Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 99-18 and 99-19 Ord 906 and 907 GPA 98-6 CZ 98-7 and PP-CUP 98-21 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I. TO: City Manager, Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment to add senior overlay, zone change to add the senior overlay designation, a precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness residential resort for seniors referred to as Portofino consisting of a 161 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 villa units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. III. APPLICANT: Royce International Investments Co. Michael C. LaMelza 249 Las Entradas Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93108 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 V. DATE: February 11 , 1999 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Resolution Nos. 99-18 and 99-19 , and Ordinance Nos. 906 and 907 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving this case E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1 91 2 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 19, 1999 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and: 1 . Adopt findings; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 99-18 approving GPA 98-6; 3. Pass Ordinance No. 906 approving C/Z 98-7 to second reading; 4. Pass Ordinance No. 907 approving development agreement to second reading; and 5. Adopt Resolution No. 99_19 approving PP/CUP 98-21, STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 B. DISCUSSION: 1 . BACKGROUND: a. SITE DESCRIPTION: The undeveloped site consists of creosote-covered sand dunes and slopes downward in a southwesterly direction. The site drops 25 to 30 feet north to south and eight to 10 feet east to west. There's also a signalized intersection on Country Club Drive at the entrance to Palm Desert Greens for the project to utilize. Curb, gutter and tie-in paving is lacking on Country Club and Portola Avenue frontages. b. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: North: County/Palm Desert Greens South: PR-5/Casablanca condominiums and Sonata single family residential East: PR-5/Silver Sands Racquet Club West: AHPDR-22/San Tropez Apartments c. SITE HISTORY: The site has been approved for development four times in the past. The first was in 1984 when the majority of the site was rezoned from R-1 2,000 to PR-5 and the fire station was dedicated. The last approval was in 1994 by the current owner McBail Co. consisting of 241 single family homes and 162 apartments - the apartments on Country Club between the project entry and San Tropez Apartments. Although no elevations were submitted for the apartments, the density (16.2 dwelling units per acre) would dictate two story construction. This last approval is still alive and could still be built. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of four components: skilled nursing, assisted living apartments/villas and casitas. Each product provides progressive levels of senior care, meal services, social and recreational amenities ranging from active independent living to supervised medical care within a relatively low density resort environment. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 The skilled nursing facility is located in the northeast project portion while the assisted living is in the southeast portion also along Portola. They are separated by an ingress/egress road to Portola that continues west across the site. This same road as it extends west across the site, divides the apartments to the north and the casitas to the south. A clubhouse is on the south side of this road at the intersection of another roadway that runs north to the signalized intersection at the entrance to Palm Desert Greens. The entry/exit on Portola is conditioned to be right turn in and out only while the Country Club Drive access is unrestricted and is signalized. The project provides three transitions in living facilities for seniors similar to "The Carlotta" project but on a much larger scale. The Carlotta's numbers for comparative purposes are 109 apartments, 22 assisted living units and a 59 bed skilled nursing facility. The Monterey Palms/Hacienda de Monterey project combine for 180 assisted living/independent living units and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility. The unique part of the project is that the skilled nursing and assisted living buildings have two levels that step down the slopes so that they're one story on top of the slope and two story at the bottom. a. SKILLED NURSING AND ASSISTED LIVING: This one and two story facility provides 161 beds for those in need of more constant care and medical attention. The building sets back 140 feet to 260 feet from the Portola property line and 120 feet from the Country Club Drive property line. BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS While building heights are normally measured from finished pad elevations, the complicated interaction between existing natural grades, finished grades, street elevations and architectural design make height determination a matter of interpretation. The finished pads for the skilled nursing and assisted living facilities have been graded and lowered so that the buildings will step down to match the descending contour of Portola Avenue. The pads have been lowered an average of eight feet below existing grade and street elevation. Although building height measured from these lowered pads range from 20 feet for single story elements, 28 feet to 32 feet from 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 two story elements and 37 feet for the architectural tower above the lobby, heights relative to natural grade based on a line of sight will appear to be 24 feet or less (with the exception of the towers). The towers with a line of sight height of 27 feet and 37 feet will be setback 260 feet from Portola Avenue. With the exception of the two tower elements the assisted living and skilled nursing buildings will meet the line of sight intent of the 24-foot height limitation in the PR zone. In general, the combination of lowered pad elevations, setbacks and berming justify approval of the buildings as designed. b. ASSISTED LIVING: This one and two story structure will have 150 rooms and is designed for those that require a small degree of help in their daily lives. The structure is setback 140 feet to 260 feet from Portola. There will be a 270-foot setback from Casablanca for the 37-foot lobby as measured from the lowest pad levels that are the same height as corresponding grade at Casablanca. The maintenance building located in this same area will be a maximum 18 feet in height and help hide the assisted living building from Casablanca and is setback 80 feet from the property line while the Casablanca units are setback a minimum 18 feet from the property line. c. APARTMENTS/VILLAS: These two story structures are on the project's northern portion and setback range from 54 feet from property line to 200 feet. The main portion of these buildings are 24 feet in height with some projections extending to 28 feet. The pads for these buildings range from one foot to ten feet below Country Club Drive. Berming, setbacks and a natural lower grade offset the height of the architectural projections. The units range in size from 900 square feet one bedroom (96 units) to 1 ,200 square feet two bedrooms with patios and balconies (192 units). Twelve villas per building will be constructed with elevators to the second floor. 24 hour call service to the health care facility will be provided to each unit. Adjacent parking is provided and is conditioned to be covered. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 c. CASITAS: The single story two bedroom casitas are in the southern project portion and setback a minimum 32 feet from the south property line bordering Sonata and Casablanca. The main structures are 15 feet in height with projections extending to 19 feet. The sizes range from 1 ,400 to 1 ,800 square feet arranged in a courtyard/duplex fashion with vehicular access into the courtyards for drop-offs. The applicant exceeds the one space per unit parking requirement while ample space is available - if needed - for extra parking on site. Similar to the villas, 24 hour call service to the health care facility will be provided. Not dealt with on the previous projects are the oleanders behind Casablanca that sit on the applicant's property. A condition has been placed requiring preservation of these oleanders until the soil has been stabilized to prevent drifting sand problems, associated with projects once under construction. e. CLUBHOUSE: The centrally located 30,000 square foot clubhouse will provide many amenities that would make it possible not to ever have to leave the premises - which are planned to be a completely secure gate guarded community. Amenities include a general store, barber/beauty shop, bank and theater. Of the 30,000 square feet 25,000 square feet are on the first floor and 5,000 square feet are on the second floor, maximum 30 feet in height. A fitness center of 5,000 square feet is planned to encourage the wellness aspect of the project. 3. TRAFFIC: A traffic study has been prepared that shows the project will generate 56% less traffic than the existing approval on the site of 241 single family homes and 162 apartments. This reduction results from the lower trip generation of retirement housing in comparison to standard housing. The city's Traffic Engineer indicates that the intersection of Country Club Drive and Portola will continue to operate at level "C" or better. 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 The project will be required to pay TUMF fees in addition to improving the signalized intersection opposite Palm Desert Greens. The project will also pay for half a landscaped center median on Country Club Drive making it less expensive to complete this improvement in the future. