATHEDRAL RAMON RD IOU CITY Q cr a o . U GERALD FORD DR a o rx FRANK SINATRA DR N o 10 W O O j Q 0 I Q COUNTRY CLUB <0 DR RANCHO )._m W < o MIRAGE m W o HOVEL,Y LN 42ND AVE BERMUDA 0 o _� ` a FRED WARING DR DUNES PROJECT _ wil EL PASEO ® N SITE INDIAN o PALM WELLS o • DESERT W�_LS N W LA QUINTA 40 PASEO VILLAGE VICINITY MAP 94I Robert Be in liIIian Frost k Associates PRO<ESSIOMAL EN01tEFRS, FLAMERS k AAVEM IFIIO Mom 111 Palm Desert,Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB P.O. 10-100028 28V I OIAP.DMG Traffic Impact Analysis Repot eo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commun.., September 15. 1999 Page 6 Community will provide the facilities shown on Table "1". ooTf.'.i -- - ... awl- rf" - ...- - _ TABLE 1 PASEO VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING/SKILLED NURSING & RETIREMENT RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITY NUMBER OF AREA BEDS-UNITS- (Sq. Ft.) SPACES Assisted Living/Skilled 99 Bed 51,466 Nursing Building Residential Buildings 254 500,086 Community Center 62,480 Building Parking Spaces 484 Exhibit "1" shows the proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community. The residential buildings will provide one, two and three bedroom units. The unit breakdown are as follows: One bedroom - 158 units Two bedrooms - 90 units Three bedrooms - 6 units The proposed Paseo Village-Retirement Residential Community will provide a combination of above and underground parking. The breakdown of above/underground parking are as follows: Above Parking - 114 spaces Underground Parking - 318 spaces Underground parking will serve primarily residents. The Community Center will use some spaces for valet parking (33 spaces). Each residential building will be provided with an access to the underground parking area. The above parking area adjacent to the residential buildings and the community center will be designated guest parking/employee parking. The parking area fronting the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building will be designated guest parking. Employee parking will be provided adjacent to the building. No underground parking will be provided for the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. IN 20-100028 �, 4144 -If$-mil! - ; 771N :44 •'rJ.D�`1� V41V ) , ij , z • ,re •Olttb 'V, y��em• NrrlGrYt Sao• vzrw wi'V C. L-4L. J.l1rvn WtNo0 1ri I9pJi19�J JN'ii : �nlnrvij o, d• 1.. ! 5.,i.z �iJA�1d'I�J1ld i�C7`d?�g AOo .• ,_ �y.�sppnorl : 10'71:9101 i 1 s • ' �'''. -74 )-- H 8 n f o r m q 1 i i 5 � x I, r ___ 0 iii ! 11 .0 R , o --tip--- M iliit(1: 1 .._..u...._.... VII— i 5,_ 1 e . 'JO gdrMoa ! ri— aai,np P Y .Coot p ,—. Lc v / s u 1 V.cif (' U_L1i ._LL1LLLLL11_1J1 ® ® • • Ii . • ,, ;iy • ..s ttv' Si.e:l lai' 1 `4' :ti C [y� �• •.LCa Uirltii�Lh:" 6yV'�.'sLm'dS.....4 ..«.1 sw+:;eieGi .via.�ek.li�...-c tynJ.:: �>�._:i: d.ii1�-:'�:..L._..S..� ._- \l 3�!T�/.J1..:..I::.^.RtJ.l.''J..::�.r-dt{�.lM:«"T3. .. v r• l z- .- r - .-- Traffic Impact Analysis Repc seo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commui September 15, 1999 Page 7 The number of parking spaces that will be provided for the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building are as fol a = Above Parking - Guest Parking- 34 spaces Employee Parking - 18 spaces One entrance and one exit only driveway will be provided at Fred Waring Drive. An entrance/exit driveway will be provided at Park-view Drive at the east side of the property. Another driveway will be provided on Parkview Drive for emergency purposes at the west side of the property. Another emergency entrance/exit driveway will be provided at Fairhaven Drive. The proposed emergency driveway at Fairhaven Drive will be used only by emergency vehicles for emergency purposes only. Others will not be allowed to use this driveway. This driveway will remain close at all times to discourage residents, employees and visitors usage of the residential streets adjacent to the proposed project. EXISTING CONDITIONS Highway 111 and Park-view Drive/Painter's Path Highway 111 is a major divided highway that serves various cities and communities from the west to the east of the Coachella Valley. At Parkview Drive/Painter's path. Highway 111 provides a landscaped median, a left turn lane and three through lanes for the northbound and southbound approach. It also provides a northbound right turn lane. Parkview Drive (westbound approach) is a secondary road and is composed of a through-left turn lane and a right turn lane. Painter's Path (eastbound approach) is a secondary road and is composed of a left-through-right turn lane. Currently the intersection is a signalized intersection. The traffic signal provides protected left- turns for only the northbound and southbound traffic. The traffic signal has split phasing for the eastbound and westbound traffic. The posted speed limit on Highway 111 is 50 miles-per-hour (MPH). The posted speed for Parkview Drive is 45 MPH. Pedestrian crossing is allowed at the intersection and on-street parking is not allowed on Highway 111 and Parkview Drive/Painter's Path. JN 20-100028 t J ` Traffic Impact Analysis Repoi eo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commun September 15, 1999 Page 8 Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive Highway 111 is a major divided highway that provides a landscaped median, dual left turn lanes and three through lanes for the northbound and southbound approach. Fred Waring Drive is an east-west arterial road that travels from the city of Palm Desert to the city of Indio. At Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive is composed of dual left turn lanes, two through lanes, and dual right turn lanes for the westbound approach. The eastbound approach is composed of a landscaped median, dual left turn lanes, two through lanes and a right turn lane. The intersection is a signalized intersection and provides protected left-turns for all the approaches. The posted speed limit on Highway 111 is 50 MPH. The posted speed for Fred Waring Drive is 45 MPH. Pedestrian crossing is allowed at the intersection and on-street parking is not allowed on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive. A bus stop is provided on Highway 111 north and south of Fred Waring Drive. Fred Waring Drive and Town Center Way/One Quail Place Fred Waring Drive is composed of a left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn lane for the westbound and eastbound approach. A landscaped median is provided at the westbound approach. Town Center Way is a divided secondary road and is composed of a landscaped median. a left turn lane, a through lane and a right turn lane. Town Center Way provides access to the Palm Desert Mall. The golf cart northbound route terminates before the intersection. One Quail Place serves as the main entrance to One Quail Place Apartments and is composed of a landscaped median and a left-through-right turn lane. The intersection is a signalized intersection. The traffic signal provides protected left-turns for only the westbound and eastbound traffic. The posted speed for Fred Waring Drive is 45 MPH. The posted speed for Town Center Way is 35 MPH. Pedestrian crossing is allowed at the intersection and on-street parking is not allowed on Fred Waring Drive, Town Center Way and One Quail Place. A bus stop is located on Town Center Way south of Fred Waring Drive. JN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repc seo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commu September 15. 1999 Page 9 Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue Fred Waring Drive is an arterial road and is composed of dual turn lanes, two through lanes, and a right turn lane for the westbound and eastbound approach. The landscaped median terminates before the entrance to the left turn lanes. Monterey Avenue is an north-south arterial road that travels from north of the Interstate 10 to Highway 111. At the intersection, Monterey Avenue is composed of dual left turn lanes and three through lanes for the northbound and southbound approach. A right turn lane is provided for southbound traffic. The landscaped median terminates before the entrance to the left turn lanes. The intersection is a signalized intersection and provides protected left-turns for all the approaches. The posted speed limit on Fred Waring Drive is 45 MPH. The posted speed for Monterey Avenue is 40 MPH. Pedestrian crossing is allowed at the intersection and on-street parking is not allowed on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. The McCallum Theater, College of the Desert and the College and County libraries are located at the northeast quadrant. A bus stop is located on Fred Waring Drive west of Monterey Avenue and on Monterey Avenue south of Fred Waring Drive. Monterey Avenue and Parkview Drive/College of the Desert Entrance Monterey Avenue is composed of dual left turn lanes, two through lanes and a right turn lane for the southbound approach. The landscaped median terminates before the entrance to the dual left turn lanes. The northbound approach provides a left turn lane, two through lanes and a right turn lane with a landscaped median. The College of the Desert (COD) Entrance serves as the main entrance to the COD campus. A landscaped median, a left turn lane and a through-right turn lane is provided for westbound traffic. Parkview Drive is a east-west secondary road that extends from Highway Ill to Monterey Avenue. At the intersection, Parkview Drive is composed of a left turn lane and a through-right turn lane. The posted speed for Monterey Avenue south of Parkview Drive/COD Entrance is 40 MPH. The posted speed for Monterey Avenue north of Parkview Drive/COD Entrance is 45 MPH. JN 20-100028 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Rcpoi eo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commun September IS, 1999 Page 10 The posted speed for Parkview Drive is 45 MPH. A bike lane/golf cart lane is provided on Monterey Avenue north of Parkview Drive/COD Entrance. Pedestrian crossing is allowed at the intersection and on-street parking is not allowed on Monterey Avenue and the COD Entrance. Fairhaven Drive Fairhaven Drive north of Fred Waring Drive is a residential street that extends to Parkview Drive. The City of Palm Desert has closed Fairhaven Drive just north of Fred Waring Drive to disallow non-residents traveling through the residential streets. In the past, motorists were using Fairhaven Drive as an alternate route to avoid the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue. Presently, Fairhaven Drive is used primarily by people attending the church located at the northwest quadrant. The driveway to the church parking lot is located on Fairhaven Drive before the road closure. On the other side of the road closure, Fairhaven Drive is primarily used by residents. Fairhaven Drive is stop control at Fred Waring Drive and motorists are allow to travel eastbound or westbound on Fred Waring Drive. Fred Waring Drive provides an eastbound left turn lane at Fairhaven Drive. Parkview Drive Parkview Drive is an east-west secondary road that extends from Highway 1 1 1 to Monterey Avenue. East of Monterey Avenue is the main entrance to College of the Desert. Presently. Parkview Drive is a two lane roadway with a striped median. According to the City of Palm Desert General Plan Transportation Circulation Element. Parkview Drive is designated to be a four lane roadway. Existing Peak Hour Turning Movements Counts Existing morning and afternoon peak hour turning movements counts were taken at the intersections to determine the peak hour Level of Service (LOS) at the study intersections. The peak hour turning movements counts were taken on June 1999. Exhibit "2" through Exhibit "6" shows the peak hour turning movement counts for the five studied intersections. The City of Palm Desert Staff provided morning and afternoon peak hour turning movements counts that were taken during February and March of 1999. 1N 20-100028 • 0 CN NORTH (.0 0 to O c- (o O In PARK VIEW } ) I DRIVE i 83 112 8 13 29 9 11 26 9 2 4 4 '. 1 ( (-- ooff") >— PEAK HOUR: Q N o AM 8: 00 - 9: 00 C T PM 4: 00 - 5: 00 PEAK HOUR I PM I AM I TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 111 @ PARK VIEW DRIVE PASEO VILLAGE "2 " 94Robert &in liIIion frost k Associotes EXHIBIT 1 Roberti EHGItF , Frost k sfociotRS 71-co Nom ill Pair Desert.Co. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100025 EXHIBITA.DwG r ;: r © N. NORTH CQ IN` CD Nr a-- cN 00 N FRED WARING I DRIVE 269 338 50 143 98 21 , 40 190 117 17 - 70 15 I ( N O r ) r-) >- PEAK HOUR: N) CN cv AM 8: 00 - 9: 00 PM 3: 00 - 4: 00 PEAK HOUR I PM AM TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 111 @ FRED WARING DRIVE PASEO VILLAGE �j �� �� cvp Robert &in Ii I I ian Frost k Associates LXHIBI T 3 PRoissiou.EPCME4S, FLAMERS k sRYEY0R5 74-410 Filmy III Palm Desert.Co 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG W U z U NORTH 0 W U W < ZO a. rn o N FRED WARING DRIVE 12 31 292 431 23 4 -" 133 147 495 201 - 114 56 cD CO PEAK HOUR: ° AM 8: 00 - 9: 00 z U U PM 4: 30 - 5: 30 z O H— PEAK HOUR PM AM - TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FRED WARING DRIVE @ TOWN CENTER WAY PA SEO VILLAGEvit EXHIBIT "4 " Robert Bein Ai I I ion Frost t Associates PROFESSIOUL ENG(PEFFS RAMERS k SUMTCRS H-410 M,stacy 111 Palm Beset't,Co. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG `- 0 NORTH U CNI if) Ln U rn FRED WAKING I DRIVE 140 198 410 425 182 54 153 199 560 194 65 49 � rr) .— t.f) N PEAK HOUR: rn in Ln N AM 8: 00 - 9: 00 U ( PM 5: 00 - 6: 00 U H- z 0 PEAK HOUR PM I AM I TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES FRED WARING DRIVE @ MONTEREY AVENUE PASEO VILLAGE "5 " Robert &in Killian Frost t Associates EXHIBIT PNa—cssIa+u ac[rF�. FLOM k Afiveraa B 14-110 Hi9r'o1 III Pa MI Desert.Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG © to NORTH LU N CO Crl Ul z LU Lf) PARK VIEW J 1 DRIVE 24 91 J - 19 37 84 55 14 38 29 77 67 56 -� \\\ 1 ( O>- �i PEAK HOUR: L� T AM 8: 00 - 9: 00 z PM 3: 00 - 4: 00 PEAK HOUR I PM I AM f TRAFFIC VOLUMES EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES MONTEREY AVENUE @ PARK VIEW DRIVE PASEO VILLAGE �� Robert Ben Ail Iion Frost kAssociates EXHIBIT6 9PRffSSIUUI ENGIttaS, PLANERS k SIFYETCRS B 71-410 Nigtwcr 111 Palm Oesert,Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7461 JOE NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG Traffic Impact Analysis Repor :o Village Continuing Care Retirement Communi , September 15, 1999 Page I I The February/March 1999 traffic counts were compare with the June 1999 traffic counts to determine if the traffic volumes decreased during the month of June. In the past, traffic volumes during the winter months were typically higher than the summer months. In previous years, more people visited the Coachella Valley during the winter months so traffic during the winter months were higher than the summer months. At the intersections of Highway 111 at Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/COD Entrance, the peak hour traffic volumes were slighter higher during the winter (Exhibit "3" and Exhibit "6"). At the other intersections, the peak hour traffic volumes during the summer months were similar or higher than the winter months. The intersections were analysed using the highest peak hour volumes. EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE To determine the existing operating Level of Service (LOS) of the study intersections. the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology for Signali_ed Intersections was utilized. To describe the quality of the operation of an intersection. a range of LOS from LOS A (little or no delay) to LOS F (extreme delays when traffic volume exceeds the capacity provided) is utilized. LOS is based on the intersection capacity and volume of traffic utilizing the intersection related to vehicular delay experienced by motorists and controlled by stop signs at the intersection. Table 2 summarizes the range of LOS correlated to seconds of delay experience per vehicle at signalized intersections. TABLE 2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) LOS I AVERAGE TOTAL DELAY (SECONDS) I A _< 5.0 B > 5.0 and _< 10.0 C > 15.0 and _< 25.0 D > 25.0 and 40.0 E > 40.0 and s 60.0 F > 60.0 !N 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repo co Village Continuing Care Retirement Commur September 15. 1999 Page 12 According to City of Palm Desert General Plan Transportation Circulation Element, LOS C is The goal of the City of Palm Desert is to maintain LOS C or better at intersections during peak hour operation. Mitigation is required by the City for projects that cause intersections to operate at LOS D, E or F during the peak hour as a result of project-generated traffic. Utilizing the HCM analysis method for Signalized Intersections, the selected intersections were analysed. Detailed HCM calculation sheets are included in the Appendix. Table 3 summarizes the calculated Level of Service (LOS) for the study intersections under existing conditions. TABLE 3 1999 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) INTERSECTION A.M. A.M. P.M. P.M. DELAY LOS DELAY LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Highway Ill Parkview Drive/Painter's 8.8 B 9.4 B Path Highway 111 e Fred Waring Drive 19.2 C 22.7 C Fred Waring Drive ¢ Town Center 13.5 B 14.4 B Way'One Quail Place Fred Waring Drive rd Monterey Avenue 18.9 C 20.3 C Monterey Avenuena, Parkview Drive/ 11.6 B 9.8 B COD Entrance As indicated on Table 3. the analysed intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) during the morning and afternoon peak hours. EXISTING-PLUS-FUTURE PROJECTS Based on information provided by the City, a three percent growth rate per year was used to forecast traffic generated by future projects that will impact the studied intersections. The year analysed under future projects is 2010. The peak hour trips forecast to be generated by the future projects were distributed to the street circulation system surrounding the project site. Exhibit "7" through Exhibit "11" shows the morning and afternoon peak hour turning movements traffic volumes for the existing-plus-future projects scenario for the studied intersections. IN 20-100028 ► 1 • 0 0 . , MORTM It. a CD I V' N N PARK VIEW J j DRIVE 115 155 11 18 40 12 15 36 12 3 6 6 In r, in ao N >- Q Co - On al N I ,— CI PEAK HOUR PM AM - TRAFF I C VOLUMES EXISTING —PLUS— FUTURE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 111 @ PARK VIEW DRIVE PASEO VILLAGERP EX „ Robert Bean Ai��ion Frost t Associates HIBI PROFESSIQIAL QGI ion. PLANERS k sociatRS 14-410 Hi ihay III Polm Oestrt,Co. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG © tr NORTH a r ip CO N FRED WARING } J j DRIVE f 372 468 69 198 136 29 55 263 162 24 - 97 21 � 1 ( N CD I PEAK HOUR PM AM - TRAFF I C VOLUMES EXISTING -PLUS- FUTURE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 111 @ FRED WARING DRIVE PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "8 " 9 .4Eii Robert Rein Aillian Frost &Associates PRTESSIMAL DICKERS, PEAHERS k 9INE7oRS 74-410 Hs Om I11 Po I FR Desert 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.OWG • U U Z O U Z Z U NORTH C� L,J N r- N U U < 0 0_ N V- r` FRED WARING DRIVE 17 43 404 597 32 6 - 184 203 685 278 158 78 f [ i C U Irk N N - zN N N U U z PEAK HOUR PM AM TRAFF I C VOLUMES EXISTING -PLUS- FUTURE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES FRED WARING DRIVE @ TOWN CENTER WAY PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "9 " 9B Robert Be in liIIion Frost k Associates PROF ESS I M EIG UFF7L. PLANERS k gXvETORS 74-410 Hign.oy 111 Point Desert,Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG � c o NORTH W c W > r7 < ^ U) N FRED WANING J I DRIVE 194 274 568 588 252 75 212 275 775 269 - 90 68 N CO .7- Vt In l_W U F- z 0 PEAK HOUR PM AM - TRAFF I C VOLUMES EXISTING -PLUS- FUTURE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES FRED WARING DRIVE @ MONTEREY AVENUE PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "l O " 9B Robert Bein li I I ion Frost t Associates PR6ESSICik EXIW RS, RIMERS k MEM 74-/10 Highm Ill Palm Desert,Co. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NC. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG 0 NORTH LU in N D co co z W CD CO 0 N PARK VIEW J DRIVE 33 126 26 51 116 76 ----- 19 53 40 107 - 93 78 f ( I r--) (NJ co aD cc-) u W O N 't r— z 0 PEAK HOUR PM AM - TRAFF I C VOLUMES EXISTING -PLUS- FUTURE PROJECTS TRAFFIC VOLUMES MONTEREY AVENUE @ PARK VIEW DRIVE PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "11 " B Robert &in li 1I ion frost t kssocioies PR6TSSIQL�1 Etr PiaNERS t sxrc� 74-410 x.yh„r Ill Rolm Oesert.Co. 92260 (760) 346-7781 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG Traffic Impact Analysis Repc seo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commui September 15. 1999 Page 13 EXISTING-PLUS-FUTURE PROJECTS LEVEL OF SERVICE Utilizing the HCM analysis method for Signalized Intersections, the studied intersections were analyzed. Detailed HCM calculation sheets are included in the Appendix. Table 4 summarizes the calculated intersection LOS for the existing-plus-future projects scenario. TABLE 4 EXISTING-PLUS-FUTURE PROJECTS PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) INTERSECTION A.M. A.M. P.M. P.M. DELAY LOS DELAY LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Highway 111 @ Parkview Drive/ 9.9 B 10.8 B Painter's Path Highway 111 @ Fred Waring Drive 20.4 C 28.6 D Fred Waring Driven Town Center 14.0 B • 17.8 C Way/One Quail Place Fred Waring Drive a Monterey Avenue 18.3 C 21.0 C - Monterey Avenue r' Parkview Drive' 12.1 B 12.0 B COD Entrance As shown on Table 4, the intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) during the morning peak hours under the existing-plus-future projects scenario. Three of the intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the afternoon peak hour under the existing-plus-future projects scenario. Comparing Table "3" and Table "4" it shows that with the addition of the future project traffic there is a slight increase in delay and no change in LOS at three locations during the morning and afternoon peak hours, therefore there is no significant traffic impact at these intersections. The LOS at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive at Town Center Way/One Quail Place changed from "B" to "C" during the afternoon peak hour with the addition of the future project traffic, which it remains acceptable. The LOS at the intersection of Highway 111 at Fred Waring Drive changed from "C" to "D" during the afternoon peak hour with the addition of the future project traffic, which does not meet the City's performance objective. IN 20-100028 _ Traffic Impact Analysis Report o Village Continuing Care Retirement Communii September 15. 1999 Page 14 EXISTING-PLUS-FUTURE PROJECTS-PLUS-PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS TRIP GENERATION The proposed project will consist of two different type of land use, these are: - Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing (Nursing Home) - Retirement Residential Community The project has been analysed using both land use scenarios accordingly, since each land use will generate different number of trips. To determine the trips to be generated by the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition) trip generation rates were utilized. The trip generation rates for the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use 620 (Nursing Home). These rates were derived from similar facilities whose primary function is to care for persons who are unable to care for themselves, for example rest homes. chronic care and convalescent homes. The ITE rates are based per number of occupied beds. The trip generation rates for the proposed Retirement Residential Community were obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Use 253 (Elderly Housing Attached). These rates were derived from similar facilities that are restricted to senior citizens: contains residential units similar to apartments and condominiums. It may contain special services such as medical facilities. dining facilities and limited retail facilities. The ITE rates are based on number of dwelling units. Table 5 shows the trip generation rates utilized to forecast peak hour trips generated by the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building and Retirement Residential Community. JN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Rep( seo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commu September 15. 1999 Page IS TABLE 5 PASEO VILLAGE ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES LAND USE DAILY A.M.PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Assisted Living/ 3.24 .118 .072 .19 .071 .099 .17 Skilled Nursing- 99 Occupied Beds Retirement Residential 3.48 .044 .026 .07 .059 .041 .10 Community- 256 Dwelling Units Table 6 summarizes the forecast peak hour trips to be generated by the proposed project utilizing the trip generation rates shown in Table 5. TABLE 6 PASEO VILLAGE FORECAST PROJECT TRIP GENERATION LAND USE DAILY A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Assisted Living 321 12 7 19 7 10 17 Skilled Nursing- 99 Occupied Beds Retirement Residential 891 I l 7 18 15 11 26 Community - 256 Dwelling Units TOTAL 1212 23 14 37 22 21 43 As indicated on Table 6. the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building and Retirement Residential Community are forecast to generate 37 morning peak hour trips, 43 afternoon peak hour trips and 1212 daily trips. JN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repor :o Village Continuing Care Retirement Communi September 15. 1999 Page 16 TRIP DISTRIBUTION The proposed main entrance/exit for the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building will be from Fred Waring Drive, therefore the majority of motorists traveling to the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building will be from Fred Waring Drive. A few motorists will enter/exit from Parkview Drive through the Retirement Residential Community. The proposed main entrance/exit for the Retirement Residential Community will be from Parkview Drive. therefore the majority of residents/visitors traveling to the community will enter/exit via Parkview Drive. A few number of residents/visitors will enter/exit the community from Fred Waring Drive through the access road adjacent to the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. Project trip distribution percentages generated by the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building is shown on Exhibit "12". Project trip distribution percentages generated by the Retirement Residential Community is shown on Exhibit "13". TRIP ASSIGNMENT Exhibit "14" shows the A.M. and P.M. peak hour trips (inbound and outbound) generated by the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building and Retirement Residential Community. The peak hour trips were distributed to the roadway system surrounding the project site based on the project trip distribution percentages shown on Exhibit "12" and Exhibit "13". Exhibit "15", Exhibit "16", Exhibit "17", Exhibit "18" and Exhibit "19" show the morning and afternoon peak hour turning movements traffic volumes for the existing-plus-future projects-plus proposed project scenario for Highway 111 at Parkview Drive/Painter's Path. Highway 111 at Fred Waring Drive. Fred Waring Drive at Town Center Way/One Quail Place. Fred Waring Drive at Monterey Avenue and Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/COD Entrance. respectively. EXISTING-PLUS-FUTURE PROJECTS-PLUS-PROPOSED PROJECT LEVEL OF SERVICE Utilizing the HCM analysis method for Signalised Intersections, the five studied intersections were analyzed. Detailed HCM calculation sheets are included in the Appendix. Table 7 summarizes the calculated intersection LOS for the existing-plus-future projects-plus proposed project scenario. JN 20-100028 0 W o z ka PASEO VILLAGE CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT C.„UNITY: onrsseas (DSW! . yr: . ' ;Iva- 20 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS/COMMUNITY CENTER W I— z 0 z Nx in to O Q 0 10% 010% Q I 0 L. 10Y. 10 105% _i J 1 �/ f— 0% O PARK VIEW DRIVE 0% 1010% 0 5% ' f 10 OX 0 0 f r / , // , // 1020% 0 , O 2 / // / / PASEO VILLAGE X / / in in / // // 0 0 / r / / // / / / / - / , / // // / Q1 / / / _ / / / c0 / / G / / // / // SAN JUAN / ( DRIVE/ Ln in i / z c / / > ARBOLEDA DRIVE 90 N x / EXISTING Q j .0_ L 20%,1 CO� / / // 1H80% I' > _ 1 / I O al > f 5% I 1 20/� / / /'� ``' o FRED WARING DRIVE 5% 1045% -- 45%0 1 020%-� c ® s 15%®= 80%® �® 1 % —4 7�20%U= 60% 10 05% — c :� I �n N ('� LEGEND: 1010%� O ® 0 W I 0 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION C 0 U—TURN PROJECT TRAFFIC AT FAIRHAVEN DRIVE W 0 * LEFT TURN & U—TURN PROJECT TRAFFIC z 3 >- 213 ASSISTED LIVING/SKILLED NURSING BUILDING PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "12 " V Robert &in IiIIion Frost t Associates PRE ESSINN.ENGINEERS,PLANERS k SIRYMS 74-4IO Hf t II l PoIm Desert,Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOE NC. 10-100028 BLOGI .DWG 0 W z z W NORTH PASEO VILLAGE CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY: NOT 1e SCALE > 0SKILLED NURSING BUILDING (ASSISTED LIVING) W 20 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS/COMMUNITY CENTER o x x x c O N O O L 0 30X 2© 40X i-- 10% 20 - 2020% f 10% 2 01�� 10% 0 PARK VIEW DRIVE 00/ y ~ 2 0% 030% 2 0% 020% 0 0 / / i / Oa (' / / // / / // 1 0 2 / // / / PASEO VILLAGE N 0 // / / / / / / / / / / // / /� / / / / / 3 / / / I / / / _ / / / / // /�•�, // SAN JUAN / / DRIVE // / / / / o 0 / // / z o in x / // EXISTING QI ARBOLEDA DRIVE C S O5�� pqI/ / / CMURCM =1 W 1 L u / cc; N / al 10% O� 2 Di / / / ``I o FRED WARING DRIVE 1 2O 1 5% � I / / —010% f 05% \ 000% ©10%,-- 10%A L30%`� 010% -� 10%`2;= 020% 00%_! 7 f G 10%0= 05%--- x o r °5%—t O S O \ T LEGEND: ,n N, L.. o 0 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION z 0 U—TURN PROJECT TRAFFIC AT FAIRHAVEN DRIVE z = LEFT TURN & U—TURN PROJECT TRAFFIC 3 >- 0 < RETIREMENT RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "13 " I Robert &in li I I ian Frost k Associates PRtE4ICtik F11GMUS, PUNERS k SRV YCRS 71-110 Hiipr ill Palm Desert.Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100C28 BLDG2.DWG 0 W 0 Z W :, NORTH ., .p«tia ROT 70 ICas )- 0SKILLED NURSING BUILDING (ASSISTED LIVING) W 20 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS/COMMUNITY CENTER Z 0 2 N 16 14 Hi FL 6 6 —_ — t— 2 2 -1 r M o 1 OI 1 n v 4 3 wi PARK VIEW DRIVE `t to 2 1 I _ 1 1y I �� / // // / // o I cv 2 / / / / // PASEO VILLAGE N N / / / / / M / / // / / Y // !/ / // // / / LI / / / 1 / / // / / SAN JUAN / / / / // DRIVE _ �/ // / z _IN = / // EXISTING Q ARBOLEDA DRIVE ^ ! I —�/ / // CHURCH I21 ; L �_1I N ^ / Q EE i' 3 f 3 I / // / `` FRED WARING DRIVE 1 1 1 I �^ ^ r1 / �I 4 2 2 i ' 0 I 0 15 , 6 ,, �—i4 15 L' 13 110 2 I 1 — 1 0 1 - I ' 3 E 6 ' 8 9 1 1 ; I -- LEGEND: _ — 0 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION N N n W —� E/I U-TURN PROJECT TRAFFIC AT FAIRHAVEN DRIVE 4.1 ■ LEFT TURN & U—TURN PROJECT TRAFFIC C.) Z PM ; AM I---PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 1- 3 ASSISTED LIVING/SKILLED NURSING AND RETIREMENT RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY A.M. Sc P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "14 " B Robert Rein li I I ion Frost t Associates PROIESSI Mk ENGIPFF3S, FIANCE k SIRCYORS 74-010H,ge,q III P01T Desert,Co. 92260 (760) 346-7481 1 JOB NO. 10-100028 BLDG2.DwG \ r . 0 MORIN E CO co in In N (---. PARK VIEW J DRIVE 117 157 11 19 40 12 16 37 13 4 6 6 f 1 in r. in o N N < CO cn CT) PEAK HOUR EXISTING PM AM - - - PLUS— TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE PROJECTS -PLUS- PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 111 @ PARK VIEW DRIVE PASED VILLAGE EXHIBIT "15 " CV Robert &in Aillian Frost k Associates Pf E.BIOYAL EhIFF�25. RAMcos k 9AYEYORS 74-/10 Niy I11 Palm Desert.C.j 92260 (760) 34E-7481 J08 NC. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG _ i • mposso ,_ :- -- - a. _ 0 � � NORTH O a--- a— CC) Ch cc N ,-- I— FRED WARING DRIVE 373 470 69 198 136 29 , - - 58 266 162 24 — 97 21 11 (/' < N ED PEAK HOUR EXISTING PM AM — -PLUS— TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE PROJECTS -PLUS- PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 111 @ FRED WARING DRIVE PA SEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT " " CVRoper( Belo I IIian Frost k Associates 16 Pant SS I aul EK EERS, P WLRS k SSRVEraPs 74-410 Hi play III Porn pesert,Cc. 92260 (760) 346-7481 • JCB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.CWG _, r • • U U z Q 0 -U-- < W NORTH D r- Ln .Ln 0 U N O N U U < 0 a. Ni N FRED WARING DRIVE -.--- 17 43 ---- 408 602 32 6 187 209 690 284 158 78 1 ( CO N cr to CD W r,� N N z N N N U U Z 0 H- PEAK HOUR EXISTING PM AM - -PLUS- TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE PROJECTS -PLUS- PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES FRED WARING DRIVE @ TOWN CENTER WAY PASEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "l 7 " CV Robert tot!I I ion Frost k Associates Pfi tSSI0NAL ENGfIfERS, RAM€ k ARYEYORS 74-4,0114,,,III Palm 0esert,Co. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG 44 O NORTH LLJ in 14/ '- • - z � c0 N • LJ < N FRED WAKING J I DRIVE 195 275 570 589 252 75 212 275 776 269 - 91 69 N N CD cD I-'• r1 >- 1.J LJ H- z 0 PEAK HOUR EXISTING PM AM -PLUS- TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE PROJECTS -PLUS- PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES FRED WARING DRIVE @ MONTEREY AVENUE PA SEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "18943, " Robert &in lillian Frost t Associates PRffESSIQIAL ENa11fTR5 PLANfRS k 4RVEYOF5 74-410 N11.37 111 Palm Desert,Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7491 J06 NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DWG —`1 © . NORTH U c° N co t0 z W > co cs) O N PARK VIEW I DRIVE i 33 126 26 51 120 79 - 19 53 40 107 - 95 79 f ( i Lr) N oo CC CC 1P >— O N z 0 PEAK HOUR EXISTING PM AM - -PLUS— TRAFFIC VOLUMES FUTURE PROJECTS -PLUS- PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES MONTEREY AVENUE @ PARK VIEW DRIVE PA SEO VILLAGE EXHIBIT "19 '' 9434 Robert Be in liIIion Frost k Associates PRCEFSSIRUL EtGI1�t5 PLA1+E 5 k SUKTORS 14-410 HiyAgr 111 Palm Desert,Ca. 92260 (760) 346-7481 JOB NO. 10-100028 EXHIBITA.DwG Traffic Impact Analysis Rep( seo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commis September 15. 