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The project will require a general plan land use amendment to Senior housing, change of zone adding the Senior Overlay and a development agreement. The senior housing designation was designed to provide increased density and special development standards to encourage the development of specialized forms of senior housing. When the Senior Overlay was created, it was anticipated that senior projects would be requesting densities in excess of 20 units per acre. Due to the significantly lower traffic and other impacts of senior housing, the overlay allows these densities based on a population per acre land use intensity formula. The overlay also requires that senior housing projects include up to 25% affordable housing in exchange for these large density bonuses. For example Hacienda de Monterey, the first project approved under the overlay, received a density increase from R-1 10,000 (three units per acre) to 23 units per acre. Total allowable units increase from 31 to 233. For projects over 100 units the affordable housing inclusionary requirement mandates 10% moderate income units, 10% low income units, and 5% very low income units. Since high end congregate care and assisted living projects provide a wide range of services (meals, recreation, maid service, medical care, etc.) beyond basic housing it has been nearly impossible to determine an appropriate affordable housing cost. As a result, the City and developer of these projects have historically agreed through a development agreement to substitute an in-lieu fee which would be used by the City to subsidize senior housing. In the case of Hacienda de Monterey (approved in 1985) an $8,000 per required affordable unit was assessed totaling $460,000. In this case the applicant is requesting a density bonus far smaller then previous projects which have historically ranged from 10 to 20 units per acre 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 over the base zone density. The proposal is requesting 625 equivalent residential units (assisted and skilled nursing facilities are counted at two beds per unit) or 8.17 units per acre. This is only 243 units over the 382 units allowed by the base five units per acre zoning. The requested three units per acre density bonus is a small fraction of the ten to 20 units per acre bonuses previously approved under the overlay. It is therefore recommended that the 25% inclusionary requirement only apply to the 243 additional bonus units. Also, the per unit assessment should be increased from the 1985 $8,0000 level to $12,000 per unit accounting for inflation. Based on this recommendation the development agreement contains an in-lieu affordable housing fee of $729,000 (243 units x .25 = 60.75 x $12,000 = $729,000) payable at a rate of $1 ,166.40 per unit at Certificate of Occupancy issuance for assisted living and skilled nursing facilities and at permit issuance for casitas and villas. 5. DATA SUMMARY: PROJECT ORDINANCE Site Area 76.42 acres --- Units 288 apartment units 182 casitas 80 unit 161 bed skilled nursing 75 unit 150 bed assisted living 625 units Senior Overlay Intensity 1 ,250 persons 3,821 persons Building Coverage 19% Open Space 51 .40/acre (67.25%) 30.57/acre (40%) Parking 770 spaces 625 6. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been previously assessed as part of the last project approval (May 17, 1994 TT 26432). Traffic projections show that the project will generate 25% to 60% fewer ADT than the existing approved tentative map. Incremental impacts to the regional circulation system will be mitigated through payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 project is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and will be assessed the $600 per acre to mitigate destruction of dune habitat. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY: The project was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission by a 3-1 -1 vote. Commissioner Finerty voted no due to the overabundance of skilled nursing and assisted living facilities that are either under construction or planned in the area and the low occupancy rate at existing facilities. Commissioner Lopez abstained due to a potential conflict of interest. The majority of the commission felt an overabundance of projects was not a basis for denying the project and voted for approval. Staff's later survey of occupancy at existing facilities in the city showed: Carlotta 88%, Hacienda de Monterey/Monterey Palms 90%, and 100% at the 178 bed Manor Care. Five residents from the adjacent Casablanca project testified in opposition to the project. Initially only half of Casablanca within the 300' radius was notified when it was discovered the title company missed an assessors map book page. The hearing was continued so that all residents could be notified. For the council hearing labels were obtained from their property manager for the entire project and resident labels were prepared for out-of-town owners within 300 feet. The commission received a letter from Casablanca's board stating "no opposition to the project." At the meeting this was clarified to be the position of only the president, but a couple of days later the board voted in favor of the project and the letter was accurate after all. The residents' concerns were: density, traffic, the effect of sirens from the fire station on residents of the skilled nursing facility, the possibility of the project getting partially constructed then going bankrupt, and that the existing approval on the property for apartments and single family homes was preferable. However it was pointed out the project would generate approximately only half of the traffic that the existing approval would generate. Also, the existing approval could place homes 20 feet away from Casablanca's wall compared to Portofino's 32 foot setback and oleanders maintained by Casablanca outside their wall would probably be removed by the existing approval but will remain in Portofino's plan. 8 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 FEBRUARY 11, 1999 Commissioner Beaty concluded by stating that he lived across from The Carlotta and that type of facility he experiences is quiet and is a very good neighbor to have. 8. CONCLUSION: The project as designed is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone and the Senior Overlay. It will provide a unique combination of life services, social, recreational and cultural amenities within a resort environment normally associated with high end country clubs. It will also make a significant financial contribution to the city's low income senior housing program. The project has been designed to be sensitive to the concerns of each of the adjacent residential developments. The developer and project architect have made presentations to each of the adjacent residential developments and has received a favorable response. 2:_ii,_ Prepared by: f' ' Phil Joy Reviewed and Approved by-!-- _ Q Philip Drell /tm , CITY COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED s/ DENIED REC 'JED .THER�© K b. q 0(a +501 . ,ASSe• "To . ,"D. 1 ' . IIFFNMliMEET °' .DATE 4 _ AYES:W _ *,1 �i'I �� _ _ , i ,' ___NOES: o . a !' ABSENT: ABSTAIN: nMQ VERIFIED BY: C D Ail) Original on File with y rrk's Office 9 0 NI ORDINANCE NO. 906 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY ADDING THE SENIOR OVERLAY DESIGNATION TO 75 ACRES SOUTHWEST OF PORTOLA AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE CASE NO. C/Z 98-7 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1 : That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 4*----------401 i--...._._.___._.____ .-0. P.; COUNTY Or RIVERSIDE I mum ismomNimossmosimiam mum mum mon mom ummommomm=13 .„,wwiriii r• ( s\\ ,\, ���• ss '' y. P•R.- 2 P.R.-5 `" - .A H a OVERLAY �_ r ADD SENIOR • a 0 a / GSILVL11MI 11 RRAZA ^ IVE tAR 1 :r �� I`/ 1�1 /q' 1 /\�i� �I II Ili1 2 ant ii:iin --Ys-tip.` -5 '' N; ', _= ; ',; �:I ttt A A 0' VE 'W6� � t 11111 �_/ 1.4 _j� -) 4� M:,41 It j,II ; . ` PR.�4 / L N v T r _ ,---- - SILvE so J ' /-I rZC� 1 ty ^R.v1 .1 . 1 ,,C 1 I , 0 1/ 111 \ w P.R.-5 ; =1 -- ...\‘� i, . F Y _ - 5A Al _ - - - - _ -- AE M O -'1\./,• ,I ,corr. NIL' t '- t L- , 1,'t ANI.• LAME,) W.43 c es' -�J co , ,r .� ANI r `A./ �VEnr51--� — , ,,,,•.F*000 t(`,A1,ICNIST , I - ( �` ,ANI )1IANI i. 1 O.S. -, L ; -1 SII RNA MIAL'RE MORIN ',,\NUY�IT'- A I C RINK-- ,i" 1 I I t III 1�(Y 1. ` _1 _` I l � cc \ r�--�-� ki CD \` � NRA ,i-N�LOU IH . �R' wM. .P.,_ l-r-,s-. __ _ , _! I I I /4 % . \ fal I �1T�� CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. CZ 18- / CITY COUNCIL .at, a O 70n ® ORDINANCE NO906 �� C�U�i � C� O� • '0. tEiwp- Ilnf� n `•/A" Date ORDINANCE NO. 907 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO. FOR A HEALTH AND WELLNESS RESORT KNOWN AS PORTOFINO ON 75 ACRES SOUTHWEST OF PORTOLA AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 1 th day of February, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO. for the project described above; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 1912 has recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement is consistent with the goals of the Housing Element of the General Plan and the intent and purpose of the Senior Overlay of the Zoning Ordinance to provide specialized housing to meet the needs of a growing senior citizen population; 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; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Development Agreement, Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 907 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 1 999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 907 EXHIBIT A SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROYCE INTERNATIONAL THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of ,1998, between Royce International (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 (PP 98-21 ) to construct a health club and wellness resort for seniors, 288 apartments, 182 casita units, 161 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility and zone change to senior overlay; C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan approval pursuant to Chapter 25.