1999 Pace 17 ABLE 7 PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) INTERSECTION AM. A.M. P.M. P.M. DELAY LOS DELAY LOS (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Highway 111 @ Parkview Drive/ 10.2 B 10.9 B Painter's Path Highway 111 @ Fred Waring Drive 20.5 C 28.7 D Fred Waring Driven Town Center 13.9 B 17.9 C Way/One Quail Place Fred Waring Drive @ Monterey Avenue 18.3 C 21.0 C Monterey Avenue @ Parkview Drive/ 12.1 B 12.1 C COD Entrance As shown on Table 7, the intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) during the morning peak hours under the existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project scenario. Three of the intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the afternoon peak hour under the existing-plus-future projects-plus-project scenario. During the afternoon peak hour the intersection of Monterey Avenue at Parkview Drive/COD Entrance the LOS changed from "B" to "C", and the intersection of Highway 111 at Fred Waring Drive the LOS remained at "D", which does not meet the City's performance objective. The intersection of Highway 111 at Fred Waring Drive LOS is "D" under the existing-plus-future projects scenario and remained at "D" under existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project scenario during the afternoon peak hour. The LOS remained at "D"since the intersection peak hour volumes were increased by 13 vehicles (or 0.0023%) due to the proposed project. PARKVIEW DRIVE ANALYSIS The City of Palm Desert requested to address the average daily traffic. capacity and Level-Of- Service on Parkview Drive from Highway 111 to Monterey Avenue for the existing, existing- plus-future and existing-plus-future-plus-project conditions. Existing ADT The City of Palm Desert provided March1998 and May 1999 daily traffic volumes for Parkview Drive. Table 8 shows the 1998 and 1999 daily traffic volumes. The existing average daily traffic (ADT) was determined by taking the average of the two volumes. IN 20-100028 ,� Traffic Impact Analysis Rep tseo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commt`___; September 15. 1999 Page 18 The existing ADT is shown on Table 8. Detailed traffic count data is shown in the Appendix TABLE 8 EXISTING ADT INTERSECTION E/B WB TOTAL DAILY DAILY VOLUMES VOLUMES Highway 111 @ Parkview Drive 742 2239 2981 Monterey Avenue @ Parkview 3148 2630 5778 Drive 1998/1999 ADT 1945 2435 4380 Existing-Plus-Future Projects ADT A three percent growth rate per year was used to forecast traffic generated by future projects that will impact Parkview Drive. The year analysed under future projects is 2010. Table 9 shows the ADT volumes for the existing-plus-future projects conditions for Parkview Drive. TABLE 9 EXISTING-PLUS-FUTURE PROJECTS ADT INTERSECTION EB W/B TOTAL DAILY DAILY VOLUMES VOLUMES Highway I 1 1 @ Parkview Drive 1027 3099 4126 Monterey Avenue!a Parkview 4358 3641 7999 Drive 2010 ADT 2693 3370 6063 Existing-Plus-Future Projects-Plus-Project ADT As indicated on Table 6, the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building is forecast to generate 321 daily trips and the Retirement Residential Community is forecast to generate 891 daily trips for a total of 1212 daily trips. IN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repc ;eo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commur September 15. 1999 Page 19 Exhibit 12 indicates that ten percent to the project trips generated by the Assisted Livin l Skilled Exhibit 13 indicates that seventy percent of the project trips generated by the Retirement Residential Community will be traveling via Parkview Drive. The forecast project ADT on Parkview Drive is shown on Table 10. TABLE 10 PARKVIEW DRIVE FORECAST PROJECT ADT LOCATION EB W/B TOTAL PARKVIEW DRIVE DAILY DAILY VOLUMES VOLUMES Skilled Nursing/Assisted Living 32 32 64 (10%) Retirement Residential 356 268 624 Community(70%) ADT 388 300 688 As shown on Table 10. the project is forecast to generate approximately 688 trips on Parkview Drive. Table 11 shows the forecast ADT volumes for the existing-plus-future projects-plus-project conditions for Parkview Drive. TABLE 11 EXISTING-PLUS-FUTURE PROJECTS-PLUS-PROJECT ADT INTERSECTION E/B WB TOTAL DAILY DAILY VOLUMES VOLUMES Highway Ill Parkview Drive 2693 3370 6063 Monterey Avenue g. Parkview 388 300 688 Drive ADT 3081 3670 6751 JN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Rep( seo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commu September 15. 1999 Page 20 According to the City of Palm Desert General Plan Transportation Circulation Element, Parkview Drive is a secondary roadway designated to carry 26,000 vehicles when improved to a four lane roadway and operate at a LOS of"C". Presently, Parkview Drive is a two lane roadway. The City of Palm Desert General Plan Transportation Circulation Element indicates that for a two lane road operating at a LOS of"C" the maximum capacity is 10,000 vehicles. As shown on Table 11, under existing-plus-future projects-plus-project conditions. the forecast ADT on Parkview Drive will be approximately 6,751 which is below the maximum roadway capacity for a two lane road. Therefore, Parkview Drive is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) under existing-plus-future projects-plus-proposed project conditions. PARKING DEM4ND To determine the number of parking spaces generated by the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (2"d Edition) parking generation rates were utilized. The parking generation rates for the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building were obtained from the ITE Parking Generation Manual Land Use 620 (Nursing Home). The trip generation rates for the proposed Retirement Residential Community were obtained from the ITE Parking Generation Manual Land Use 250 (Retirement Community). It should be noted that both generation rates were derived from small number of studies and sample size. Table 12 shows ITE parking generation rates utilized to forecast parking spaces generated by the proposed Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community. TABLE 12 PASEO VILLAGE ITE PARKING GENERATION RATES LAND USE PARKING RATE Assisted Living.'Skilled Nursing- 0.28/Room 99 Occupied Beds Retirement Residential Community- 0.27/Dwelling Unit 256 Dwelling Units JN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repo: co Village Continuing Care Retirement Commun September 15, 1999 Page 21 Table_. l 13 summarizes the number of parking spaces generated by the proposed project utilizin tr° 11III! Thigeration rates shown trn-Tabfr '"a`pt;ln *w s t4wa TABLE 13 PASEO VILLAGE FORECAST NUMBER OF PEAK PARKING SPACES LAND USE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing* - 14 99 Occupied Beds Retirement Residential Community- 69 256 Dwelling Units TOTAL 83 NOTE: *Based on 50 rooms(2 beds per unit) Table 14 shows City of Palm Desert parking requirements for Senior Housing Overlay District. TABLE 14 CITY OF PALM DESERT PARKING GENERATION RATES LAND USE PARKING RATE Assisted Living'Skilled Nursing* - 1/Unit 99 Occupied Beds Retirement Residential Community- 1,'Dwelling. Unit age 62 and Over, 256 Dwellin2 Units NOTE: *Based on 50 rooms(22 beds per unit) Table 15 summarizes the number of parking spaces generated by the proposed project utilizing the City of Palm Desert parking requirements for Senior Housing Overlay District. IN 20-100028 sl Traffic Impact Analysis Rcpon :o Village Continuing Care Retirement Communi September 15. 1999 Page 22 TABLE 15 PASEO VILLAGE FORECAST NUMBER OF PEAK PARKING SPACES* LAND USE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing- 99 Occupied Beds 50 (2 beds/unit and (parking space/unit) Retirement Residential Community- 256 256 Dwelling Units (1 parking space/dwelling unit) TOTAL 306 NOTE: 'Based on City of Palm Desert Senior Housing Overlay District Chapter 25.52 The proposed Paseo Village-Retirement Residential Community will provide a combination of above and underground parking. The breakdown of above/underground parking are as follows: Above Parking - 114 spaces Underground Parking - 318 spaces Underground parking will serve primarily residents. The Community Center will use some spaces for valet parking (33 spaces). Each residential building will be provided with an access to the underground parking area. The above parking area adjacent to the residential buildings and the community center will be designated guest parking/employee parking. The parking area fronting the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building will be designated guest parking. Employee parking will be provided adjacent to the building. No underground parking will be provided for the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. The number of parking spaces that will be provided for the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building are as follows: Above Parking - Guest Parking - 34 spaces Employee Parking - 18 spaces Based on information provided by Mr. Charlie Sweet, the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building will required approximately 30 employees per day. Assuming three eight-hour shifts per day, and the majority of employees will work from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. the number of employees on the morning shift will be approximately as follows: - 20 employees JN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repo seo Village Continuing Care Retirement Commui September 15, 1999 Page 23 Table 16 summarizes the number of parking spaces to be generated by the employees of the . . Stilled-f uildi i itittia#e+d iii a+gi , percent of the employees will drive their own vehicle and twenty percent will travel by another mode of transportation(car pool, bus, etc...). TABLE 16 PASEO VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING/SKILLED NURSING FORECAST NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES LAND USE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building- (30 employees/day) 16 80%of 20 employees/8-hour shift with a vehicle Table 17 summarizes the number of parking spaces that will be provided by the project. and the number of parking spaces generated by the proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community utilizing ITE parking generation rates, and City of Palm Desert parking requirements. TABLE 17 PASEO VILLAGE FORECAST NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES LAND USE NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ITE CITY OF PARKING RATES PALM DESERT PARKING RATES Assisted Living/ 52 14 50 Skilled Nursing- 99 Occupied Beds Retirement Residential 432 69 256 Community- 256 Dwelling Units TOTAL 484 83 306 As indicated on Table "17", 484 parking spaces will be provided for the proposed Paseo Village- Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community. Based on the City of Palm Desert parking requirements, the total number of parking spaces required is 306. Therefore, IN 20-100028 'i , Traffic Impact Analysis Report o Village Continuing Care Retirement Communi September 15. 1999 Page 24 178 additional parking spaces will be provided by the proposed project. As indicated, the Community Center will provide thirty-three spaces for valet parking. The Community Center must comply with the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 10.50 "Valet Parking" for valet parking operations. ON-SITE CIRCULATION The proposed Paseo Village-Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing and Retirement Residential Community will have two driveways fronting Fred Waring Drive. The easterly driveway will serve as an entrance and the westerly driveway will serve as an exit. These driveways will serve primarily visitors and employees for the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. Access to the residential buildings will be allowed by providing an access road easterly of the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. Another driveway will be provided at Parkview Drive that will serve as an entrance/exit. This driveway will be primarily used by residents living in the Retirement Residential Community. Emergency fire access driveways will be provided at Park View Drive and at Fairhaven Drive. These driveways will be gated driveways that will serve only emergency vehicles. In order to provide adequate circulation within the Retirement Residential Community, on-site traffic circulation shall be allowed in two directions. Proper signage shall be provided at the two main entrances indicating location of specific buildings.and designated parking areas. Vehicles entering from both entrances should be allowed to continue to the designated parking and pick-up/drop-off area. Proper signage should be posted indicating pick-up/drop-off area. Pick-up and drop-off locations shall be properly marked. Delivery/trash pick-up trucks shall be allowed to enter/exit from Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. Access road shall accommodate delivery/trash pick-up trucks. Although no access will be provided from Fairhaven Drive, no parking signs shall be posted on the west side of the street fronting the proposed project to discourage usage of the residential streets. The emergency driveway at Fairhaven Drive shall be used for emergency purposes only. Employees or residents shall not be allowed to enter/exit the property at any time. The following items should be considered for the proposed Paseo Village: - Proposed curb returns shall have a minimum radius of 35 feet. - Proper signage and striping shall be provided at the driveways fronting Fred Waring JN 20-100028 Traffic Impact Analysis Repot :o Village Continuing Care Retirement Commun September 15. 1999 Page 25 Drive indicating one-way traffic. xti - Stop sign and right-turn-only sign shall be provided at the easterly driveway fronting Fred Waring Drive. - Stop sign shall be provided at the driveway fronting Parkview Drive. - Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing Building. - Parking stalls for disabled persons shall be provided at the front of the Community Center Building and for each of the residential buildings. - Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing employee parking shall be provided near the building. - Parking shall not be allowed along the access road. Curb along access road shall be painted red. - No parking signs shall be posted along the west side of Fairhaven Drive fronting the proposed project. - Parkview Drive shall be striped to provide a westbound left turn lane for vehicles entering the proposed project. The following items should also be considered: - Parkway landscaping or monument signing along Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive should not impede or restrict the sight distance of vehicles exiting the site. - The proposed emergency driveways at Parkview Drive (west end of the property) and Fairhaven Drive should be used only for emergency purposes only. Proper signs should be posted and the driveway should be gated to prohibit other usage. JN 20-100028 APPENDIX "A " EXISTING PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS VEHICLE COUNTS FOR: - Highway 111 @ Parkview Drive/Painter's Path - Highway 111 @ Fred Waring Drive - Fred Waring Drive @ Town Center Way/One Quail Place - Fred Waring Drive @ Monterey Avenue - Monterey Avenue @ Parkview Drive/COD Entrance EXISTING DAILY VEHICLE COUNTS FOR: - Highway 111 @ Parkview Drive/Painter's Path - Monterey Avenue @ Parkview Drive/COD Entrance ranspo � ion u,ies, nc. City : Palm Desert 1720 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: R9906062 N/S Direction : Highway Ili Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 B/W Direction : Park View Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : HP & Associates Page : 1 Highway 111 Park View Drive Highway 11 ''ar ;ler 'rive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru L- Right Thru Left Total 06/23/99 07:00 2 130 5 20 0 1 1 140 0 1 0 1 301 07:15 2 135 5 11 1 2 3 154 0 1 0 0 314 07:30 3 182 11 13 0 0 2 177 0 0 0 2 390 07:45 6 205 13 17 2 1 0 220 0 0 0 1 465 Hour 13 652 34 61 3 4 6 691 0 2 0 4 1470 08:00 4 221 14 19 1 3 1 258 0 2 0 0 523 08:15 5 206 11 19 3 1 3 211 0 0 0 5 464 08:30 2 239 9 24 1 4 3 217 0 0 0 2 501 08:45 2 240 19 21 1 3 6 221 0 2 2 2 521 Hour l 13 906 53 83 8 11 13 907 0 4 2 9 2009 [BREAKI 16:00; 7 397 251 34 5 4, 6 376 2 0 1 9 866 16.151 IC 346 . j 23 3 3 7 360 81 2 2 8 798 :6:"sG -. 336 3G1 2: 1 9 360 Ci 1 5 9 804 • -- 323 5 8 346 3 754 Ho',:! 46 :4V2 26 30 1442 4 9 29 3222 nn i �I . 339 -- 21 2 30C 3 7 730 .':15 :. 369 2' 61 5 347 31 0 9 803 .7.30. _ 34E 29 2 5 9 33. of 5 0 5 788 :":45 - 3,; 35 20 6 ;I 4 324 51 2 4 8 741 Hour ;: 1372 :26; 5; 23 20 1305 201 9 7 29 3062 :d: - - 5 641 69 4345 341 19 16 7: 9763 Apr. ; 2.3 E.: :4.0 11.5 97.6 C.7' 16.6 65.7 - t :::. 1.1 44.3 3.1i 3.6 0.3 0.6 0.7 44.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.7 • I 1 Transportation Studies, Inc. City : Palm Desert 1720 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9906062 N/S Direction : Highway 111 Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/N Direction : Park View Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : Rig a Associates Page : 2 Turning Movements Highway 111 Park View Drive Highway 111 Park View Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Riga Thru Left Right Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 on 06/23/99 to 08:45 on 06/23/99 Time 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 13 906 53 83 8 11 13 907 0 4 2 9 Pct. 1.3 93.2 5.4 81.3 7.8 10.7 1.4 98.5 0.0 26.6 13.3 60.0 Total 972 102 920 15 High 08:45 08:30 08:00 08:45 Vol. 2 240 19 24 1 4 1 258 0 2 2 2 Total 261 29 259 6 PH? 0.931 0.879 0.888 0.625 Highway 111 13 906 53 999 1971 Park View Drive 21 1 86/23/99 83 08:00am 9 Is 08:45aM - 8 36 2089 170 2 /\ \I 11 4 -I, —). 68 Park View Drive N 1841 T 921 13 907 , Highway 111 . i.n u.ies, nc. City : Palm Desert 1720 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: E9906062 N/S Direction : Highway 111 Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/W Direction : Park View Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : RBP 6 Associates Page : 3 ig way 11 u Park View Drive Highway 111 Park View Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. dime Right Thru Left Might Thru Left, Right Thru Let Right Thru Left_ Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 06/23/99 to 17:45 on 06/23/99 Time 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:00 Vol. 46 1402 95 112 13 26 30 1442 14 4 9 29 Pct. 2.9 90.8 6.1 74.1 8.6 17.2 2.0 97.0 0.9 9.5 21.4 69.0 Total 1543 151 1486 42 High 16:00 16:00 16:00 16:30 Vol:. 