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, Senior Housing Overlay District which allows for significant 3 ORDINANCE NO. 907 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 98-21 . (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. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 907 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 health club and wellness resort for seniors, 288 apartments, 182 casita units, 161 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility and zone change to senior overlay on the PROPERTY by Precise Plan 98-21 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. 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 3.17 units/acre or 243 of the 625 total project units. In consideration for the relatively small density bonus being granted, the 25% affordable requirement shall be applied only to the 243. The project's affordable housing requirement shall therefore be established at 61 units. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 907 (b) Due to the unique range of services provided by the PROJECT, in-lieu of the requirements above the Property Owner shall provide: 1 . Payment of $12,000 per affordable unit totaling $729,000 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 building permit(s) for the project at the rate of $1 ,166 per unit. Fees shall be paid at time of Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted living and skilled nursing. (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 in not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (f) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the PROJECT. Property Owner agrees to and shall defend the City and its officers, agents, employees and representatives from actions for damages caused or alleged 6 ORDINANCE NO. 907 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. i. 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 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. 7 ORDINANCE NO. 907 (j) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: i. If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. (k) Procedure upon default. If, as a result of periodic review, or other review of this AGREEMENT, the Planning Commission or City finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Property Owner has not complied with the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT, the Commission shall notify the Property Owner or successor in interest as to the specific nature of noncompliance, and describe the remedies required to achieve compliance. Property Owner has thirty (30) days upon receipt of 8 ORDINANCE NO. 907 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 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. 9 ORDINANCE NO. 907 (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: 249 Las Entradas Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108. A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party and therefore notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. (o) Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Items. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. ii. If a part of this AGREEMENT is held to be invalid, the remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. iii. If there is more than one signer of this AGREEMENT their obligations are joint and several. iv. The time limits set forth in this AGREEMENT may be extended by mutual consent of the parties in accordance with the procedures for adoption of an agreement. 10 ORDINANCE NO. 907 (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. 11 ORDINANCE NO. 907 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: ROYCE INTERNATIONAL By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of , 1998, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 12 iiiiiir Order No: 8223312 -K 2 DESCRIPTION r, Ordinance No. 907 k\ NORTHEAST QUARTER WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 44.00 FEET OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 89° 41' 21" EAST ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 474.12 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89° 41' 21" EAST ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 1,915.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 18' 39" EAST, 51.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45° 03' 40" EAST, 238.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 48' 41" EAST, 40.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 11' 19" WEST, 527.55 FEET ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 50.00 FEET OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 89° 44' 56" WEST, 20.00 FEET PARALLEL TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 82° 59' 14" WEST, 158.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 44' 56" WEST, 537.18 FEET PARALLEL TO SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 76° 41' 36" WEST, 114.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59° 50' 14" WEST, 237.21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 55' 28" WEST, 172.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78° 18' 13" WEST, 371.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69° 22' 39" WEST, 85.35 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 60° 30' 00" WEST, 150.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29° 30' 00" WEST, 34.54 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE FOR THE ARC DISTANCE OF 354.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 32° 04' 33" EAST, 89.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 57° 55' 27" WEST, 150.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 41' 21" WEST, 255.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00° 18' 39" WEST, 231.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND IS ALSO SHOWN AS PARCEL B OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 13, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 434349 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPT 1/16TH OF ALL COAL, OIL AND GAS AND OTHER MINERAL DEPOSITS, AS RESERVED TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN PATENT ISSUED JULY 2, 1929 RECORDED NOVEMBER 28, 1949 IN BOOK 1127 PAGE 42 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. DFSCRSO-I2/O4/91 AA Order No: 8223312 -K DESCRIPTION 1 r rdinance No. 907 /ice,tT I T'9. PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE NORTH 44.00 FEET OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 89° 41' 21" EAST ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 474.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 18' 39" EAST, 231.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 41' 21" EAST, 255.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 57° 55' 27" EAST, 150.76 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32° 04' 33" WEST, 89.80 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 330.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ON THE ARC OF SAID CURVE FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 354.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 29° 30' 00" EAST, 34.54 FEET; THENCE NORTH 60° 30' EAST, 150.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 69° 22' 39" EAST, 85.35 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78° 18' 13" EAST, 371.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 55' 28" EAST, 172.50 FEET; . THENCE SOUTH 59° 50' 14" EAST, 237.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 76° 41' 36" EAST, 114.99 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 44' 56" EAST, 537.18 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 82° 59' 14" EAST, 158.18 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 44' 56" EAST, 20.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 50.00 FEET OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 00° 11' 19" WEST ON SAID EASTERLY LINE, 533.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 88° 44' 56" WEST, 2,601.17 FEET ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00° 14' 15" EAST, 1,278.91 FEET ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND IS ALSO SHOWN AS PARCEL A OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED DECEMBER 13, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 434349 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; EXCEPT 1/16TH OF ALL COAL, OIL AND GAS AND OTHER MINERAL DEPOSITS, AS RESERVED TO STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN PATENT ISSUED JULY 2, 1929 AND RECORDED NOVEMBER 28, 1949 IN BOOK 1127 PAGE 42 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE DESCRSO-12/04/91 AA I ASSESSMENT PURPOSES ONLY I POR. NI/2 SEC. 8 T, 5 S. R. 6 E. L R.N. Die=osa "•'' FOR. CITY PALM DESERT 0/8-076 IS& 620 620 620 /0 27 TAZ, 9 • - - .flee. i•fJ-s S saoo �.e.s, —U►- i .�,<c� i s ` rsk.t PALM DESERT /<,L11' L/M/rS +iu.,J� C/fY • ia•.7J aal.J Ilx+, 1 OF 1 a�J re • M I. •' I rJJ. t. aEx I 624 G�0 + O.fcrJI : O 02 a v i ., 4 /S +O, • L EX I. u '� afIZA r �' :I. I i ;ce / 2 11./7 AC. �` • I it' ~:'r• F iz ti 7.29Ac 7.tJAt '•iy 4� ® • II I cure POLO AO.rt.,AC I S/ I n/Jo l.,r, r W A t% I • a - N to tJ % I tJ,t• K..V • '� Jy.l./r' I' • /l K.1/ 6/8 /JLt.la • / /31l.3 s . 02 . ' IIlJ'L LILAC I17.77 �' ,b•••• < ' • , • . • Ilit.lt i .. - I�// /1�lC .K JJ i. 6. • % w 1 ' • J C • 0 0S I OS • j M 14 ' . •. •- • �J • i 2,C I 4 'Art •••Ao a, J3AYL rll,l?' J•i.3l aa,•J1' JJ I.]r 3/se II K Y /B 33 ® O ®,,I ®, v ® v J/te• M a a ® . . • Q/ 28 /J JJ X L I J.S16 +.7?Ac v 463 Ae I7d Ae "Lief.. +•714e 4,75Ae 4.15 Ac /r 1J 1 l V , /®fX i eisJ.lr� • ! 0.414e el ..Jf/I•_._ _ - - JI/•II ir,..• C Jn.•s • •, nFei•. i!/ID n Is •• .ves•ie'37-E • s30J.a6 • GLMIEZEI• • •1 / ®(® J, oira. RSJ7/I+ 0 -,: .._- • ®� Jr. Me/l1/+l 0 „ OCR ., MI/0+/l0 • ..° �^• - -�, sO�J!o O CMMUM •, °' om • O ASSESSORS MAP BK622 PG 02 • a� •/ Z R/VERS/DE COUNTY, CAL/F. -rfhi:,pat is fnr;clirtririin C.ratirg your'knh'wlltl referonee tn. ®® , y R 6 se,reets t rni other percale. It Is net t:survey. 4'/h;ili this Dial le .• __, . ✓ULY'BO U lisved to b. c^r.t'ct•.th,i C'IP?Ip,rlya+:3vmes r.0 Liability for. -. . • .