7 397 25 34 5 4 6 376 2 1 5 9 Total 429 43 384 15 PEP 0.899 0.877 0.967 0.700 Highway 111 46 1402 95 1583 4 1 14 T 3126 Park View Drive 73 06/23/99 t. 112 04:00pm 29 04:45pm - 13 115 3222 285 9 ^ 26 4 —4, - 134 Park View Drive N 2918 4, t T 14 1432 1442 14 30 Highway 111 Transportation Studies, Inc. City : Palm Desert 1720 B. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9506058 N/S Direction : Highway 111 Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 B/W Direction : Fred Waring Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : RBF 6 Associates Page : 1 Turning Novements Highway 111 Fred Waring Drive Highway 111 Fred Waring Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Right T.hry Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Lel Rig t Thru Left Total 06/23/99 07:00 1 104 29 35 4 8 10 107 6 1 1 1 307 07:15 5 106 39 44 6 5 5 117 2 1 3 1 334 07:30 2 141 47 61 3 7 4 151 1 1 0 1 419 07:45 3 193 49 49 6 14 11 202 I 2 3 11 536 Hour 11 544 164 189 19 34 30 577 11 5 7 5' 1596 08:00 4 146 42 58 14 16 14 164 9 3 4 2 476 08:15 3 156 58 49 6 10 8 135 7 7 2 4 445 08:30 3 143 36 48 5 15 9 158 5 4 2 1 429 08:45 9 178 50 49 13 13 13 171 8 1 8 5 509 Hour' 19 623 186 195 38 54 44 628 291 15 16 12 1859 (BREA 16:00! 3 22C 92 69 30 47! 30 205 10' 8 20 22 761 16.1 : 24 231 621 48 29 31 25 284 11, 14 23 18; 799 6.32 -- 2-1 -- 21 •39 36 220 -1 __ 2- 33i 792 - 34 3: 24 :2 :: 2: '. ! 8:7 r.;,; 6: 332 23. _16 _ . 1:3 966 39 4: 9: 87 3169 1 i � i _ :1C 2 ._ 3: 45 .1 :Cj 26 849 :5 _. ht., :: ._ :9 36 71 8 .- 11 891 17 :3', 2:2 22 62 30 38 32 282 iij 6 32 20 - 815 :''15 :' 2:'. 5'' 3' SC'' 22 27C 9! 10 36 12! 782 Hcur, E4 26: .2 214 1. 16 123 1176 37 34 131 69 ' 3337 i .;_a: 15. 2965 111 833 29: 433 334_ 1:6: 99 245 173 9961 . 3.7 71.6 24.5 34.4 :2.9 26.6 2.4 22.4 3.1'; 13.: 47.3 33.4 - In-... 29.7 11.2 2.3 :.9 ..C; 3.2 33.5 -.i C.9 2.4 1,7 - i i 1 . Transportation Studies, Inc'. City : Palm Desert 1720 B. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9906058 N/S Direction : Highway 111 Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 B/W Direction : Fred Waring Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : REF i Associates Page : 2 Highway 111 Fred Waring Drive Highway 111 Fred Waring Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 on 06/23/99 to 08:45 on 06/23/99 Time 07:45 07:45 07:45 07:45 Vol. 13 638 185 204 31 55 42 659 23 16 11 9 Pct. 1.5 76.3 22.1 70.3 10.6 18.9 5.8 91.0 3.1 44.4 30.5 25.0 Total 836 • 290 724 36 High 07:45 08:00 07:45 08:15 Vol. 3 193 49 58 14 16 11 202 2 7 2 4 Total 245 88 215 13 PH: 0.853 0.823 0.841 0.692 Highway 111 13 638 185 872 4 1 4 T 1708 Fred Waring Drive 67 06/23/99 2- 204 07:45am 9 08:30am 31 103 1886 528 11 n 55 16 -1, -+ 238 Fred Waring Drive N 1433 4, t T 1 709 23 659 42 Highway 111 1 : Transportation Studies, Inc. City : Palm Desert 1720 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9906058 N/S Direction : Highway 111 Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/W Direction : Fred Waring Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : RBF & Associates Page : 3 Turning Movements Highway 111 Fred Waring Drive Highway 111 Fred Waring Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Right Thr. LeiL Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left, Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 06/23/99 to 17:45 on 06/23/99 Time 16:45 16:45 16:45 16:45 Vol. 61 910 368 222 116 153 133 1147 38 35 115 74 Pct. 4.5 67.9 27.4 45.2 23.6 31.1 10.0 87.0 2.8 15.6 51.3 33.0 Total 1339 491 1318 224 High 17:15 16:45 17:15 17:00 Vol. 16 244 103 60 36 34 46 319 7 10 32 26 Total 363 130 372 68 PH? 0.922 0.944 0.885 0.823 Highway 111 61 910 368 1443 4 T 2782 Fred Waring Drive 215 06/23/99 2 222 74 05:30pM - 116 439 3372 1107 115 ^ 153 35 71, - 616 Fred Waring Drive N 2416 4, T f 1098 38 114? 133 Highway 111 , T•T L O SZ L 9 9 _'6 °T E'.: _ 9 : 6•2 3.•: ' .::: % - T•E _..L 0'61 9•: . S . 9: _ 69 :9 ., Y 0S99 tS 3EEI LZE ?LE Et 09t :. 1H.5 6t 72. TE9T ,fil _:_ 601 'S9T .: :91 G9. ::. EI ,- c; 906 6 LtI 61 I5E E 8E :E :G: 6 5 :r:.: TIC EE It 8E 10S 66 9 E :uE: Itb 5 ZET 8l jO ZS ..T 9 J Z _ :LT E E oZ 90 i . 06 Y i 1 I03'L: 89ST ,0Z EL; Z:1 91 I IL. '9E: 96E 6: IL: 9 :r^t7. 88E ik Oi 6 9E iEE : 0E9 S :E: E 69 E 6E i9E ,GI 0: 7E:,: S9E 9 6II :E 6E 6 69 Sl :L : iE 0 t SSE IZ Ill TE LE L Lt 09 36 E l9E 9 00:9T favHHJ 998 9 IGZ 9S tZ 9 58 LET l6Z lI ZT 0T 6 :nog 0TZ 0 Zt 1Z i E 9Z EE IL 0 E E 0 St:80 60Z T 99 LT 9 0 61 6E 8L E 5 I E OE:80 60Z E 9S 8 6 Z ET 9E 0L 6 Z E E ST:80 91Z 0 65 0T E T LZ OE EL S Z E E 00:60 L09 19 991 09 tZ E Zi SL 8ZZ L 6T 8 6 1no$ 8Lt Z 6E 6 S 0 8 ZZ Z1 Z Z 9 E ISt:LO 05I I :b 8 E 0 9I 91 15 Z L 9 Z OE:LO Llt Z 6E S 9 Z 6 61 9E Z 8 0 I SILO ZSt I 9Z 81 01 1 II 8I I9 I Z 0 E 00:L0 66/ZZ/90 Teloy l;aq nlgy Wow l;aq lulu1g0TX 1;a1 imu, Ig6tg "Trail ugl lgbtd amty TA1 CII llels punoglseg punogquoN punoqusah punogglnos aAu i• bube. pal dey laluao my aet1Q SIIlleh pail; deh lalua� uuy ' W'ktuny ,; . I : ged saletoossy / dgN : luatip 66/ZZ/90 :a1PO :1els S0LZ6 •YD 'eIIY Blues aAt10 5u7ing pall : uotloaltQ y/g ZZ600000 : apoO ;:Ts 6TT a:tns ;41 :atna0 troy : uot: aiTc s/N 6609066R :ameN 0pnl$ anuao hap 'g out 11asaQ mud : 63tD .nuI 'satins uotlellodsaeiy fieM aa;ueD uMoj S8 bZ 9 66T 4 J, 4 T tTC N an!aa BuiaeM paaj 86Z E— "L 9S i CET TOZ SEL bb8 98S Z6Z — McSb:80 .7 b Me00:80 ZT —I, 66/ZZ/90 — SZE ancaa butaeM paa,3 _ CS 4, <i T r.' ZZ ZT 6 OT % p as;uaD uwol Sb6'0 LLL'0 056'0 198'0 cad 69 LE SIT 6 T2201 0 65 0T 8 E 9Z tE BL E S I E 'IDA 00:80 St:80 OE:80 OE:80 gbTH I9Z SIT at TE Ieloy S'I O'LL b'IZ 8'0Z Z'S 6'EL FOE 8'99 L'Z L'8E Z'ZE 0.6Z '10d 6 I0Z 95 6Z 9 58 EET Z6Z ZT ZT 0T 6 'Toll 00:80 00:80 00:80 00:80 amty 66/ZZ/90 uo St:80 01 66/ZZ/90 uo 00:LO :Potiad aq1 io; aotloasialul aitlug dg stsdleay Inog Pad Ie101 'OJa'I TIgy 1-0?1 1;a1 ni u lgbty .1;a' rau 1 "ITal niql I111tg amty •IA11uI 1Ie1S punoglseg punogglioN punoglsah punogglnog aATIa butieh paid APM Ia1uaD ueoy aAtig bu a eh paid Rem Ia1uao my SluamaAop butainy Z : abed saletoosse 4 ?gg : luaTTD 66/ZZ/90 :MG 21e1S S0LZ6 'y 'Pup meS antlp butieh paid : uotloalta h/g ZZ600000 : apoj ;ITS 6TT ;MS dew iamp mu : voT»a1Tn S/N 6S0906611 :ameN dpn1S anuaAy Aim g 0 LI liana mud : d1t3 'aa' 'satpnlS aotleliodsueiy . • inn . nuips, nc. City : Palm Desert 1720 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H99O6059 N/3 Direction : Torn Center way Suite 119 Site Code : O0000922 E/W Direction : Fred Waring Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/22/99 Client : REF i Associates Page : 3 _ _ _ ! ,. g vests .�..,. . . _ . - - - 'min' en'er 'ay' ` re. raring 'rive Torn Center Way Fred Waring Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Riga Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 06/22/99 to 17:45 on 06/22/99 Time 16:30 16:30 16:30 16:30 Vol. 15 11 18 31 431 147 161 16 170 114 495 23 Pct. 34.0 25.0 40.9 5.0 70.7 24.1 46.3 4.6 48.9 18.0 78.3 3.6 Total 44 609 347 632 High 17:15 17:15 17:15 16:30 Vol. 5 2 6 6 119 44 52 2 40 34 135 5 Total 13 169 94 174 PE 0.846 0.900 0.922 0.908 Town Center Way 11 70 15 18 4 1 4 t 114 Fred Waring Drive 616 06/22/99 31 04:30pM 23 05:15pM f 431 1248 1632 1283 495 i,\ ,c— 147 114 71, 674 Fred Waring Drive N 619 t T r 272 16 170 161 Town Center Way • Transportation Studies, Inc. City : Palm Desert 1720 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: E9906060 N/S Direction : Monterey Avenue Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 B/W Direction : Fred Waring Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06123/99 Client : REF i Associates Page : 1 Turning Movements Monterey Avenue Fred Waring Drive Monterey Avenue Fred Waring Drive Southbound Westbound. Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Rig t Thru Left Right Thru Left Riot Thru Left Right Thru Left Total 06/23/99 07:00 9 73 27 21 72 27 15 38 8 7 39 8 344 07:15 10 59 29 33 56 34 16 46 8 5 45 14 355 07:30 14 81 25 35 63 25 17 57 6 4 40 18 385 07:d; 9 78_ 31 53 77 IL 24 85 9 5 6^ 14 476 Hour 42 291 112 142 268 117 72 226 31 21 194 54 1560 08:00 20 122 52 41 117 42 37 60 16 6 51 11 575 08:15 24 91 45 34 97 38 25 48 10 18 44 15 489 08:30 22 95 34 37 103 - 35 27 66 14 10 47 9 499 08:45 30 107 50 2.8 93 18 27 59 11. 15 52 19I 529 Hour 96 415 181 140 410 153 116 233 51 • 49 194 54 2092 [MAKI 16:3C 32 102 371 49 8' 67 43 121 13, 15 115 42 723 i6.1 36 112 34 55 85 49 74 152 20i 20 ::: 40 798 :6:3 4C 1:. 45, 53 92 54 72 115 34 20 _25 37, 80: 16 3 1: 17 5Y; 45 44 3' 12E 1c 1E :-- 27: '.: Hc. :4: 433 205 371 2:3 226 513 65 74 4E9 146' 3373 .22 . .'1 39 9: 49 ._ 147 2; 15 139 4: 777 1.3 42: 62 1:0 59 56 147 19 22 162 52 879 17:32 44 133 54' 114 42' 73 :18 i6 135 4' 879 :4E 36 94 51 42 109 '41! 6' 14' 14! 12 124 431 795 ..-_ :41 442 195 195 425 249 559 75 65 560 182 3290 .:9 1566 661 6E5 14 24 209 1.. 436 10015 A:r. j :5.7 24.: 27.2 62.8 9 .0.0 66.E 21.0 e ..... 4.1 15.8 6.6i 6.6 14.7 E.E. 6.6 15.2 2.4 2.0 14.2 4.3 - ,..o City : Palm Desert 1720 E. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9906060 N/S Direction : Monterey Avenue - Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/W Direction : Fred Waring Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : RBF & Associates Page : 2 •nterey e,ue re, -aring , lye 'onter y venue e, . r ' e Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru j,gj Ristt Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 on 06/23/99 to 08:45 on 06/23/99 Time 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 96 415 181 140 410 153 116 233 51 49 194 54 Pct. 13.8 59.9 26.1 19.9 58.3 21.7 29.0 58.2 12.7 16.4 65.3 18.1 Total 692 703 400 297 Hiah 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:45 Vol. 20 122 52 41 117 42 37 60 16 15 52 19 Total 194 200 113 86 PHF 0.891 0.878 0.884 0.863 Monterey Avenue 96 415 181 427 4 , 4 T 1119 Fred Waring Drive 557 r' 06/23/99 t— 140 08:00am 54 _1 08:45aM 410 854 2892 1194 194 //.\ 153 49 y 491 Fred Waring Drive N 1017 t T f 617 233 51 116 Monterey Avenue Transportation Studies, Inc. City : Palm Desert 1720 B. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9906060 N/S Direction : Monterey Avenue Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/W Direction : Fred Waring Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/23/99 Client : RBF i Associates Page : 3 Turning Movements Monterey Avenue Fred Waring Drive Monterey Avenue Fred Waring Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 06/23/99 to 17:45 on 06/23/99 Time 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 Vol. 141 442 195 198 425 199 249 559 75 65 560 182 Pct. 18.1 56.8 25.0 24.0 51.7 24.2 28.1 63.3 8.4 8.0 69.3 22.5 Total 778 822 883 807 High 17:30 17:15 17:45 17:15 Vol. 44 133 54 65 110 59 67 147 14 22 162 52 Total 231 234 228 236 PHF 0.841 0.878 0.968 0.854 Monterey Avenue 141 442 195 939 4 4 1717 Fred Waring Drive 641 06/23/99 t- 198 182 85:45pM 425 1448 3290 1826 56O 199 65 3, —4 1004 Fred Waring Drive N 1589 4, E1 T f 706 559 75 249 Monterey Avenue ransportation tu.ies, nc. City : Palm Desert 1720 B. Garry Avenue Study Name: R9906061 N/S Direction : Monterey Avenue Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/W Direction : Park Vier Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/24/99 Client : RBF E Associates Page : 1 Monterey Avenue Park Vier Drive Monterey Avenue Park Vier rive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time P.iJt Thru Left Riga Thru Left Riga Thru Left, Righ,t Thru Left Total 06/24/99 07:00 14 101 10 3 1 0 1 60 10 17 8 11 236 07:15 7 81 26 1 0 1 7 58 19 12 9 4 225 07:301 7 106 57 2 4 0 17 71 16 10 32 4 326 07:45. 9 96 2' _5 0 1_ 5 L09 17 11 17 17 314 Houri 37 384 120 11 5 2 30 298 62 50 66 36 1101 08:00 16 175 49 10 5 3 11 103 25 19 13 14 443 06:15 14 148 43 9 2 6 2 112 14 13 12 9 384 08:30! 13 156 11 6 3 3 4 99 11 14 5 15 340 08:451 9 159 27 5 3 4-, 4 96 11, 5 6 17 i 346 Eourl 52 638 130 30 13 16 21 410 61 51 36 55 1513 [BREAK] 16:C01 13 :95 r. 6 3 1 5 196 16 22 3 16 473 19 159 3 10 5 4, 2 166 221 2" 18 439 --.. 12 1._ .:' 15 3 :. 5 249 :"i .2 6 10 546 --. .: -. ... - 2C 8 1,' 6 :93 - :", 490 r.c,: :: .311 ,. 19 26; 20 796 69. 1 :4 70 1948 . .:: :5 .:: ."' :7 2 2i 5 197 25! 19 6 30I 501 .1 16 223 61 30 5 5: 3 211 9' 26 24 543 .3:' •:6 190 19 15 3 31 3 192 16! 237 17 504 +5' 18 187 ?c' c c 9 215 8 20 528 rcu: 67 734 i 67 2: 11-' 20 815 63L 63 26 91 2076 I.Tc:a' 2:6 2477 3;: cc 2319 25.1 26: 4_ 66 ..':I 1.. 252 0.38 °s 47. ' ::. - .- ::.7 21. 3.4 67.0 9.5' 39.7 21.3 38.3 - o _::. .3 5.2, 2.3 0.8 6.8' 1.3 34.9 3.8: 3.9 3.7 - i i i • `. l Transportation Studies, Inc. City : Palm Desert 1720 B. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9906061 N/S Direction : Monterey Avenue Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/W Direction : Park View Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/24/99 Client : REF & Associates Page : 2 Turning Movements Monterey Avenue Park View Drive Monterey Avenue Park View Drive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time Eight Thru Left Eight Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 on 06/24/99 to 08:45 on 06/24/99 Time 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 52 638 130 30 13 16 21 410 61 51 36 55 Pct. 6.3 77.8 15.8 50.8 22.0 27.1 4.2 83.3 12.3 35.9 25.3 38.7 Total 820 59 492 142 High 08:00 08:00 08:00 08:00 Vol. 16 175 49 10 5 3 11 103 25 19 13 14 Total 240 18 139 46 PHF 0.854 0.819 0.884 0.771 Monterey Avenue 52 638 138 495 14 T 1315 Park Uiew Drive 126 86/24/99 t_ 30 08:00am 55 88:45aM 13 268 1513 246 1 36 6 51 —4, 187 Park Uiew Drive N 1197 T 705 410 61 21 Monterey Avenue r. , ion u.ies, nc. City : Palm Desert 1720 B. Garry Avenue Study Name: H9906061 N/S Direction : Monterey Avenue Suite 119 Site Code : 00000922 E/W Direction : Park View Drive Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Start Date: 06/24/99 Client : RBF i Associates Page : 3 onterey venue 'ar �ier 'rive onterey venue 'ar 'ier` 'rive Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Intrvl. Time , Riglit Thru Left Right Thru Left Right Thru Left Bight Thru Left Total Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 on 06/24/99 to 17:45 on 06/24/99 Time 16:30 16:30 16:30 16:30 Vol. 63 731 40 82 18 28 21 850 64 73 20 90 Pct. 7.5 87.6 4.7 64.0 14.0 21.8 2.2 90.9 6.8 39.8 10.9 49.1 Total 834 128 935 183 High 17:15 17:15 16:30 17:00 Vol. 18 200 8 30 5 5 5 249 17 19 8 30 Total 226 40 271 57 PH? i 0.922 0.800 0.862 0.802 Monterey Avenue 63 731 48 1022 4 ,, 14 T 1856 Park Uiew Drive 145 06/24/99 82 04:30pm 90 05:15pM 18 328 2080 209 20 ^ N 28 73 —1, 81 Park Uiew Drive N 1767 832 850 64 21 • Monterey Avenue :'la.c .nd wss 7 4::1..: sny-.wcls,y 0ayt. aaLa [•'.._ J4a4141) : _ TDC-8 73.510 Prod Waring Dr. Start :ace: 34/22/19 Counted by: Pala Casa Ca. 92260 P110 I.D. . �i`W 1A7 Page : 1 Oerit/a group 1 Ctace Rey 111 !Pried Waring Dr !State 9vy 111 !Fred Wert Dr I Southboutd !Westbound !Northbound J:.scbound I I I I I Le:: :Urn elrjhc Mher I Left Thru Right C_hcr I Left Thru eight Ocher I Lett Thru Rlghc OChec I Total Unit 06/22/91 08:00 30 157 2 0 1 9 14 92 0 I 7 221 4 0 1 4 2 4 0 1 614 08:11 31 156 4 0 1 7 10 74 0 I 7 131 0 0 I S 3 5 0 I 542 08:30 80 134 9 0 1 :1 16 52 0 1 . 9 188 7 0 1 5 4 3 0 1 371 16.45 47 247 4 C I 13 :0 51 0 1 4 221 10 n 1_ 7 9 3 C I Kr To:a1 228 629 20 0 1 40 50 2i9 0 1 32 822 30 0 1 2' 17 15 0 I 2371 • n3 LM - 11:00 115 306 26 0 1 42 ' 37 75 0 1 7 222 32 0 I la 19 8 0 I 910 11:15 87 286 21 0 1 42 30 81 0 1 13 247 22 0 I 21 25 12 0 1 907 _1:30 23 301 29 0 I 49 34 114 0 1 13 252 ' 34 0 1 19 25 11 0 I 987 :1:45 91 371 77 0 I 46 43 7c n 1 23 312 42 0 1 79 IS 0 1 20,1 Kr :OCal 386 1224 103 0 I 100 144 352 0 1 63 1043 137 0 1 45 110 46 0 1 3875 • as X • 1.:00 89 240 21 0 1 37 36 86 C 10 320 33 C 27 31 25 0 i 966 :3.15 1:2 288 16 0 en .. 29 75 0 5 311 36 0 I 21 3d 17 0 1 1214 15:12 122 24d 19 0 I 4i 35 77 0 1 23 311 23 2I 19 22 15 0 I 1019 15.4S 123 150 '4 C I tit 47 _7.0 1 ' 1S 299 23 C I 3: 26 13 0 I 1007 31.r 7_e3- 456 1044 75 0 3y0 :42 338 C j 57 1233 125 C 33 117 70 0 I 4006 •Ti.AL• 1C7C 3097 198 0 I 6:3 337 959 0 1 154 3'63 292 0 I 204 244 131 0 I 12252 e _ rr7.. Cour.cad by. Pala Desert. Ca. 82260 T11e`1.D. . P ,ill Page . - oe6icle group 1 I I 1 I Lest Thru Righc oche: 1 :.aft Thru Might _chcr I Left Thru 21ghc cchex I Lees Thu Right ether I Total Zito 04/14/99 06:0C 6 8 4 0 I IS 91 4 0 I 2 3 13 0 1 1 48 13 0 ; 236 08:15 8 0 i 0 1 19 77 2 0 I 10 1 22 0 I 0 Sa 12 0 I 211 26:30 2 2 1 0 I 29 76 3 0 1 10 1 14 0 1 64 27 0 1 230 3!-45 4 5 3 n I 52 4.1 3 C I IS I 24 0 I 2 41 24 0 i 244 Kr :z:a1 20 15 14 0 1 155 350 12 3 I 37 i 73 0 I 4 2:7 9C 0 I 993 • 3R.L - 11:c0 2 3 0 I 54• :17 1 51 4 44 0 I 6 56 3: 4 I 421 11:15 3 0 1 0 1 i7 106 2 0 1 62 1 61 0 1 3 1C4 35 0 437 11:30 3 4 • 2 1 1 S: 132 3 0 1 48 a 46 0 I 4 103 44 0 1 447 11.45 4 2 3 J j Al 1:9 5 7 I 53 3 :2 0 1 5 1:5 30 0 1 451 Kr 'foci 12 8 9 1 1 203 465 12 0 1 214 12 215 0 1 1e 436 145 4 1 1756 • n3.Tax - IS:CC 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 C 3 C 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1S:15 8 _ 3 0 I 53 _:5 7 54 4 53 0 1 4 11E 3' 0 454 :S:3J _: 5 4 C j 57 1_3 6 0 56 1 45 0 1 3 148 47 C I 535 _5•45 9 3 5 C I 46 94 5 9 I 51 1 44 0 1 13- S C ale :ir Tots: 26 9 12 C 162 3:2 19 C ; 163 a 147 0 I 14 411 104 0 j 1395 16•J0 7 3 4 J 37 __ __ C I 54 4 03 1 I 3 :2? 34 0 475 3r Taca? 7 3 4 0 37 137 .. 0 I 55 4 53 0 3 129 34 0 I 476 7.7:i' 65 30 33 1 55. 12;i 54 3 ' 463 :3 433 C 35 113.1 3:1 4 1 4420 Ir., I t.ar &AU ...40 £s.r r:.: r.nylnaorury imot . .... ••... .. =C•. 72-613 Prod narinq Dr. Start :at.: 02i11/49 C.un:od by: Palm Deser:, Ca. 92260 Ptic I.D. .. .! 13 Page . V.hiele group 1 mrmsy An !FRLD WALING Da I Melff£R2! An J P4+^. WARING DR I 9o14cht..aund Waa c1Cuaa i Nor lbo4mi j laa tbaund I • I I I I Loft Thru Right Ocher 1 Let: Than Right CU:o: I Left ihra Sigh: Ocher I Lef: 1A:a R:ghc Oc:a: I ^C_a: :aca 02/11/10 21:00 40 140 15 0 I 45 116 50 0 I 21 109 31 0 16 40 $ 1 I 632 06:15 34 104 12 0 I or 101 32 C j 10 1C2 1C 0 I 11 62 9 0 I 61: 08:30 49 125 15 1 I 4: 83 33 0 I 7 74 22 0 I 12 45 9 0 1 i22 72.45 43 153 2S 0 I 47 41 44 3 I 14 , 76 32 0 I 14 49 10 0 I :00 R: 'eca1 166 514 67 1 I 175 380 165 3 I 52 - 361 125 0 f 55 201 34 I I 2306 • B.LTAK 11:Co 0 a a o 1 0. o a 1 a a 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 l a 11:a 47 187 27 1 j 77 ' :24 52 0 26 124 23 0 I 49 13: 20 0 I 904 11:30 55 179 48 1 I 75 128 46 1 16 121 32 1 I 56 97 14 0 884 1:.4.. 44 156 42 0 1 17 136 44 n 26 117 IA n 1 a4 1.1: _- 2 914 Hz Tara. 141 512 117 2 I :39 392 144 1 I 70 372 89 1 I /11 140 60 2 2707 12:32 49 213 38 0 I 65 115 40 0 I 21 132 33 0 I 72 12: 29 0 I 934 12::5 0 0 a 0 1 - C 1 0 1 C 0 a o I a 3 0 C I 0 :2:30 0 0 C 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 C C 0 0 1 C 0 0 0 1 0 1:-45 c 7 7 C _ C C 0 n n 1 0 Hr '..car 49 _13 la 3 I 46 11 4: C j :_ 13: 33 0 j 7: -:: 29 a j 934 • aaEac • s:C3 2 0 0 o f C C C C Z C 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 -0 15:15 4: 146 :4 0 I 57 147 53 1 I 19 192 39 0 1 53 141 17 0 1 943 15:33 47 136 30 0 I 62 152 63 3 I 2: :3; 52 0 I 79 3.59 26 0 1 1013 15:45 53 0 fl 12: 65 C i 1S 19 r. I 14 29 0 1 1CCS Hr 'otsl :43 4:6 78 C 193 4:9 134 - ; 3: 84: 112 C 211 47' 71 0 1 2;21 _ ::: 54 :2; 22 . ' 4: 11; -7 Az ._ci 14 116 23 3 j 61 _-- 61 C 21 104 61 0 I 47 167 24 0 I 1332 .TC:..1" 578 :326 3:3 1 j '/34 1454 594 5 I 244 1501 418 1 I 596 1222 22C 1 I 9340 x-i /2.110 Prod Waring Dr. Star: Dace: 02/17/99 Counted by: Pile Desert, Ca. 9326d Ftlm I.D. : ice_2223 Page : 1 Vehicle group 1 Southbouad Ixucbound liostenoune Isucbovnd I I 1 I I Left Thru Right Other 1 Le__ Msru light Cther I Left 2hru light Other I Let: Thru Right Other I Toca1 Date 02/17/19 OS:00 16 174 19 0 I 4 7 6 0 1 12 114 12 1 I 14 37 11 0 1 602 01:15 25 117 12 0 I 2 4 7 1 I 16 153 12 0 I 14 :4 11 0 1 -454 01:30 22 114 17 0 1 4 2 S 0 1 13 94 5 0 I 13. 6 14 0 1 377 cm-44 32 2:6 15 1 I • R 7 c I 19 132 13 0 I 19 30 i3 9 I SO4 Hr Total. 165 771 63 1 I 14 19 24 1 I 60 493 43 1 I 55 77 56 0 I 1942 11:C0 0 0 0 0 1 0• 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 o f 0 0 0 0 I 0 11115 30 344 11 a I 1S to 34 0 I 37 106 7 0 1 23 10 16 0 1 634 11:30 14 249 21 0 I I 6 11 0 1 13 203 4 1 1 22 3 25 0 I 591 11.45 17 255 17 0 I A I 9 C 1 .7 221 7 1 1_ 20 4 19 0 I 603 Hr Tocal 61 748 59 0 I 31 32 54 0 I 57 626 11 2 1 65 17 60 0 I 1130 12:20 16 275 10 0 I 19 9 15 0 I li 119 6 0 I 13 9 37 0 I 615 1::15 0 0 0 C I 0 0 0 o f 0 0 a 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 12:30 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 a I 0 12.45 0 n n 0 ! 0 0 n 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 n 1 0 itr 7ota. 15 275 12 C 19 i 16 0 10 132 6 0 1 13 9 37 0 I 615 BRSAX 15:00 0- 0 - 0 0 1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . a 0 0 0 1 0 15.15 20 221 16 0 16 12 39 3 I 29 291 o I 25 0 19 0 I 704 15:30 23 213 13 0 I 11 12 23 0 25 278' 6 0 I 29 i 26 0 I 673 15.45 15 251 13 . ' ._ 11 1 132 .2 0 I 29 13 22 n I 74i Hr :cca. 53 645 47 _ I 33 37 91 2 75 09' 35 0 1 94 :9 67 0 1 2:39 16'33 2:4 24 0 9 30 0 21 320 24 0 11 CS 0 ' 744 m :cca: 27 223 24 0 J 10 9 25 0 I 31 320 14 0 I .: 13 25 0 I 741 -2272L• 321 2707 203 2 1 -3.. 105 212 1 I 241 2510 115 3 1 239 145 245 0 1 1174 EXISTING AM Tue Aug 24, 1999 11:12:12 Page 1-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK Scenario Report Scenario: EXISTING AM Command: EXISTING AM Volume: EXISTING AM Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes Configuration: EXISTING AM Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EXISTING AM Tue Aug 24, 1999 11:12:12 Page 2-1 AM PEAK Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 SR-111/PARK VIEW B 8.8 0.284 B 8.8 0.284 + 0.000 D/V # 2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW B 11.6 0.357 B 11.6 0.357 + 0.000 D/V # 3 SR-111/FRED WARING C 19.2 0.383 C 19.2 0.383 + 0.000 D/V # 4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING B 13.5 0.156 B 13.5 0.156 + 0.000 D/V • # 5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING C 18.9 0.295 C 18.9 0.295 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EXISTING AM Tue Aug 24, 1999 11:12:12 Page 3-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 41 SR-111/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.284 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : e.e Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 907 13 53 906 13 9 2 4 11 8 83 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 907 13 53 906 13 9 2 4 11 8 83 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 5 907 13 53 906 13 9 2 4 11 8 83 Reduce Vol: 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 5 907 13 53 906 13 9 2 4 11 6 83 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 5 998 13 53 997 14 9 2 4 11 8 83 II II II I Saturation. Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.96 0.96 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.0C 1.00 2.96 0.04 0.60 0.13 0.27 0.58 0.42 1.00 Final Sat. : 1615 5700 1445 1615 5621 79 941 209 416 1056 768 1445 I II . II II I Capacity Analysis Module: • Vol/Sat: C.00 0.12 C.C_ 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 C.01 0.06 Crit Moves: ---- •--• Green Time: 7.0 86.4 86.4 16.2 95.6 95.6 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 Volume/Cap: 0.06 0.28 C.C1 0.28 C.26 0.26 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.28 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 40.9 8.0 6.7 36.8 5.5 5.5 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.1 29.1 30.7 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 40.9 8.0 6.7 36.8 5.5 5.5 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.1 29.1 30.7 DesignQueue: 0 31 0 4 26 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EXISTING AM Tue Aug 24, 1999 11:12:12 Page 4-1 EXISTIN CONDITIONS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 412 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.357 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 11.6 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B • Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 493 42 165 771 63 55 77 56 14 19 24 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Ese: 60 493 42 165 771 63 55 77 56 14 19 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Vo2.ume: 60 493 . 42 165 771 63 55 77 56 14 19 24 Reduct Vci: C 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: EC 493 42 165 77: 63 55 77 56 14 19 24 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.C5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 60 516 42 170 e:o 63 55 77 56 14 19 24 I II I !----'- II I Saturation. Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190t 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.CC 0.76 0.74 0.94 0.94 0.48 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.0C 2.00 2.C: 1.00 1.00 0.56 0.42 1.00 0.44 0.56 Final Sat. . 1615 380C 1445 3230 39__ 1445 1411 1034 752 918 772 976 CapacityAnalysis Module: I ii II V.:I/Sat. C.C4 0.1; C.C3 .,.05 C.2_ C.:4 C.C4 C.07 0.07 0.02 0.02 C.02 Cr-_ Moves: ••-- .... Green Time: 10.4 63.1 63.1 7.0 59.- 59.7 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 20.9 Volume/Cap: C.36 0.22 C.05 0.75 0.3E 0.07 0.19 0.36 0.36 0.07 0.12 0.12 I I ; II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 27.5 5.1 4.5 36.4 6.7 5.5 21.1 22.1 22.1 20.5 20.7 20.7 User De1Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.5 5.1 4.5 38.4 E.7 5.5 21.1 22.1 22.1 20.5 20.7 20.7 DesicnQueue: 3 1: 1 9 3 3 1 1 1 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EXISTING AM Tue Aug 24, 1999 11:12:12 Page 5-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 113 SR-111/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.383 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 19.2 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - .T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 32 827 .30 228 829 20 21 17 15 40 50 269 Growth Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 32 827 30 228 829 20 21 17 15 40 50 269 User Adj: 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 32 627 30 228 829 20 21 17 15 40 50 269 Reduct Vol: 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 32 827 30 228 829 20 21 17 15 40 50 269 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad' : 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.13 Final Vol. : 33 910 33 235 912 22 22 18 15 41 50 304 ! II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 190C 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.90 0.10 2.00 2.93 C.07 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 Final Sat. : 3230 5501 199 3230 5566 134 3230 3800 1445 3230 1900 2890 I ! II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: C.01 C.17 0.17 0.C7 C.16 C.16 0.01 C.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.11 Crit Mc•;es: -..- .... .... .... Green Time: 7.0 58.3 58.3 25.6 76.9 76.9 7.0 25.9 25.9 18.1 37.1 37.1 Volume/Cap: C.20 0.40 0.410 0.40 0.3C C.30 0.14 0.03 C.06 0.10 0.10 0.40 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: De1ay/Veh: 41.3 18.5 18.5 32.8 11.0 11.0 41.1 30.2 30.3 34.7 25.1 27.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.3 16.5 18.5 32.8 11.0 11.0 41.1 30.2 30.3 34.7 25.1 27.5 DesignQueue: 2 43 2 15 32 1 2 1 1 3 3 18 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to PBWF 6 ASSOC., IRVINE EXISTING AM Tue Aug 24, 1999 11:12:12 Page 6-1 : PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, EXISTING CONDITIONS . . AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 414 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.156 . Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 13.5 Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 25 25 7 56 56 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 6 85 12 10 9 4 201 56 133 292 12 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 24 6 85 12 10 9 4 201 56 133 292 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 24 6 85 12 10 9 4 201 56 133 292 12 Reduc_ Vol: C 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 ?.educed Vol: 24 6 25 12 10 9 4 201 56 133 292 12 _ _E Adj : 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 t•:LF Adj : 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 24 6 85 ' 12 10 9 4 211 56 133 307 12 II II II I Satu_ccicn Flow ti'^-• o: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 p900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.81 1.00 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 1.0C 1.00 1.00 0.39 0.32 0.29 1.00 2.0C 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1547 1900 1445 620 5:7 465 1615 3800 1445 1615 3800 1445 II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: . .02 C.00 C.06 C.C2 C.02 C.02 0.00 0.06 C.04 0.08 0.08 0.01 Crit Moves: .... .... .... Green Time: 28.0 28.0 28.0 29.0 28.0 28.0 . .0 25.0 25.0 38.0 56.0 56.0 Volume/Cap: 0.0E C.C: 0.21 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.22 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.01 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 17.0 16.8 17.8 17.1 17.1 17.1 28.0 19.3 18.9 13.6 6.8 6.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 17.0 16.8 17.8 17.1 17.1 17.1 28.0 19.3 18.9 13.6 6.8 6.3 DesignQueue: 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 2 5 8 0 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EXISTING AM Tue Aug 24, 1999 11:12:12 Page 7-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.295 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 18.9 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L T - R I II • II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: - Base Vol: 51 233 116 181 415 96 54 194 49 153 410 140 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 51 233 116 181 415 96 54 194 49 153 410 140 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 51 233 116 181 415 96 54 194 49 153 410 140 Reduce Vol: 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 Reduced Vol.: 51 232 1:6 181 415 96 54 194 49 153 410 140 POE Ad: : 1.00 1.-CC 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad",: 1.03 1.1C 1.10 1.03 1.10 .10 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 53 256 129 186 457 96 56 204 49 158 431 140 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 19CC' 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190C 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 0.95 0.95 C.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.CC 1.C2 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.0C 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3230 3610 1805 3230 57C0 1445 3230 3200 1445 3230 3800 1445 Capacity Analysis Module: I II II Vol/Sat: C.02 0.07 0.C7 0.06 C.08 0.07 0.02 C.05 0.03 0.05 0.11 0.10 Crit Moves: ••.. .... .... Green Time: 17.7 23.7 23.7 19.3 25.3 25.3 7.0 26.5 26.5 18.5 38.0 38.0 Volume/Cap: C.09 0.30 0.30 0.30 C.32 C.26 C.25 0.20 0.13 0.26 0.30 0.26 li II II I Level Of Service Module: De1ay/Veh: 22.2 20.3 20.3 22.4 19.6 19.4 28.6 18.5 18.1 22.6 14.1 13.8 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 22.2 20.3 20.3 22.4 19.6 19.4 28.6 18.5 18.1 22.6 14.1 13.8 DesignQueue: 2 11 6 8 19 4 3 . 8 2 7 15 5 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EXISTING PM Mon Aug 23, 1999 10:12:58 Page 1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK Scenario Report Scenario: EXISTING PM Command: EXISTING PM Volume: EXISTING PM Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes Configuration: EXISTING PM Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EXISTING PM Mon Aug 23, 1999 10:12:58 Page 2-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 SR-111/PARK VIEW B 9.4 0.443 B 9.4 0.443 + 0.000 D/V # 2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW B 9.8 0.375 B 9.8 0.375 + 0.000 D/V # 3 SR-111/FRED WARING C 22.7 0.640 C 22.7 0.640 + 0.000 D/V # 4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING B 14.4 0.383 B 14.4 0.383 + 0.000 D/V # 5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING C 20.3 0.505 C 20.3 0.505 + 0.000 D/V • • Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EXISTING PM Mon Aug 23, 1999 10:12:58 Page 3-1 ;pASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY -- ' EXISTING CONDITIONS - ,. - _, PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection N1 SR-111/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.443 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 9.4 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted .Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 14 1442 30 95 1402 46 29 9 4 26 13 112 Growth Adj : 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 14 1442 30 95 1402 46 29 9 4 26 13 112 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.0: 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 14 1442 30 95 1402 45 29 9 4 26 13 112 Reduc_ Vol: 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vc_: .4 1442 30 95 1402 46 29 9 4 26 13 112 PC=' Ac- _.CC _.CC .00 _.00 1.00 ..CC 1.00 1.00 1- 1� .Cv' 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad • 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final 1; 152E 30 95 1542 51 29 9 4 26 13 112 _I II II II I Satu- ^n Flew Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 .900 -1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.55 1.G0 0.76 C.85 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.88 0.88 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 3.0: 1.00 1.00 2.90 C.10 0.69 0.21 0.10 0.67 0.33 1.00 Final Sat. : . ___ _iC'C 144 5 151: _55i` 1e2 1027 319 142 1115 557 1445 i II it II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vc./Sat. C.C. C.29 C.C6 C 0.23 0.03 0.03 03 0.02 C.C2 0.08 ___ Moves: ,.._ .__- ».». Green. Time: ' 7.0 87.9 27.9 12.6 99.5 99.5 24.5.24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Volume/Cap: C._. 0.44 0.03 3.44 0.39 0.39 0.16 0.16 C.16 0.13 0.13 0.44 Level Cf Service Module: II II I Delay/Veh: 41.3 8.7 6.4 37.1 5.3 5.3 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.5 31.5 34.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.3 8.7 6.4 37.1 5.3 5.3 31.7 31.7 31.7 31.5 31.5 34.2 Desigr.Queue: 1 5. 1 6 37 1 2 1 0 2 1 7 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE 1 EXISTING PM Mon Aug 23, 1999 10:12:58 Page 4-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection *2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.375 Loss Time (sec) : ' 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 9.9 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 891 35 59 685 47 84 29 67 38 37 91 Growth Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 891 35 59 685 47 84 29 67 38 37 91 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF A";: 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 73 891 35 59 685 47 84 29 67 38 37 9' Reduce Vci: 0 C C 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 75 99 35 59 665 47 64 29 67 38 37 91 Adj 1.CC 1.0S _. 0 1.00 _.0C _.00 1.00 1.00 1.00�� J �� � 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad= : -.cc• 1.C= 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 75 936 35 61 719 47 34 29 67 38 37 91 Saturation FlowModule: I , i t I I I Sat/lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: C.85 1.00 C.76 0.85 1.00 C.76 0.49 0.90 0.90 0.58 0.89 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 C.30 0.70 1.00 0.29 0.71 Final Sat. : 1615 3600 1445 3230 3800 1445 935 517 1193 1105 489 1202 Capacity Analysis Mco -_: II I I I I I Vo /Sat' C. 5 C.25 0.02 02 1 03 C. .:: 09 0.06 c 06 C.C3 0.08 0.08 Cr__ Moves: ---- . Green Time: 1C.0 64.3 64.3 7.0 61.3 61.3 19.7 .19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 Volume/Cap: C.46 C.39 C.04 C.27 C.31 •0.05 C.45 C.29 C.28 0.17 0.38 0.38 Level Cf Service Mot-le: I I I II I Delay/Veh: 29.E 5.5 4.2 28.6 6.0 5.0 24.1 22.2 22.2 21.6 22.9 22.9 User DelAdj : 1.CC 1.