+ t1,1,,C.ocrt:r'ng.by rea•rwt ni pi...inc-.theryon." . -. ei p - cl'ilf:=0 TITLE INSIJf3AM e:COMPANY. • b N 11111111111116.° •1. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH AND WELLNESS RESORT FOR SENIORS CONSISTING OF A 161 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, 150 BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, 288 VILLA UNITS AND 182 CASITA UNITS ON 75 ACRES SOUTHWEST OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NO. PP/CUP 98-21 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 1 th day of February, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO. for approval of the project described above; 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; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said request: 1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone and Senior Housing Overlay. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The precise plan/conditional use permit will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 2. That approval of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 98-21 is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 11th day of February , 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Benson, Crites, Ferguson, Kelly, Spiegel NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 98-21 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Each villa and casita unit shall have designated a parking space under a carport. 7. Oleanders behind Casablanca shall be preserved until site soil has been stabilized as determined by the Director of Community Development. 3 RESOLUTION NO.99-19 8. 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. 9. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 10. Project shall be subject to the $600/acre Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard mitigation fee. In addition, project shall pay a special fee of $6,000 toward mitigation of habitat destruction of other species of concern included in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 1 1 . Parking spaces for skilled nursing facility shall be relocated where they conflict with fire access road. Department of Public Works: 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 civic engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall utilize existing off-site drainage facilities as may be appropriate for project drainage. 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. The costs associated with the modification of the existing Country Club Drive/project entry traffic signal system may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 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. In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a median island in Country Club Drive shall be provided. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for the required median island shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 1 1 . Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided in the same manner specified above. 12. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 5 RESOLUTION NO.99-19 13. 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 Portola Avenue access points and full access (with traffic signal) for the Country Club Drive access point. 14. 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 with the improvement of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards and the city's Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration along both the Country Club Drive and the Portola Avenue project frontages. * Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the Country Club Drive and northerly Portola Avenue project entries. * Construction of transit facilities in accordance with Sunline Transit Agency specifications including a custom non-advertising bus shelter consistent with project architecture. * Modification of existing traffic signal at the Country Club Drive entry for project entry/exit including interconnect to existing signals to the east and west and provisions for cost sharing (25%) for future energy and maintenance costs. Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with the project. 16. Traffic safety striping on Country Club Drive, Portola Avenue and the proposed interior streets shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 6 RESOLUTION NO, 99-19 17. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 18. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit a Waiver of Parcel Map application for lot line adjustment. 19. As required under the Palm Desert Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground in accordance with the respective utility company recommendation. 20. 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. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA UFC, and UBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 2500 for multi-family and 3000 gpm for assisted living and skilled nursing. 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. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x4"x2-1 /2"x2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000 feet elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow. 7 RESOLUTION NO.99-19 6. 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. NFPA 13R will not be recognized on any buildings. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/ or California Fire Code. Minimum requirements is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are requires for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (UFC Sec. 14.103 (a)) 10. 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. 1 1 . 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. 12. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 13. Whenever access into a private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard house 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 8 RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 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 hall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 14. 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. 15. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 16. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 17. 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. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 99-19 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 98-21 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Royce International Investments Co. Michael G. LaMelza 249 Las Entradas Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93108 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 161-bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 villa units and 182 casita units on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 RESOLUTION NO. 99-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SENIOR OVERLAY TO 75 ACRES SOUTHWEST OF PORTOLA AND COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. CASE NO. GPA 98-6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 1 th day of February, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO. for the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 1912 has recommended approval of Case No. GPA 98-6; 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 and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify its actions, as described below: 1 . The Senior Overlay designation will have no more impact than existing land use designation based on PP/CUP 98-21 . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby approve GPA 98-6 as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this iltbday of February , 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Benson, Crites, Ferguson, Kelly, Spiegel NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California . 1 _I ..., , ( - -_ ' _+ _ - ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦D i Jr } GIMP ,= 144444444444 • • + • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ` 11 1 - (i) /'♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ --QS ♦ • ♦ • • • ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ or r — J • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • • ♦ ♦ ♦ 14' ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ _ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I0ó0 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I0000000 q -0000000 10000000 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ 0000000 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ `- • • • • • • i o i • • • 1 . ■ /�� it/ , J `P , • • • • ✓• • • • • • • • • • • •••a•a.a•✓••••••••••••.•••• ••1 rt A►40 ♦••••• •••••I•••••••••••••a•• •.1 �..._ S . . . . I 1114 • • • • • • 1 ti �•••••••••✓•••••••••••••••�• S1► • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • y i • • • • • ✓• a • • • • • • •F. ,• • • • • I • • • • • • . • • • . . . . .✓ . . . . Ir. f1IAon - ' •••• •• •m•• - 1 • __.__ __ _ 5 . 0 ,,,,,... . . I 0 / A DO 41 °23. :ti:'' I ! •••� ••• s --••r :: • '• .•, •••�•••••�•�•�•�• •• •�•••�••••••••`•�•�•, i di4--- •••••-•••••• 6. 1 •••••••••• ••••••••••• • .;,.. ;s •••••••••••••••••••••' •• •••••••••• . ••••••••••• .� ........ 4 ••••••••••• 1• 000000000x,�_ ` .s. ••••••••••• 41111 00000000o00000_, • r 00000000000000c 1 a a .• "+•/ , • 000000000000000 • 0000000000000000 4 1 4 1 •y0e.. I000000000000000.1 a I 1 / 000oDo.., •• 000000000000000a / 1 1 4 2-00000rr OOa1 `rs .• 000000000000000.1 1 1 • a000000(7 boo �� e•J0000000000000000 1 1 1 I, o i _ • 1 1 1 I000000 1 1 R000 1 1 • 1 1 0000000 J • • 00000 .. M - ` :w• R 1 1 • 1 00000000 6200000100000. •0000001 00000000000( q I�F • 1 / 1 I •0000000 M 500000�0000000 . f+j1 I • • • 1 00000Qp000000 Sc ` 0 000000000 0000000 • < < 4 1'00000001 •00000000000000 000000 •ool: 0 1,MOO OF •0000000100000000000000D o�0000000 HS o001 D00 I .•I •..... I ..... 0000000000000000000000Q0000000 •000 1....____T____,,, CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. GPA 96'4CITY COUNCIL 0, ;: 1 GEN. PLAN AMEND. RESOLUTION NO. 99-18 7' �, - o Date , ,_ / - 1r_ . ,,... „ , ©MV (Dg iEJ0UN D e-sert \f % ,.��- 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. PP/CUP 98-21, C/Z 98-7, GPA 98-6 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO., INC., for approval of: a general plan amendment from low density residential to senior overlay, zone change from planned residential five dwelling units per acre to senior overlay, a precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 260 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 apartment units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. A.P.N.'s 622-020-052 and 068 1. ��IJJ ultu/ I _- '_---1-—1 ...._.J'R L6 I ts: Tj,'r� P.R..7 ...it., 6 P p. [ . 2 \ u I��/I1IFuIIiIIiIiF /� *1 no Hit LMn11U 11 f., .1 �- 1 j�' 1:1 av . , ..-• I riac' ,tOM�LLIt�� • • ti { Iq.:I III 51'111N11,_ :0)1-w -f..• . ; '.••I1 1' III• .•.,111 .il„I•.:I',1 1 :L `t P.R.—� 1Ili" P.A.-6 ; � t 11� /� .�7,yf®1X.:10;,- '�A: _ .... la y rf _..aC qPI 111'' •1:III •---_ •r- -.I.V2. l4eWxlt_...•'gt•'1 • SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 11, 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 . January 27, 1999 City of Palm Desert, California I) ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY 249 Las Entradas Drive Santa Barbara,CA 93108 Phone 805-969-3927 Fax 805-969-4336 City of Palm Desert Re: Villa Portofino a Health and Wellness Resort for Seniors Villa Portofino is envisioned as a luxury resort for seniors. The beautiful 75 acre site is situated on Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue offering spectacular mountain views and providing a resort-like setting. Villa Portofino will consist of many components to ensure the highest quality of life for all of its residents. Centrally located will be a 30,000 sq. ft beautifully appointed Clubhouse which will provide a wealth of amenities and activities for the residents. They include: • Receptionist • Arts And Crafts Studio • Common Lounge • Beauty And Barber Shop • General Store • Billiard Room • Library • Theatre • Conference Room(2) • Computer Room • Main Dining Room • Ice Cream Parlor Including Bakery • Private Dining Rooms(3) • Bank/Safe Deposit Boxes • Kitchen • Executive Offices • Card And Game Room • Marketing Offices • Gift Shop • Resident Services Office • Chapel • Wood Working & Lapidary Shop In addition, we will have a 5,000 sq. ft professionally supervised Fitness Center which will include: • Fitness Equipment • Indoor Padded Track • Spa • Steam Rooms Other amenities on site will include: • 18 Hole Putting Golf Course • 1.5 Mile Scenic Walkway • Swimming Pool/Spa • Shuffleboard Courts • Greenhouse • Bocci Court • Croquet Villa Portofino will provide four levels of residency: First -- Individual casitas for those wishing independent living within a resort atmosphere, retaining the same quality life style which they have previously enjoyed. These casitas are beautifully designed for seniors incorporating state-of- the-art safety features including a 24-hour emergency call service that will be directly tied into the on-site health facility. The casitas range in size from 1,400 to 1,800 sq. ft with patios and consist of two attached dwellings. There will be a total of 182 one-story casitas (91 twins). Second -- Luxury villa suites including all of the amenities of the individual casitas. A deluxe 900 sq. ft one bedroom, or a 1,200 sq. ft two bedroom, two bathroom villa are offered. The garden villas will have patios while the penthouse villas will have private balconies. There will be a total of 12 villas per building (24 two- story bldg.). Third -- Assisted living suites for those individuals requiring a small degree of help in their daily lives(ie: dressing, bathing, medication, etc.). There will be a total of 150 rooms (in a one and two-story bldg.). Fourth -- A skilled nursing facility for those in need of more constant attention and medical assistance. There will be a total of-l..private and semi-private rooms (in a one and two-story bldg.). (6, Significantly, being totally self-contained, this project will have little or no impact upon local services such as schools, streets, police and fire protection. Royce International Investment Company has never developed a facility such as Villa Portofino. To the best of our knowledge, this Four Level Resort for Seniors including the healthcare component has never been done on this scale. When completed, "Villa Portofino"will be a"State of the Art" facility and the Finest Resort for Senior for future years to come. Royce International Investment Company has engaged William E. Snyder as construction manager during construction and upon completion as a permanent resident and Property Manager in charge of all buildings (Maintenance& Operations). • Villas • Casitas • Assisted Living • Skilled Care Mr. Snyder has been Project Manager and has constructed numerous projects. • Merrill Lynch Corp. Campus 1.1 mill s.f. $125,000,000 • American United Life Bldg. 40 Stories 1.25 mill s.f. $130,000,000 • One Liberty Place 63 Stairs 63 Stories 1.5 mill s.f. $100,000,000 • St. John Mercy Medical Center • Ball Memorial Hospital • St. Elizabeth Hospital • Alexian Brothers Hospital • Brook Haven Medical Center • Dana Memorial Hospital Royce International Investment Company has engaged Vijaya M. Seinivasas a highly experience and knowledgeable Health Care professional in both Skilled Nursing and Assisted Living facilities. Mrs. Vijaya Seinvasas will be Villa Portofino Executive Director/Administrator in the Skilled Nursing Facility and will oversee the Assisted Living Facility. • Mrs. Vijaya has 20 yrs. Experience in Acute long-term& Subacute Care Environments. • Expertise as a Professional Development Consultant, Special Project Director, long- term Care Facility Administrator and Business Manager. • Administrated approximately 1,400 beds and 1500 employees, oversaw all internal operations, strategic planning, budgeting, cost containment, fiscal management, quality control, quality of life monitoring for Residents, human resources, marketing and compliance with State, County and Federal Regulations. • Regional Operations Director • $60 Million in Annual Revenue • Maintained Patient Census 96.8% • Deficiency Free Survey (Federal & State) • Licensed Nursing Home Administrator • Licensed Assisted Living Administrator If you have any additional questions, please call Royce International Investment Company (805) 969-3927. 12/30/98 WED 08:52 FAX 602 944 5500 RIMLEY HORN & ASSOC. PHX @j002 ra. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. December 30, 1998 Michael LaMelza ■ Royce International Investment Company suite 250 249 Las Entradas Drive 7600 N.15th Street Santa Barbara,CA 93108 Phoenix Arizona a5020 Re: Trip Generation Analysis for VILLA PORTOFINO,Palm Desert,California. Dear Mr. LaMelza, A trip generation analysis was performed for the aforementioned health and wellness resort for seniors. The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the number of trips that the proposed development would generate when fully occupied. Due to the limited amount of data related to the trip generation characteristics of retirement communities, counts were performed at a similar facility in north Scottsdale,Arizona. These counts were combined with rates from the ITE's Trip Generation Manual to obtain an estimate of the trip ends anticipated at Villa Portofino. Both the method of analysis and the conclusions are discussed in this memorandum_ • EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is bordered on the north by Country Club Drive and to the east by Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California. A plan for this location has been approved consisting of 241 single-family housing lots and 162 apartments on 80.6 total gross acres. A total of 3,434 daily trip ends can be expected under this land- use assumption, with 262 and 324 trip ends occurring in the AM and PM peak hours,respectively,as shown in Table 1. These trip ends may be used as a basis of comparison for Villa Portofino,as they represent the potential for generating trips that are already expected at the site. Table 1—Trip Generation for Approved Plan II jI� o (I{ r- I�:-..�_.....0 241 D"_"U w�Aii.:Ii .L.I,<, rI �I. 1 i ..I:.Fnr] igai SFD 133 178 140n. 78 218 Apartments Mial DU 1,105 =I 71 84 71 gm 106 TOTAL MIN Egg Ea 204 262 211 113 324 Single-Family Detached Housing(GI'Edition) Daily(1FE 210) Ln(T)=0.920 x In(DU)+2.707 (50%in,50%out) AM Peak Hour(1TE 210) T=0.700 x(DUs)+9.477 (25%In,75%out) PM Pcnk Hour(ITE 210) T=0.901 x(DUs)+0.527 (64%in,36%out) Apartments(6"Edition) Daily(ITE 220) T=5.994 x(DUs)+134.114 (50%in,50%out) AM Peak Hour(ITE 220) T=0.497 x(Otis)+3.238 (16%in,84%out) PM Peak Hour(ITE 220) T 0.541 x(DUs)+ 18,743 (67%in,33%out) ■ TEL 602 944 5500 FAX 602 944 7423 12/30/98 WED 08:53 FAX 602 944 5500 KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC. NIX (7j003 �INN rri Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr.Michael LaMclza,December 30, 1998,Page 2 COUNTS FROM A COMPARABLE FACILITY A similar facility is located at the corner of 90th Street and Cactus Road in Scottsdale, Arizona. The trip ends generated by this facility can be used to estimate trips to and from Villa Portofino. The facility consists of 252 retirement suites, an activity center, and a 60-room health center for a total of 312 units. Traffic entering and exiting the site was counted between the hours of 7:00 A.M. -9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. on October 17, 1997. The results of the traffic counts are attached. A summary of the total trips during the observed peak hours is shown in Table 2. Table 2-Entry/Exit Counts for Similar Facility IfC I 1 j1 �� ' .f i i.I _' 0. Assisted 312 Units 59 24 83 22 24 46 Living Suites Trip Rate ■ 71% 29% 0.266 48% 52% 0.147 (In/Out Split) Note that a trip rate for each time period is included in the bottom row of the table. This rate was subsequently applied to the number of units proposed in the Villa Portofino community to estimate future trip ends for the Villas and Casitas suites. The ITE Trip Generation (6th Edition) contains rates for elderly housing and retirement communities. These rates were generated from a limited number of studies conducted in areas with different regional characteristics then the above facility. The ITE rates were compared to the rates calculated above to verify the reasonableness of the calculated rates. The rates calculated in Table 2 more closely represent the anticipated conditions for the Villa Portofmo community than the ITE rates. Traffic counts for the existing facility were only conducted for peak hour periods, therefore, total average daily rates were not calculated based on the existing development. The ITE Trip Generation tables did not have sufficient data for determining a daily rate. The American Seniors Housing Association provides a rate of 1.72/unit for average weekday volumes in a report titled "Assisted Living Residences - A Study of Traffic and Parking Implications". 