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.0 5.5 4.2 28.6 6.0 5.0 24.1 22.2 22.2 21.6 22.9 22.9 DesignQueue: 4 2C 1 3 16 1 4 1 3 2 2 4 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF 6 ASSOC., IRVINE • EXISTING PM Mon Aug 23, 1999 10:12:58 Page 5-1 I `G_ : .� .D , . DNS PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 SR-111/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.640 Loss Time (sec),: 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 22.7 Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ! ! I II II Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 1293 125 456 1044 75 98 117 70 190 143 338 Growth Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 57 1293 125 456 1044 75 98 117 70 190 143 338 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH_ Adj: 1.0: 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 57 1293 125 456 1044 75 98 117 70 190 143 338 Reduce Vol: 3 C 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0• Reduced Vo : 57 1293 125 456 1044 75 92 117 70143 190 338 PCB Adj : 1.0C 1.0C 1.03 1.00 1.00 _.CO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad- 1.03 1.1C 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.13 ' C3 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.13 Final Vol. : _ol. : 59 422 _3 470 1146 83 �101 123 70 196 143 382 Saturation ._ow M .,_: ! • II Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19:0 1900 190C 1900 1900 1900 1900 .. ustment: 0.85 C.99 0.99 0.85 0.99 C.99 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.0C 2.73 0.27 2.00 2.60 C.23 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 Final Sat. : 3230 5144 49. 3230 5263 323C 3800 1445 3230 1900 2890 ! I ! , II I Capacity Ar='y sis n"-,4..'_. -Jc_ Sat: C.C2 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.22 ..2: C.C3 0.03 0.05 C.06 0.08 0.13 Moves: .... .... .... Green Time: 7.0 60.4 60.4 31.8 85.1 e_.: 7.0 10.0 10.0 25.9 29.9 28.9 Vclu.:.e/Cap: C.37 C.64 0.64 C.64 0.36 C.36 C. 63 0.45 0.68 0.33 0.37 0.64 I II I ! II I Level C` Service Module: Delay/Veh: 42.2 2C.6 2C.6 33.0 8.9 6.9 47.2 41.1 51.7 32.1 31.1 34.5 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 42.2 20.6 20.6 33.0 6.9 6.9 47.2 41.1 51.7 32.1 31.1 34.5 DesignQueue: 4 6: 7 29 37 3 8 9 5 13 9 24 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE r EXISTING PM Mon Aug 23, 1999 10:12:58 Page 6-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 114 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.383 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 14.4 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B Approach: Ncrth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 .1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 16 161 18 11 15 23 495 114 147 431 31 Growth Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 170 16 161 18 11 15 23 495 114 147 431 31 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 170 -6 16: 19 11 15 23 495 114 147 431 31 Red:.. : Vol: C C C 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17: 16 16- 18 -- 15 23 495 114 147 431 31 PCE Ad; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML.F Ad; 1.00 _.CC 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 1 C0 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 170 16 161 18 11 15 23 520 114 147 453 31 Sat_- .. Flow Module: II II I ) Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.74 1.00 0.76 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.0C 0.41 0.25 C.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1411 1900 1445 641 392 534 1615 3900 1445 1615 3800 1445 Capacity Analysis I ! i ss:s i•±od• ie: V Vol/Sat: 0._2 C. .1 C.11 0.03 0.03 _ .C3 C.C: C.I4 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.02 Cri: Moves: •--- .... .... Greer. Time: 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 7.0 35.7 35.7 23.8 52.5 52.5 Volume/Cap: 0.38 0.03 0.35 0.09 0.02 0.09 0.20 0.38 0.22 0.38 0.23 0.04 II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 17.5 15.3 17.3 15.6 15.6 15.6 28.5 15.5 14.5 21.0 8.3 7.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 17.5 15.3 17.3 15.6 15.6 15.6 28.5 15.5 14.5 21.0 8.3 7.4 DesignQueue: 7 _ 6 1 C 1 1 19 4 6 12 1 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to REWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EXISTING PM Mon Aug 23, 1999 10:12:58 Page 7-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT S EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 45 MONTEREY/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.505 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 20.3 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bourid West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II J Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 559 249 195 442 141 182 560 65 199 425 198 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 75 559 249 195 442 141 182 560 65 199 425 198 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 75 559 249 195 442 141 182 560 65 199 425 198 Redd:: Vol: 2 0 0 C 0 G 0 C . C C 0 0 Reduced Vol: 75 559 249 195 442 14: 182 560 65 199 425 198 PCE Adj : :.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N.L_ Ad; : 1.03 1.10 1.:0 1.03 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 Final 77 615 274 201 486 141 187 588 65 205 446 198 ! ! .-ow Mod' .e: Sat/Lane: .903 190C 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: C.85 C.95 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.76 C.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.0E 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3230 3746 1669 3230 5700 1445 3230 3800 1445 3230 3800 1445 I ! Capacity Anal7sis Mc -le: Vc_/Sat. 0.02 0.16 C.16 0.35 0.09 C.12 0.06 0.15 C.04 C.06 C.12 0.14 Crit Moves: ---- •--- .... • ••.. Green Time: 12.E 32.5 32.5 12.3 25.4 26.4 7.0 30.6 30.6 12.6 36.2 36.2 Volume/Cap: C.__ 0.51 C.51 0.51 0.32 C.37 0.83 0.51 0.15 0.51 0.32 0.38 '. ! II II I Level C` Service Module: Delay/Veh: 22.0 17.8 17.8 27.4 19.2 19.7 44.4 18.7 16.3 27.2 15.0 15.5 User DelAdj: 1.0C 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 22.0 17.2 17.8 27.4 19.2 19.7 44.4 18.7 16.3 27.2 15.0 15.5 DesignQueue: 4 24 11 1C 20 6 10 24 3 10 16 7 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE • rl . +a. EX + FUTURE AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:03:45 Page 1-1. PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDT EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS AM PEAK Scenario Report Scenario: EX + FUTURE AM Command: EX + FUTURE AM Volume: EX + FUTURE AM Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes Configuration: EX + FUTURE AM • Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to REWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EX + FUTURE AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:03:45 Page 2-1 . AM PEAK Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 4 1 SR-111/PARK VIEW B 9.9 0.352 B 9.9 0.352 + 0.000 D/V 4 2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW B 12.1 0.494 B 12.1 0.494 + 0.000 D/V 4 3 SR-111/FRED WARING C 20.4 0.532 C 20.4 0.532 + 0.000 D/V 4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING B 14.0 0.222 B 14.0 0.222 + 0.000 D/V # 5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING C 18.3 0.408 .0 18.3 0.408 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EX + FUTURE AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:03:45 Page 3-1• PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SR-111/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.352 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 9.9 Optimal Cycle: 36 • Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bcu::d Movement: L - T - R L - - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 907 13 53 906 13 9 2 4 11 8 83 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 7 1255 18 73 1254 18 12 3 6 15 11 115 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH 'Adj : 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 7 1255 19 73 1254 19 12 3 6 15 11 115 Redu:t Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 Reduced Vol: 7 1255 16 73 1254 18 12 3 6 15 11 115 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML= Adj : 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F nai Vol. : 7 1381 18 73 1379 20 12 3 6 15 11 115 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment; 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.90 C.82 0.95 0.95 0.76 Lanes: :.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.96 C.04 0.57 0.14 0.29 0.58 0.42 1.00 Final Sat. : :615 5700 1445 1615 5619 el 887 202 444 1041 764 1445 II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vo_'Sa_: C.CC C.24 0.01 0.05 C.25 0.2.5 C.C. C.CI C.O. 0.01 0.01 0.08 Crit Moves: •.•• •... ..•. Green Time: 7.0 93.6 93.6 7.0 93.6 93.6 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 Volume/Cap: 0.09 0.36 0.02 0.90 C.37 C.37 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 C.37 II II it I Level Cf Service Module: Delay/Veh: 41.0 6.6 5.0 90.5 6.6 6.6 28.1 29.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 30.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.0 6.6 5.0 90.5 6.6 6.6 25.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 30.5 DesignQueue: 1 38 0 5 33 1 C 0 1 1 7 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to R5WF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EX + FUTURE AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:03:45 Page 4-1• -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _ ., _. _ PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY- -- EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection i2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.494 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 12.1 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II I ( I • Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 493 42 165 771 63 55 77 56 14 19 24 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.39 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 I..-tial Bse: 83 6E2 53 229 1067 87 76 107 78 19 26 33 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?HF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?HF Volume: 83 682 56 228 1067 87 75 107 79 19 26 33 Red•.:ct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 • = „-=,4 Vol: 82 622 58 228 1067 87 75 107 73 19 26 33 ?CZ Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.c0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M.L_ Adj : 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 83 717 58 .235 1121 87 76 107 78 19 26 33 I II Saturation _low Module: II II =at/Lane: 19000 1900 1920 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . Adjustment: C.85 1.00 C.76 C.85 1.00 0.76 0.71 C.94 0.94 0.37 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.02 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.44 0.56 Final Sat. : 1615 3900 1445 3230 3E00 1445 1343 1033 753 697 770 9'8 Capacity Analysis Module: I II II f Vol/Sat. C.CS 0.19 C.24 0.07 C.29 C.06 0.06 C.10 0.10 0.03 C.C3 C.03 Cri- Moves: •.•. .... Green Time: 12.4 50.6 50.6 19.5 59.7 59.7 20.9 20.9 20.9 2C.9 20.9 20.9 Volume/Cap: C.49 0.37 C.08 0.37 0.49 0.10 C.27 0.49 0.49 0.13 C.16 C.1 o" I ! I II II I Level C: Service Module: Delay/Veh: 29.2 9.8 8.2 22.8 7.6 5.6 21.5 23.4 23.4 20.8 20.9 20.9 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ad;Del/Veh: 29.2 9.8 8.2 22.8 7.6 5.6 21.5 23.4 23.4 20.8 20.9 20.9 DesignQueue: 4 21 2 11 . 27 2 3 5 4 1 1 1 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to REWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE i EX + FUTURE AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:03:45 Page 5-1. PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 SR-111/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical vol./Cap. (X) : 0.532 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 20.4 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 32 827 30 228 829 20 21 17 15 40 50 269 Growth Adj : 1.39 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 44 1145 42 316 1148 29 29 24 21 55 69 372 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ? F Volume: 44 1145 42 316 1149 29 29 24 21 55 69 372 Reduc_ Vol: 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 1145 42 316 1148 29 29 24 21 55 69 372 P_E Adj: 1.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.CC 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj 1.03 1.10 1.13 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 Final Vol. : 46 1259 46 325 1262 30 30 25 21 57 73 421 ' II Ii II I Sa_ura_-cn now Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 Adjustment: 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 ' 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.0C 2.89 0.11 2.00 2.93 0.07 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Fine: Sat. : 3230 5444 199 3230 5569 132 3230 380C 1445 3230 3800 2890 Capacity Analysis Module: II l i II I Vol/Sat: 2.01 C.23 0.23 C.10 0.23 C.23 2.21 C.C1 C.01 C.C2 C.02 0.15 Crit Moves: .... .... .... ...• Green Time: 7.0 59.6 52.6 25.5 77.1 77.1 7.0 25.8 25.8 18.1 36.9 36.9 Volume/Cap: 0.28 C.55 C.55 0.55 0.41 0.41 0.19 C.04 C.08 0.14 0.07 C.55 i II II II I Level Of Service Module: 0e1ay/Veh: 41.7 20.1 20.1 34.5 11.9 11.9 41.3 30.3 30.5 34.9 25.0 29.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe./Veh: 41.7 20.1 20.1 34.5 11.9 11.9 41.3 30.3 30.5 34.9 25.0 29.4 DesignCueue: 3 61 2 21 47 1 2 2 1 4 4 25 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to P.BWF & ASSOC. , IRV:NE • EX + FUTURE AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:03:45 Page 6-1. PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report • 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 114 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.222 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 14.0 Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 25 25 7 56 56 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 6 85 12 10 9 10 201 56 133 292 12 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.36 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 33 8 118 17 14 12 14 278 78 184 404 17 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P-F Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?''.F Volume: 33 8 118 17 14 12 14 278 76 184 404 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 33 8 119 17 14 12 14 278 78 184 404 17 ?CE Adj: _.CO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .CO1 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML.F Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 33 8 118 17 14 12 14 292 78 184 424 17 I II II Ii I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 19CC 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.79 1.00 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 0.33 0.29 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1496 1900 1445 633 521 447 1615 3300 1445 1615 3900 1445 Capacity Analysts Module: ii II II I Vol/Sat: C.C2 C.00 C.08 .,.C3 C.C.; 0.03 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.11 C '�l C.01 Cr-t Moves: •... ♦... .... Green Time: 29.0 26.0 28.0 26.0 28.0 28.0 7.0 25.0 25.0 38.0 56.0 56.0 Volume/Cap: 0.08 0.02 C.29 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.31 C.22 0.30 0.20 0.02 • I I ' II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 17.1 16.8 18.4 17.2 17.2 17.2 29.2 19.7 19.3 14.1 7.0 6.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 17.1 16.9 18.4 17.2 17.2 17.2 29.2 19.7 19.3 14.1 7.0 6.3 DesignQueue: 1 0 5 0 1 12 3 7 0 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EX + FUTURE AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:03:45 Page 7-1. PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 115 MONTEREY/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.408 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y-R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 18.3 Cptimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 51 233 116 181 415 96 54 194 49 153 410 140 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 71 323 161 251 574 133 75 269 68 212 568 194 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?g_ Adj : 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?5F Volume: 71 323 161 251 574 133 75 269 68 212 568 194 Reduct Vol: 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 323 161 251 574 133 75 269 68 212 568 194 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 .Final Vol. : 73 355 177 258 632 133 77 282 68 218 596 194 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.76 C.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3230 3613 1302 3230 5700 1445 3230 3800 1445 3230 3800 1445 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: C.C2 C.10 C.10 0.0E C.11 C.0: C.02 0.07 C 05 C C7 C Crit Moves: .... .... .... .... �.i3 Green Time: 7.0 23.8 23.3 19.3 36.1 36.1 7.0 26.4 26.4 18.5 37.9 37. 9 Volume/Cap: 0.32 C.41 C.41 C.41 C.31 0.26 C.34 C.29 0.18 0.36 0.41 0.35 I ; I II II I Level Of Service Module: De2.ay/Veh: 28. 