12/30/98 WED 08:53 FAX 602 944 5500 HIMLEY HORN & ASSOC. PHX lJ 004 Kimley-Hom �•l� 1 and Associates,inc. Mr.Michael L.aMclza,December 30,1998,Page 3 TRIP GENERATION I?OR VILLA PORTOFINO As previously mentioned, a combination of rates was used to estimate the trips that are likely to be developed by the Villa Portofino development. Trips generated by the 288 Villas(2-bedroom)and 182 Casitas(2-bedroom)suites were calculated using the trip rates determined from the similar existing facility(Table 2) with a daily rate of 1.72/suite. The results are shown in Table 3. Table 3 -Trip Generation for Villas and Casitas 1- _... Trip Rate ■ - 1.72 71% 29% 0.286 52% 0.147 (In/Out Split) Villas and 470 Suites 808 89 36 125 33 36 69 Casitas The ITE trip generation rate for nursing homes was used to determine the trip ends generated by the remaining 311 rooms (consisting of 161 skilled nursing rooms and 150 assisted living rooms). Approximately 10% of the rooms in the skilled nursing facility (16 rooms) and 10% of the assisted living rooms (15 rooms) will be reserved for the use of residents of the Villas and Casitas that need medical attention. As a result, the trip generation related to these rooms is already accounted for in the trip generation for the active units. The total units were reduced in the skilled nursing facility to 145 rooms and in the assisted living facility to 135 rooms for the purposes of trip generation. The trip generation results are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Tri Generation for Skilled Nursin and Assisted ^m'-r li.ivin "Fr lCf { 1 . { iPV '1 ,111.6 1 _I4 Ir r P L�r_-"_._ir- _ II `Ip I , � l� f P.-' Le a �1•�•{r1.r� . Skilled Nursing 145 ROOMS' 358 16 9 25 11 18 29 Assisted Living 135 ROOMS' 337 9 23 11 16 27 TOTAL 280 ROOMS' 30 18 Kal 22 34 56 *Assumes one bed per room for trip generation purposes. NursingL_Home(6th Edition) Daily(ITE 620) Ln(T)=0.844 x In(BEDS)+ 1.681 (509%in.50%out) AM Peak Hour(ITE 620) 1'a 0.17 x(BEDS) (62%in,38%out)* PM Peak Hour(ITE 620) T=0.20 x(BEDS) (39%in,61%out) *Directional Distribution based on Occupied Beds data. 12/30/98 WED 08:54 FAX 602 944 5500 RIMLEY HORN & ASSOC. PHX LJ 005 :02~n Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr.Michael LaMclza,December 30,1998,Page 4 CONCLUSIONS The anticipated trips generated by the Villa Portofino community are summarized in Table 5. Table 5 Villa Portofino Trip Generation Comparison 1i e L.7�1 ,ii;,,,,<,lak 4577 I3FI'I1' 1 T li er' r . _-_ —_.... ”;L_.. ._.....I•'! .6..C ;"- — f I b, ,,its 11.I[ _ I i(Ill 1. 4 1 '' Villas&Castles470 SUITES 808 89 — 38 125 3_3 36 69 Skilled Nursing& 280 ROOMS 695 30 18 48 22 34 56 Assisted Living PORTOFINO TOTAL 1,503 119 54 Illa 55 70 liga Approved Plan 3,434 58 204 262 211 113 324 (SFDU&Apartments) Several conclusions may be drawn from the analysis: First, the Villa Portofino community is expected to generate a total of 1,503 trip ends on the average weekday, with approximately 173 and 125 trip ends occurring during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively. These totals were calculated under the assumption that 10% of the assisted living rooms and 10% of the rooms in the skilled nursing facility will be reserved for the residents of the Villas and Caritas. Second, this is lower than the trips that would be generated under the currently approved plan for the site. A residential development consisting of 241 single- family homes and 162 apartments would generate 3,434 trip ends on the average weekday, with 262 and 324 occurring during the A.M. and P.M, peak hours, respectively. The Villa Portofino community represents a 56% decrease in the number of trips generated on a daily basis. If you have any questions or comments regarding these conclusions or the methods on which they were based, do not hesitate to call me or Garth Merrill at (602) 944-5500. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. el.T 4-A Charles R. Wright, P.E. Project Manager 11liOMERWOL21PN1091229001VILLA PORTOFINO\MEMO I2_22_98.00C TAN- 19-99 08 : 19 AM QUALITY MANAGEMENT 7607705749 F. 02 CASA BLANCA OWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF THE DESERT 69.730 Highway 111, Suite #211 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 (619)770-5744 FAX (619)770-5749 Larry Allen Tim Pohlman Alice Safoyan Paul Meltzner Vance Childers President Vice President Seaetary Treasurer Director I' ,'O,.sfi"O i;?;.( !M: :.>?. €;f s`1O€Niii rn'1!ntffi li`.it'. MM;f 2 MN M itMl 1 M:',f`tti January 15, 1999 Mr. Bob Bigler Robert C, Bigler Corporation 23031 N Via Ventosa Scottsdale AZ 85255 - Dear Mr, Bigler: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Casa Blanca Owners Association, we would like to thank you for taking the time to present the Portofino project you have proposed for the land adjacent to Casa Blanca. The Board has taken the time to review your plans and has no opposition to the project as presented. We look forward to a favorable future together as neighbors. Please keep us advised of the progress and any changes that may take place within the planned development. Your continued cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, QUALITY MANAGEMENT OF THE DESERT • FOR CASA BLANCA OWNERS ASSOCIATION 0444.LO, Martha A. Osborne Property Manager mao From the desk of EC E V E D DON PRIMO J4 6-A69 £,f j.ty.5_5709idiUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT kr,�1,/ � 2),e6LL., /i 5 A i-JO uJAJ'JZ ,l (J(/A6. 7� Poe z-o cif o ee-ef1, 7' / 4/4/07- re, 77, 4 GI, �V-,e24:5 off' 77 1 VVCr 145 , £o I.JG 00E C. A it_ 7)46.7._ 6-ppee7y, 4(A-A) 5 'e, d'- 7,6xf U� i wr d 73- S"5 %%iz-'< 0/Z � �- 3sog Dec-30-98 10: 10A Robert C Bigler (60-'I' 502-1798 P.02 • - ',.A111P• i 444' 1 ; 4 4 JOSLYN SENIOR CENTER OF THE COVE COMMUNITIES 4 . 73-750 CATALINA WAY, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 760/340-3220 FAX:760/568-9230 t• ', : :: ).„ 11'; • : ..7 t December 16, 1998 , , 4 ' • 4"1.4,1+ S• • e , I-- Royce International Investment Company 4 — 249 Las Entradas Drive ...., . %. 1 Santa Barbara, CA 93108 . RE: Villa Portofino-A Health&Wellness Resort for Seniors ..1.. . ., ,• Having been in the field of aging for the last 30 years I have never seen a project for older lidults as well prepared as yours. Your focus on independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing facilities as a group functioning together; seems to be right on target The recreation facility is fantastic. The low profile,the use of open space,the aesthetic quality of the project is the best I've 501111 and t have been presented with quite a few(Nonhem to Southern California)! I . I think this Adult Resort for Seniors will be a welcome addition to the City of Palm Desert. •• " Thank you for sharing this wonderful project with us --(,..*! i .0 --. • • . ' I Sincerely, i •, •• i 1., ..4 4 •.1 ' )1A0/1141 61‘44V-ss-s---•- ' I Mary Kucala, MPA Executive Director ..' . .. '';.• ...,.. 1..., , k ' . •- I t. ' . ;,',' ' ' i . • il .1• : .4 L..... : f, • f .. . • SERVING TODA rs SENIORS-AfEEITNG 719MORROW'S CHALLENGES° t . 4 • .‘ : Dec-30-98 10: 10A Robert C Bigler (6n ' 502-1798 P.03 t4y. •` _ - -:F 7607 3-��_►1- BAXLEY PROPERTIES Y.1 02 ,` :i� '193� 1�. .. - - -- s • ,w • .iG ••YY JOSLYN SENIOR CENTER of THE cove COMMUNITIES 73-750 CATA A WAY, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 601 40.3220 FAX:760/S61-9230 5` f It ;;;;I:, i�'•I:, is .41, ' : S • • .';.: = December 16, 199$ I ,• i •i ..:,_ . . t .'', Royce International Investment Compoy ' ` '1— 249 Las Entrada'Drive `1,, Santa Barbara,CA 93108 •`i' `' - RE Villa Portofino-A Health&Wellness Resort for Seniors 1 The Joslyn board members we impr+wsed with your pt+eseetation on the above project arbor "f. ' board meeting on Tuesday, December 15, )998. $ ... y We are in favor of♦complex that will aster to the need.of older adults in this cotentij ld we .- •..,...'•,::-.41. do not see anything wrong with your concept t, y., a I; Please keep us informed on the propene of your finalising these plain. ` E Sincerely 1.311V iiiandeiv4- e ,.,,..,,,„-. ,. . . ,, 1 . ,,,.., . ' ' ' Dr. Herbert lAaeoby , . President "3, ,. Joslyn Board of Directors tbl ', ' i i ' 9 rr•i.h t ................. CITY OF PIILffl DESERT • 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE rum PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 !O� ls y TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org January 13, 1999 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO.: PP/CUP 98-21, GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO. for PORTOFINO, 249 Las Entradas Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a health and wellness resort for seniors LOCATION: Southwest corner of Country Club and Portola Avenue ZONE: PR-5 Upon reviewing the plans submitted by the applicant and recommendations by staff, the Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the plans as submitted. Date of Action: January 12, 1999 Vote: Carried 5-0 (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be resubmitted to the Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meetings agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. MEMBERS : • • Desert hot Springs Rancho Mirage Indio Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella Cathedral City Indian Wells Riverside County La Quinta TRANSIT A C f N C Y A Public Agency November 13, 1998 Mr. Phil Joy Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Case#: C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 Name/Title: Portofino; Royce International Investments Location: Southwest corner of Country Club Dr. and Portola Description: Health Club and Wellness Resort for Seniors, 288 Apartments, 182 Casita Units, 260 bed nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility. Dear Mr. Joy: Thank you for your recent communication regarding the project described above. Sunline Transit Agency already provides service via route 50, but would like to recommend improvements as indicated on the enclosed development map. Recommendations are for amenities which include a concrete bus stop pad, a paved "turnout" area, the construction of a shelter with night lighting equipped with a bench, kiosk and trash receptacle. If possible, incorporating landscaping into the scheme of any of the items provided above will enhance the site for the transit user and passersby. A copy of Sunline's recommended turnout dimensions is provided as a resource to the city and/or the developer. Again, thank you for the opportunity to make a recommendation regarding this development. Please do not hesitate to contact this department for any other additional information. Sincerely, cr52!A. QnQ �a Leslie Grosjean Transportation Analyst 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845 GRADING and . UKAINAUL I-) LA1\1 NOVEMBER 1998 .. ,, , . . l i R �� pp � s #.`� gat ' r ;� _ r ' .,I r. i 'I ' 111; t "-S C ; 1J�• ill t ;+ f , } t 1 fix._ ! _ .��:.:. .it. . j iti 1 :.., i �..:.. .. % . COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE _ - - - - NIMINNI ._ OM. �r .� UM rra =MO Near driNraMMINI. Ia ... 41=IMMMOMMONENt ••.,. • 20 LANDSCAPE EA5 • ti t _ r 41,111 \ 6 k\ I\ N ‘, Q. il i V. . \ it r • �C\ 1111111 111114111111 11401 \\\\ 1110 . 4y �� . IIIIIT MEMBERS : • U f 'i g Co IIIIIIIIc :icy Indian Wells Palm Springs Coachella Indio Rancho Mirage Desert Hot Springs La Quinta Riverside County Palm Desert T H A N S' I r A O f N Ti Y A Public Agency • APPENDIX 2 RECOMMENDED TURNOUT DIMENSIONS 40'MIN. +,.r 50, >.40'MIN. > AO'DES. 60'DES. SO'-100'I CCRETE PAD A 50'-100'R ISIDRO s'• 12'1>E5 25''54 t v M0 I11S STOP SIGN POOH IUS STOP -► NOT TO SCALE. 8 FOOT SIDEWALK IS MINIMUM FOR ADA peceieration / Acceleration Standing 40 foot minimum for low speed and low volume streets 60 foot desirable for high speed and high volume streets Bus Berth For each additional pass through bus berth add 50 feet, and for each additional layover bus berth add 80 feet. Concrete Pad 10 foot minimum concrete pad for low speed and low volume streets 12 foot desirable concrete pad for high speed and high volume streets Concrete pad should be a minimum of 11 inches thick. LC3-1P.CDR/PM5 2-96 32-SOS Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 619-343-3456 Fax 619-343-3845 Desert arings MEMBERS Rancho Mirage Indio II 11 I g Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella Cathedral City Indian Wells Riverside County La Quint° TRANSIT 4 G f N C I A Public Agency 14 20 feet H 16 feet I .•,:.'!:.! 4 inches thick CEMENT PAD Overall Dimensions Twenty (20) feet by sixteen (16) feet Four (4) inches thick CEMENT PAD will be concrete. The finished structure will be free of any significant internal air bubbles /jagged edges. Cement pad will have a semi-smooth finish and will weigh approximately 1000 pounds. SunLine Transit Agency will be responsible for the maintenance of the cement pad, benches, trash receptacles, and signs. Trash removal will be provided on a daily basis. Any damaged or graffiti covered cement pads, benches, trash receptacles, or signs will be cleaned up, replaced or repaired within a 72 hour period. LGIRCDR REV 7/88 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845 00*ATE&` ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC NCY 1)/STRICT COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 •COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 •TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE BUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN W. MtFADDEN November 30, 1998 OWENMcCOOK,ASSISTANTGENERALMANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH File: 0163.1 RECEIVEr Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert "- 1 1998 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 titsU4; Z,V LniENT()EPnFIi(ricr,� Cirf OF PALM DESERT Gentlemen: Subject: Change of Zone 98-7, Plot Plan/Conditional Use Permit 98-21, Portion of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 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. The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water and sanitation systems. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs, booster pumping stations, and sewerage facilities. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose The district requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the district. Installation of the interceptor will be inspected by the district. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Department of Communit, ..avelopment -2- November 30, 1998 The district requires detail, repair and lube auto shops and car washes to install an oil and sand separator, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the oil and sand separator will be determined by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the district. Installation of the oil and sand separator will be inspected by the district. The district requires laundromats and commercial establishments with laundry facilities to install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the district. Installation of the lint trap will be inspected by the district. 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 Dan Farris, principal stormwater engineer, extension 264. 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 DEF:dn\eng\sw\nov\cup9821 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT : lNiiiL£ 4,41 CRY Fca0m Desalt :e 3::•• 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO(S) :e/Z %- 7 / - v Qfl-2 I PROJECT: r?. To Fi Nic APPLICANT: 12,p�(CE 1f\r-FatNPTlor,1Pl.. IN1/-E57N1EntT.5 cp. INC, Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: 2o,Qs5- 4{P• J F1 OPA -5 -� Se�1toR 0\PE•2LA ' P..r1) PN NEA ENE(-LNES5 -re SO T Ce5 C.. '.is'S7'AJ : 2 88 Nam. -tn -►�T vN tT S 1 zg z Cad CTP.vN IT,S, z(0o b SKI Nu12S/N6.. A"'1) 15tD ASs 1517 'FAcILcrl (5N 7S Ac t So..T+\w� Sr 'F "R'sRToLP PovE RNA CoV`1T72y CL tiJT3 "p•12, w t j pc Nc--16.-�T1vE LA'YPtTI. (. F tENvt' o/s/n ,N,r-.kL 1m-poP+c-r- A7>r\J k (o2.Z -dzo -oSZ+ CC(8 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval . The city is interested in the probable impacts on the environment ( including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of approval based on your expertise and area of concern. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5 :00 p.m. l\—Z-D' 9 3 , to the attention of ?I- () Jos/ in order to be considered. Sincerely, PHILIP DRELL, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm Attachment PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS 1;400C". � lLLE1 1yv�RStt�lla T,k.LtN -FA LLs v kor:R. TIE 1/430RISPILtl0m OS•NPD, Cc.c.upoti4L• MI-(Pb a;.0 g-r �T NSI-4. Retycle0 Pape. —.JVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FO 1 . Project Title: Portofino 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: Phil Joy, Associate Planner Department of Community Development (760) 346-061 1 ext. 489 4. Project Location: 75 acres southwest of Portola and Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA, Riverside County 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Royce International Inv. Co. Inc. c/o Robert Bigler Corp. 23031 N. Via Ventosa Scottsdale, AZ 85255 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: Service Industrial 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.) Senior citizens health and wellness resort. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) NORTH: MOBILE HOME PARK SOUTH: SINGLE FAMILY HOMES EAST & SOUTH: CONDOMINIUMS WEST: APARTMENTS 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 1 OF 12 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signature Date Tfif L J07 Printed Name For CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 2 of 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and'briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). • 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been - adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Potentially Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact • Impact Incorporated Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ �' souRCE(S): , g, b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ a soURCE(s): I / c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ❑ TZr soURCE(S): l , . . CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 3 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? SOURCE(S): 9, ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? SOURCE(S): l t ❑ ❑ ❑ II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? sOURCE(S): I 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? SOURCE(S): I 2 i 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ EfC SOURCE(s): 3 / 11 III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? SOURCE(S): / g ❑ 0 0 b) Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(S): 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? SOURCE(S): l/2 ❑ 0 ❑ d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(S): I / Z ❑ 0 0 e) Landslides or mudflows? soURCE(S): I 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? soURCE(s): 10 ❑ El C1TY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 4 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact g) Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S): �b ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? SouRCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑i) Unique geologic or physical