9 21.0 21.0 23.1 14.9 14.6 29.0 18.9 18.4 23.2 14.9 14.5 User De1Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AcjDel/Veh: 28.9 21.0 21.0 23.1 14.9 14.6 29.0 18.9 18.4 23.2 14.9 14.5 Designcueue: 4 15 E 12 23 _r. 4 12 3 10 21 7 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Cowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EX + FUTURE PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:06:44 Page 1-1• PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS PM PEAK Scenario Report Scenario: EX + FUTURE PM Command: EX + FUTURE PM Volume: EX + FUTURE PM Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes Configuration: EX + FUTURE PM • Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE � ••, i EX + FUTURE PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:06:44 Page 2-1. PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS PM PEAK Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 SR-111/PARK VIEW B 10.8 0.613 B 10.8 0.613 0.000 D/V 4 2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW B 12.0 0.566 B 12.0 0.566 - 0.000 D/V 3 SR-111/FRED WARING D 28.6 0.886 D 29.6 0.886 - 0.000 D/V # 4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING C 17.8 0.393 C 17.8 0.393 , 0.000 D/V # 5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING C 21.0 0.699 C 21.0 0.699 + 0.000 D/V Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to REWF & ASSOC., IRVINE E{ FUTURE PM Wed Sep1, 1999 19:06 99 Page 3-1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PASEC VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS .4011111011-11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 111 SR-111/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.613 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R .• 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 10.8 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include .Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 14 1442 30 95 1402 46 29 9 4 26 13 112 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 19 1996 42 131 1941 64 40 12 6 36 18 155 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 SEF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH= Volume: 19 1996 42 :21 194: 64 40 12 6 36 18 105 Reduct Vol: 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 19 1996 42 13 . 1941 64 40 12 6 36 18 155 =CE Adj 1.00 1.00 _.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 MIF Adj: 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 0C Final Vol. : __ 2156 42 131 2135 70 40 12 6 36 19 15 5 I ' II II I Satu:at:on ..ow Module: Sat/Lane: 19C3 190C 1900 1930 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 1.0C 0.76 C.95 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.83 0.83 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.90 0.10 0.69 0.2: 0.10 0.67 0.33 1.00 Final Sat. : 1615 5700 1445 1615 5513 18' 980 294 147 1051 526 1445 Capacity Analysis Module: II 1 ) Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.39 C.03 0.09 C.39 C.39 0.04 0.04 C.04 0.03 C.03 0.11 Crit Moves: . .... .... Green Time: 7.0 88.0 85.0 __._ 99.5 99.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.61 C.005 0.61 0.54 C.54 C.23 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.61 I I ' ( I II Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 41.6 10.4 6.4 43.6 6.3 6.3 32.2 32.2 32.2 31.9 31.9 37.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.6 10.4 6.4 4C.6 6.3 6.3 32.2 32.2 32.2 31.9 31.9 37.6 CesignQueue: 1 71 1 9 54 2 3 1 0 2 1 10 .raffix 7.1.0427 (c) 199e Cc.4 Assoc. L:cen.sed to RBWF & RV:NE --gig ASSOC. ,, 2 �) EX + FUTURE PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:06:44 Page 4-1- PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 112 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.566 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 12.0 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I .II I I I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 891 35 59 685 47 84 29 67 38 37 91 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 104 1233 48 82 948 65 116 40 93 53 51 126 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Vol-me: 104 1233 43 82 948 65 116 40 O3 53 5' 126 Reduc: Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C • 0 0 Reduced Vol: 104 1233 48 82 948 65 116 40 93 53 51 126 ?CE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad4o : 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 104 1295 48 84 996 65 116 40 93 53 51 126 I it II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.41 0.90 0.90 0.51 0.89 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.70 1.00 0.29 0.71 • Final Sat. : 1615 3900 1445 3230 3900 1445 782 514 1196 969 4E7 1204 I II II II i Capacity Analysis Module: Vc1/Sat: 0.06 0.34 C.03 C.03 C.26 C.04 0.15 0.0E 0.08 C.05 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: .... .... •... �� Green Time: 10.0 58.5 58.5 7.0 55.5 55.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 Volume/Cap: 0.64 0.59 C.06 0.37 0.47 0.08 0.58 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.41 0.41 11 II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 33.7 8.7 5.7 29.2 8.8 6.7 24.2 19.6 19.6 19.0 20.4 20.4 User De1Ac3 : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ad;Del/Veh: 33.7 8.7 5.7 29.2 8.8 6.7 24.2 19.6 19.6 19.0 20.4 20.4 DesignQueue: 5 33 1 4 25 2 5 2 4 2 2 5 • Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EX + FUTURE PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:06:44 Page 5-1• PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 SR-111/FRED WARING • Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.886 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R • 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 25.6 Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 1293 125 456 1044 75 98 117 70 190 143 338 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 79 1790 173 631 1445 104 136 162 97 263 198 468 User Ad; : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P::F Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PaF Volume: 79 1790 173 631 1445 104 136 162 97 263 199 468 Reduce Vol: 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ro^••- Vol: 79 1790 173 631 1445 104 136 162 97 263 193 468 5C5 Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.13 Final Vol. : 81 1969 190 650 1590 , 114 140 170 97 271 208 529 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ' Adjustment: 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.74 0.26 2.00 2.80 0.20 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Final Sat. : 3230 5146 497 3230 5265 378 3230 3900 1445 3230 3800 2890 ! II it II • Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: C.C3 0.38 0.33 0.20 C.30 0.30 C.04 0.04 0.07 0.08 C.C5 C.18 Crit Moves: .... .... .... Green Time: 7.0 60.4 60.4 31.8 85.1 85.1 7.0 10.0 10.0 25.9 28.9 28.9 Volume/Cap: C.50 0.89 0.99 0.89 0.50 0.50 0.87 0.63 0.94 0.45 0.27 0.89 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/veh: 43.9 26.9 26.9 42.9 10.1 10.1 67.2 44.0 91.6 33.2 30.2 45.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 43.9 26.9 26.9 42.9 10.1 12.1 67.2 44.0 91.6 33.2 30.2 45.5 Desig Queue: 6 97 9 41 53 4 10 12 7 18 13 34 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EX + FUTURE PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:06:44 Page 6-1• PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection N4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.393 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 17.8 Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 25 25 7 56 56 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 16 161 18 11 15 23 495 114 147 431 31 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.39 1.38 Initial Bse: 235 22 223 25 15 • 21 32 685 158 203 597 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 ?SF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 :.co PMF Volume: 235 22 223 25 15 21 32 625 159 203 597 43 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 Reduced Vol: 235 22 223 25 15 21 32 685 158 203 597 43 ?OE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 235 22 223 25 15 21 32 719 158 203 626 43 I II II II I Saturat_cr. Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.72 1.00 0.76 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.766 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 0.25 0.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1360 1900 1445 635 391 534 1615 3800 1445 1615 3800 1445 I II II II 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.1 0.01 0.15 0.04 0.04 C.04 0.02 0.19 0.11 0.13 0.16 C.03 Crit Moves: •••• . .... Green Time: 29.0 28.0 29.0 29.0 28.0 28.0 7.0 25.0 25.0 38.0 56.0 56.0 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.04 0.55 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.28 0.76 0.44 0.33 0.29 0.05 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 22.4 16.9 21.0 17.4 17.4 17.4 28.9 24.9 21.0 14.3 7.5 6.4 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Ve:.: 22.4 16.9 21.0 17.4 17.4 17.4 28.9 24.9 21.0 14.3 7.5 6.4 DesignQueue: 10 1 9 1 1 1 2 32 7 7 16 1 Traffix 7.1.0427 (e) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to R3wF & ASSOC. , IRV:NE EX + FUTURE PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:06:44 Page 7-1• - - • VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ` ISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS _ PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) Intersection 115 MONTEREY/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.699 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 21.0 Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 559 249 195 442 141 182 560 65 199 425 198 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 104 774 345 270 612 195 252 775 90 275 588 274 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 104 774 345 270 612 195 252 775 90 275 589 274 Reduce Vol: 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 104 774 345 270 612 195 252 775 90 275 588 274 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 Final vol. : 107 851 379 ' 279 673 195 259 814 90 284 619 274 I II II II I Sat - ', - _low Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.08 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3230 3748 1669 3230 5700 1445 3230 3800 1445 3230 3800 1445 I I : II II I. Capacity Ana:ys_s Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.23 C.23 0.09 0.12 C.13 0.09 0.21 C.06 0.09 0.16 0.19 Crit Moves: .... .... .... Green Time: 7.0 32.5 32.5 12.3 37.9 37.8 12.8 30.6 30.6 12.6 30.4 30.4 Volume/Cap: 0.47 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.31 0.36 0.62 0.70 0.20 0.70 0.54 C.62 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 30.1 19.9 19.9 30.9 14.2 14.6 26.8 21.1 16.6 30.7 19.1 21.3 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Ven: 30.1 19.9 19.9 30.9 14.2 14.6 28.8 21.1 16.6 30.7 19.1 21.3 DesignQueue: 6 34 15 14 24 7 13 33 4 14 25 11 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE a EX+FUT+PROJECT AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:09:36 Page 1-1• PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT AM PEAK Scenario Report Scenario: . EX+FUT+PROJECT AM Command: EX + FUT + PROJECT AM Volume: EX + FUT + PROJECT AM Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes Configuration: EX + FUT + PROJECT AM Traffix 7.1.0427 Co) 1999 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EX+FUT+PROJECT AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:09:36 Page 2-1. e _ , s ua PASEO VILLAAGE TRAFg.IC V - • *" , EXISTING + r uRE " AM PEAK Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 SR-111/PARK VIEW B 9.9 0.352 B 10.2 0.354 + 0.319 D/V # 2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW B 12.1 0.494 B 12.1 0.497 + 0.053 D/V # 3 SR-111/FRE2 WARING C 20.4 0.532 C 20.5 0.535 + 0.031 D/V # 4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING B 13.9 0.216 B 13.9 0.220 + 0.035 D/V # 5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING C 18.3 0.408 C 18.3 0.409 + 0.004 D/V Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE • ,+- EX+FUT+PROJECT AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:09:36 Page 3-1• PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY • EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SR-111/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.354 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 10.2 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 5 907 13 53 906 13 9 2 4 11 8 83 . Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.39 1.38 1.38 1.39 1.38 • Initial Bse: 7 1255 13 73 1254 18 12 3 6 15 11 115 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O PROJECT: C 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 In 2' Fut: 7 1255 2: 75 1256 19 12 4 6 16 ll 11' User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00• 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?!:F Ads 1.00 1.0: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 7 1255 20 75 1256 18 12 4 6 16 11 117 Reduct Vol: 0 • C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 Reduced Vol: 7 1255 20 75 1256 18 12 4 6 16 11 117 POE Adj : 1.22 1.00 1.C: 1.00 .CO1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M_. Ad- : 1.C: 1.12 _.O0 1.00 1.12 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final vol. : 7 1331 . 20 75 1332 20 12 4 6 16 11 117 • Sat -2- on Flow Module: � I II II Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 19C0 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjust-1pn.t: c.95 1.0C 0.76 0.95 1.00 :.00 C.82 C.92 0.32 0.95 C.95 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.96 0.04 0.55 0.19 0.27 0.59 1 Final Sat. : 1615 5700 1+' _ C3 1.00 �: 5^__ 8: 9a7 29� 4:3 1070 735 14 45 Capacity Analysis Module: II II Vol/sat: 0.00 0.24 C.c: 0.05 0.25 C.25 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 C.01 C.06 Crit Moves: •**• .... Green Time: 7.0 -93.3 93.3 7.0 93.3 93.3 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.7 Volume/Cap: O.09 0.36 0.02 0.93 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.37 I II II II Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 41.0 6.7 5.1 97.1 6.7 6.7 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 30.3 User DelAdj : 1.O0 +.Cc +.C: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 41.0 6.7 5.1 97.1 6.7 6.7 28.0 29.0 28.0 26.0 23.0 30.3 DesignQueue: 1 33 : 6 33 1 1 0 C 1 1 7 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE EX-FUT+PRC.,ECT AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:09:36 Page 4-1• ._ PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC,_IMPACT STUDY „ ' ' < EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection /2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.497 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 12.1 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I II II Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 60 493 42 165 771 63 55 77 56 14 19 24 Growth Adj: 1.38. 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 83 682 58 228 1067 87 76 107 78 19 26 33 Added Vol: C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT: 2 C 0 0 1 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 85 682 53 228 1068 91 79 107 79 19 26 33 User Adj : 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Prr Ad; : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C ? F Volume: 85 682 53 228 1068 91 79 107 79 19 26 33 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 85 632 59 228 1068 Si 79 107 79 19 26 33 PCE Adj: 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad' : 1.02 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' .CO 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ Final Vol. : 85 717 58 235 1122 • 91 79 107 79 19 26 33 Sa-.•-=-+or. Flow Module: II II 1I I Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.65 1.00 0.76 C.35 1.00 0.76 0.71 0.94 0.94 0.37 0.92 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.42 1.00 C.44 0.56 Final Sat. : 16:5 3800 1445 3230 3600 1445 1343 1027 759 697 770 978 I II II 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.19 0.04 0.07 C.30 0.06 0.06 0.10 C.10 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: •--- .... Green Time: 10.6 50.5 50.5 19.5 59.4 59.4 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.37 0.0? 0.37 0.50 0.11 0.28 0.50 0.50 0.13 0.16 0.16 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 29.1 9.8 6.2 22.8 7.7 5.7 21.6 23.4 23.4 20.8 20.9 20.9 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.1 9.8 6.2 22.8 7.7 5.7 21.6 23.4 23.4 20.6 20.9 20.9 DesignQueue: 4 21 2 __ 27 2 4 5 4 1 1 1 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF 6 ASSOC., IRVINE t\C\ .., ij . EX+FUT+PROJECT AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:09:36 Page 5-1. PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #3 SR-111/FRED WARING Cycle' (sec) : 140 • Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.535 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R • 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 20.5 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 32 827 30 228 829 20 21 17 '15 40 50 269 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 44 1145 42 316 1148 28 29 24 21 55 69 372 Added Vol: 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT: 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 C 0 3 0 1 Initial Fut: 44 2.145 46 318 1149 28 29 24 21 58 69 373 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?HF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 44 1146 46 319 1149 28 29 24 - 21 58 69 373 Reduct Vol: 0 0 • C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 1146 46 319 1149 23 29 24 21 58 69 373 ?CF. Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0G 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.13 Final Vol. : 46 1260 50 327 1263 30 30 25 21 60 73 422 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 190C 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.85 1.00 1.00 C.85 1.0C 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.89 0.11 2.00 2.93 0.07 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Final Sat. : 3230 5428 2:5 3230 5568 :32 3230 3300 1445 3230 3800 28 Capacity Analysis Module: I ' I 1 I 90' Vol/Sat: 0.01 C.23 0.23 C.10 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.15 Crit Moves: .... •••• .... Green Time: 7.0 58.6 58.6 25.6 77.1 77.1 7.0 25.8 25.8 18.1 36.9 36.9 volume/Cap: 0.23 0.55 0.55 0.55 C.41 0.41 0.19 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.55 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: 0e1.ay/Veh: 41.7 20.1 20.1 34.5 11.8 11.8 41.3 30.3 30.5 35.0 25.0 29.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.7 20.1 20.1 34.5 11.8 11.8 41.3 3C.3 30.5 35.0 25.0 29.4 Des:gnQueue: 3 61 2 21 47 1 2 2 1 4 4 25 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EX+F'JT+PROJECT AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:09:36 Page 6-1• yr l itz:y 5+ 'f: 0 :.5:,. 10-4, i;'+"{S` v 941Y44�,4 � 0.4 �+1'' ' EXISTING + FOTU 0 +' O,7ECT AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.220 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 25 25 7 56 56 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 24 6 85 12 10 9 4 201 56 133 292 12 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.36 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 33 8 119 17 14 12 6 278 78 184 404 17 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT: C 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 4 0 In tia- Fut: 33 6 121 17 14 12 6 284 78 127 408 17 User Adt : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 33 8 121 17 14 12 6 264 78 187 406 17 Reduct Vol: 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Re^^-='' Vol: 33 8 121 17 14 12 6 294 79 187 408 17 PCB Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 33 6 121 17 14 12 6 299 78 187 429 17 I it II II I Saturation Flow Module: 5a_/Lane: 1900 1903 1900 1900 1933 190C 1900 1903 1900 1900 1900 1900 ;ustment: 0.79 _.CC 0.76 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.65 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 0.33 0.22 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1496 1900 1445 633 5Z1 44 1613 3800 1445 1615 3800 1445 H II II Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 C.02 0.03 0.03 C.C3 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.12 0.11 0.01 Crit Moves: -^• •... .... Green Time: 29.0 28.0 29.0 29.0 26.0 29.0 7.0 25.0 25.0 38.0 56.0 56.0 Volume/Cap: C.09 0.02 0.30 C.10 0.10 C.10 0.05 0.31 0.22 0.30 C.20 0.02 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay!Veh: 17.1 16.8 19.4 17.2 17.2 17.2 28.0 19.8 19.3 14.1 7.1 6.3 User telAd; : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ac;De1/Veh: 17.1 16.6 12. 1 .2 17.229.0 19.6 ' 4 17.2 19.3 14. 1 7.1 6.3 DesignQueue: _ 0 5 1 _ 0 C 13 3 7 11 C Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1992 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE � A, EX+FUT+PROJECT AM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:09:36 Page ,-1 PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FUTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT AM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) • Intersection #5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.409 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 18.3 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 51 233 116 181 415 96 54 194 49 153 410 140 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.36 1.39 1.38 Initial Bse: 71 323 161 251 574 133 75 269 68 212 568 194 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 PROJECT: 1 1 0 0 1 1 C 0 1 0 2 1 Initial Fut: 72 324 161 251 575 134 75 269 69 212 570 195 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P = Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 72 324 161 25: 575 134 75 269 69 212 570 195 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 72 324 161 251 . 575 134 75 269 69 212 570 195 =C_ Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 _.CO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 XLF A--" 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 74 356 177 258 633 134 77 282 69 218 599 195 Sat -a-'or. Flow Module: II iI II I Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.25 C.95 0.95 0.85 _.GC C.7 . 6 0.85 1 0^� 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3230 1 98 3230 57CO _44" 380C3230 30'' 7 ,� 3230 14453600 1445 ii 11 II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.07 C.05 0.07 0.16 0.13 Crit Moves: ••.. .... Green Time: 7.0 23.9 23.8 19.3 36.0 36.0 7.0 26.5 26.5 18.5 38.0 38.0 volume/Cap: C.33 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.26 0.34 0.28 0.18 0.36 0.41 0.36 1 11 II 11 1 Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 28.9 21.0 21.0 23.1 14.9 14.6 29.0 19.9 19.4 23.2 14.9 14.5 User DelAd: : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 20.9 21.0 21.0 23.1 14.9 14.6 29.0 19.9 12.4 23.2 14.9 14.5 DesignQueue: 4 15 E 12 23 5 4 12 3 10 21 7 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EX+FUT+PROJECT PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:11:37 Page 1-1- ;„ ;. ,,.4 ,. . .y PASEO VILLAGE:,TRA,E' OOTN r i' ~ 404+t ='.. EXISTING + FURTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT PM PEAK Scenario Report Scenario: EX+FUT+PROJECT PM Command: EX + FUT + PROJECT PM Volume: EX + FUT + PROJECT PM Geometry: Default Geometry Impact Fee: Default Impact Fee Trip Generation: Default Trip Generation Trip Distribution: Default Trip Distribution Paths: Default Paths Routes: Default Routes Configuration: EX + FUT + PROJECT PM Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINEE EX+FUT+PROJECT PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:11:37 Page 2-1• -------------------------------------- PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FURTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT PM PEAK Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 SR-111/PARK VIEW B 10.8 0.613 B 10.9 0.617 + 0.151 D/V # 2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW B 12.0 0.566 B 12.1 0.568 + 0.119 D/V # 3 SR-111/FRED WARING D 28.6 0.886 D 29.7 0.889 + 0.115 D/V # 4 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING C 17.8 0.393 C 17.9 0.394 + 0.060 D/V # 5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING C 21.0 0.699 C 21.0 0.700 + O.O17 D/V Traffix 7.1.0427. (c; 1998 Cowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EX*FUT+PROJECT PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:11:37 Page 3-1- PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY .0010,110 EXISTING + FURTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT . 411.1,10111001011011110001 PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #1 SR-111/PARR VIEW Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.617 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 10.9 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Cf Service: a Approach: North Sound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - 7 - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 I I I II I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 14 1442 30 95 1402 46 29 9 4 26 13 112 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 19 1996 42 131 1941 64 40 12 6 36 18 155 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 PROJECT . 0 2 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 ' 1 1 2 `'' -__• 19 1993 44 134 1943 64 40 13 6 37 19 15 User Ad; : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Ad; : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 19 1993 44 134 1943 64 40 13 6 37 19 157 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 19 1992 44 134 1943 64 40 13 6 37 19 157 ' PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 :.c0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.00 1.1: 1.00 1.00 1.10 .10 1.00 1,00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 19 2193 44 134 2137 - 70 40 :3 6 37 19 157 I I 11 II I Sat cn Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 19CC 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 190C 1900 1900 Ad;::Tent: 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 1.03 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.94 0.84 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.90 C.:C 0.68 0.22 0.10 0.66 0.34 1.00 Final Sat. : 1615 5703 1445 1615 5519 _21 963 313 144 1055 542 _4 45 I II II II ; Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.39 C.C3 C.C2 C.29 C.39 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 C.11 Crit Moves: •••• Green Time: 7.0 87.5 87.5 18.8 99.3 99.3 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 24.7 Volume/Car: 0.24 0.62 0.05 C.62 0.55 0.55 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.62 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 41.6 10.6 6.6 40.6- 6.3 6.3 32.1 32.1 32.1 31.9 31.9 37.6 User De1Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj0e:/Veh: 41.6 10. . 6.6 40.6 6.3 6.3 32.1 32.1 32.1 31.9 31.9 37.6 DesignQueue: • 1 71 _ 9 54 2 3 1 0 2 1 10 Traff x 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF 6 ASSOC., IRVINE iv6 • EX+FUT+PROJECT PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:11:37 Page 4-1. PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FURTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #2 MONTEREY/PARK VIEW Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.568 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (YTR = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 12.1 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II I I I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 -2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 891 35 59 685 47 84 29 67 38 37 91 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 104 1233 48 82 948 65 116 40 93 53 51 126 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT: 3 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 107 1233 43 82 948 68 120 40 95 53 51 126 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 107 1233 43 82 948 68 120 40 95 53 51 126 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 107 1233 48 82 948 68 120 40 95 53 51 126 PC_ Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: ' .CO 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol. : 107 1295 48 84 996 68 120 40 95 53 51 126 - I II II II I Saturation. Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.65 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 C.76 0.42 0.90 C.90 0.51 0.89 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 C.30 0.70 1.00 0.29 0.71 Final Sat. : 1615 3300 1445 3230 3800 1445 799 507 1203 969 487 1204 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.34 0.03 0.03 0.26 C.05 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: ••.. .... .... Green Time: 10.0 58.3 58.3 7.0 55.3 55.3 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.58 C.06 0.37 0.47 0.09 0.58 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.41 0.41 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 34.6 8.8 5.8 29.2 8.9 6.8 24.0 19.5 19.5 18.9 20.3 20.3 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 34.6 6.8 5.3 29.2 8.9 E.8 24.0 19.5 19.5 18.9 20.3 20.3 DesignQueue: 5 33 1 4 27 2 5 2 4 2 2 5 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC. , IRVINE EX+FUT+PROS CT PM wed Sep 1, 1999 19:11:37 Page 5-1 . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY aginiimmosimiiimi _ EXISTING + FURTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future volume Alternative) Intersection #3 SR-111/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 140 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.889 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 28.7 Optimal Cycle: 122 Level Of Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I I I II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 I II I I II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 1293 125 456 1044 75 98 117 70 190 143 338 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 • Initial Bse: 79 1790 173 631 1445 104 136 162 97 263 198 468 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT: 0 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Initia'_ Fut: . 79 1792 176 633 1446 104 136 162 97 266 198 470 User Adj : 1.0C 1.00 1.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 79 1792 176 633 1446 104 136 162 97 266 198 470 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 79 1792 176 633 1446 104 136 162 97 266 198 470 PC: Ad;: :.:C 1.0: 1.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -.CC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 M:._ Adj : 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.13 Final Vol. : el 1971 194 652 1591 114 140 170 97 274 208 531 i II II II I Saturation. Flew Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 19CC 1900 1900 19CC 1900 19CC 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.85 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.99 C.99 0.85 1.0C 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.C: 2.73 0.27 2.0: 2.9C C.2: 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Final Sat. : 3230 5:37 506 3230 5266 377 3230 3800 1 495 3230 3800 2990 ! I II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.3? C.39 0.20 0.30 C.30 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.19 Crit Moves: .•-- •-•• .... Green Time: 7.0 60.3 60.3 31.9 85.1 85.1 7.0 10.0 10.0 25.9 28.9 28.9 Volume/Cap: 0.50 0.99 0.89 C.89 0.50 C.50 0.87 0.63 0.94 0.46 0.27 0.89 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 43.9 27.0 27.0 43.: 1C.1 10.1 67.2 44.0 91.6 33.2 30.2 45.8 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.0C 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 43.9 27.: 27._ 43.1 10.1 10.1 67.2 44.0 91.6 33.2 30.2 45.8 DesignQueue: 6 97 :: 41 53 4 10 12 7 18 13 34 Traffix 7.1.0427 (_) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE ti 1• EX+FUT+PROJECT PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:11:37 Page 6-1• PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FURTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection 44 TOWN CENTER/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.394 Loss Time (sec) : 9 (Y+R - 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 17.9 Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 10 1C 10 10 10 10 7 25 25 7 56 56 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 16 161 18 11 15 23 495 114 147 431 31 Growth Adj : 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 235 22 223 25 15 21 32 685 158 203 597 43 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P_RCJECT: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 5 0 Initial Fut: 235 22 226 25 15 21 32 690 158 209 602 43 Use: Adj: 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?:iF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 235 22 226 25 15 21 32 690 158 ' 209 602 43 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 235 22 226 25 15 21 32 690 158 209 602 43 PCE Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MIF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 235 22 226 ' 25 15 21 32 725 158 209 632 43 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 190C 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.72 1.00 0.76 C.82 C.82 0.62 0.85 1.00 0.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 0.25 0.34 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 1360 1900 1445 635 361 534 1615 380C 1445 1615 3800 1445 I I II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.11 0.13 0.17 0.03 Crit Moves: *••* .... ..., Green Time: 28.0 28.0 29.0 28.0 29.0 28.0 7.0 25.0 25.0 38.0 56.0 56.0 volume/Cap: C.62 0.04 0.56 0.14 0.14 C.14 0.28 0.76 0.44 0.34 0.30 0.05 I II II II I Level Cf Service Module: Delay/Veh: 22.4 16.9 21.2 :7.4 17.4 17.4 28.9 25.0 21.0 14.4 7.5 6.4 User DelAdj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 22.4 16.9 21.2 17.4 17.4 17.4 28.9 25.0 21.0 14.4 7.5 6.4 DesignQueue: 10 1 9 1 1 1 . 2 32 7 7 16 1 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBW F & ASSOC., IRVINE EX+FUT+PROJECT PM Wed Sep 1, 1999 19:11:37 Page 7-1- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PASEO VILLAGE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY EXISTING + FURTURE PROJECTS + PROJECT ,. PM PEAK Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #5 MONTEREY/FRED WARING Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X) : 0.700 Loss Time (sec) : 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh) : 21.0 Optimal Cycle: 59 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R . L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 75 559 249 195 442 141 182 560 65 199 425 198 Growth Adj: 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.38 Initial Bse: 104 774 345 270 612 195 252 775 90 275 588 274 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROJECT: 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Initial Fut: 105 776 345 271 613 195 252 776 91 275 589 275 User Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 105 776 345 271 613 195 252 776 91 275 589 275 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 105 776 345 271 613 195 252 776 91 275 589 275 PCE Adj : 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj : 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.00 Final Vol. : 108 853 379 279 674 195 259 815 91- 284 619 275 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 . Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.85 1.00 C.76 0.85 1.00 0.76 C.85 1.00 0.76 Lanes: 2.00 2.08 0.92 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat. : 3230 3749 1666 3230 5700 1445 3230 3800 1445 3230 3800 1445 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.21 0.06 0.09 0.16 0.19 Crit Moves: •••• ••-• .... Green Time: 7.0 32.5 32.5 12.3 37.8 37.8 12.8 30.6 30.6 12.6 30.4 30.4 Volume/Cap: 0.48 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.31 C.36 C.63 0.70 0.21 0.70 0.54 0.63 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: Delay/Veh: 30.1 19.9 19.9 30.9 14.2 14.6 28.8 21.1 16.6 30.7 19.1 21.3 User De:Adj : 1.00 1.00 1.00 _.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 30.1 19.9 19.9 30.9 14.2 14.6 28.8 21.1 16.6 30.7 19.1 21.3 DesignQueue: 6 34 15 14 24 7 13 33 4 14 25 11 Traffix 7.1.0427 (c) 1998 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to RBWF & ASSOC., IRVINE • t