features? SOURCE(s): ► , 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? SouRCE(s): 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? SOURCE(S): (U / ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or • turbidity)? SOURCE(S): (� ❑ 0 ❑ • d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? SOURCE(S): r 2 / `r ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? SOURCE(S): l 1 ID ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations pr through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? SOURCE(S): (/ a ❑ 0 0 JEC g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (� ❑ 0 0 SouRCE(s): CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 5 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact h) Impacts to groundwater quality? SOURCE(s): /( ❑ ❑ ❑ , 2 i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? SOURCE(S):/( ❑ ❑ ❑ V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? soURCE(s): rj ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? SOURCE(S); ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? SOURCE(S): ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create objectionable odors? sOURCE(S): 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ ET VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: - a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? soURCE(s): )3 / ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? SOURCE(s): 5 ❑ ❑ 0 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ souRCE(s): 1 d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ • soURCE(s): t e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? CI 1E1 SOURCE(S): I , a CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 6 of 12 Potentially Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SOURCE(S): 1 a , 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? sOURCE(S): I,3 ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plaits, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? SOURCE(S): (6 ❑ El ❑ b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ SOURCE(s): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, • coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(s): /..L ❑ ❑ ❑ • d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ El ❑ soURCE(s): 1, /0, 3 . e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? soURCE(s): ❑ ❑ ❑ VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ soURCE(s): J- • b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? SOURCE(S): 4_ ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 7 of 12 • Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? sOURCE(s): !� ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? soURCE(s): ( /2 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(S): 1 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? sOURCE(S): l , 2 ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? soURCE(S): , 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? SOURCE(S): a / 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(S): I I 2 ❑ ❑ 1E' ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? SOURCE(s): 13 ❑ ❑ 0 XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? SOURCE(S): / ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 8 of 12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Police protection ? SOURCE(S): 11 ❑ ❑ IZI E c) Schools? SOURCE(S): J_ ❑ ❑ ❑ S- d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ K SouRCE(s): Go e) Other governmental services? $OURCE(S): /1, ❑ ❑ K ❑ 1. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the .E proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? sOURCE(S): (-7 G, ❑ ❑ 0 b) Communications systems? SOURCE(S): , 15 ❑ ❑ ❑ g c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution , facilities? SOURCE(S): It ❑ 0 0 d) Sewer or septic tanks? soURCE(S): L I ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 e) Storm water drainage? SouRCE(s): / 1C7 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S): I 0 0 ❑ Er g) Local or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S): (,I ❑ ❑ 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S): 1, V,3 0 ❑ ❑ Er CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page9of12 Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant , Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? soURCE(s): ❑ ❑ �[ ❑ c) Create light or glare? soURCE(s): 2 ❑ ❑ 44- ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(S): 5 ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? SOURCE(S): S ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? soURCE(s): 5" ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? soURCE(s): s ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? soURCE(S): s ❑ ❑ ❑ XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ 0 0 • SOURCE(S): • b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ • soURCE(s): CITY/1997/139904 FORM "J" Page 10 of 12 XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this case a discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The North Sphere Specific Plan and EIR was prepared for the City and adopted/certified by the City Council. The plan included this property. The North Sphere Specific Plan and its appendices are available for review between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department at City Hall at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. All impacts were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the North Sphere Specific Plan and EIR. Identified effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe, on attached sheets, the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. The property is in the fee area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan the developer has been conditioned to pay a mitigation fee of $600 per acre. This mitigation is specific to this project. CITY/RVPUB/1998/32095 PAGE 11 OF 12 FORM "J" Potentially Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major proceeds of California history or prehistory? ry ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? CI c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ❑ ❑ ❑ Z d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ CITY/I997/139904 FORM "J" Page 12 of 12 LEGEND OF SOURCES 1 . City of Palm Desert General Plan 2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance 3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development 4. Visual inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development staff 5. Cultural Resource Identification and Recommendations for the North Sphere Specific Plan for the City of Palm Desert 6. Palm Desert Northern Sphere Area Specific Plan Circulation Report 7. Northern Sphere Specific Area Plan Technical Studies 8. (Intentionally not used) 9. City of Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage 10. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance 11 . Coachella Valley Water District • 12. Sunline Transit 13. North Sphere Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report 14. Riverside County Fire Department 15. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch 16. Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed lizard Conservation Plan 17. Palm Springs Unified School District MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 1999 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. rAJ-t SUS."ECT TO • VII. CONSENT CALENDAR � R0VISi;1"1 None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 - ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO., Applicant (Continued from January 5, 1999) Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to senior overlay, zone change from planned residential five dwelling units per acre to senior overlay, a precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 161 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 apartment units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Mr. Joy noted that the applicant submitted plans for a health and wellness resort. He said it appeared to be a first class resort for senior citizens ages 62 and up. What it made it first class to him was the amount of security and the blending of the architecture in the project. The other unique aspect of the project was the amount of health care facilities within the complex and assistance that seniors would receive. The different types of housing would provide a transition in living so that as seniors progress it would not necessitate a move as they grow older. They could stay within the 75-acre complex. The first type of housing would be the most independent living aspect of the project, the casita units, which ranged up to 1 ,800 square feet and they would be located in the southern part of the project adjacent to the 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1, JANUARY 19, 1999 b n � SU^SECT TO REVIS;CAN CA id Casablanca and Sonata projects. They would be single story structures scattered in clusters. The higher density portion of the project would be located along the northern part of the project along Country Club Drive. Those would be scattered two story villas also in clusters with the same blending in architecture. The units would have 24 hour security and 24 hour emergency calling service directly related to the medical facilities. In between the casitas and villas would be a clubhouse and fitness center which further added to the uniqueness of the project. It would provide everything anyone would need so they would never have to leave the premises. Further along Portola Avenue would be the assisted living facility along the southern part of Portola and that would be for seniors needing a little more assistance as part of their daily functions. Further north along Portola would be the skilled nursing facility directly behind the fire station which would have extensive medical facilities and more trained staff for people needing more medical care. For the skilled nursing facility and assisted living facility, a height exception was being requested for an architectural projection in the lobby area. The city's architectural committee approved it and he felt it really added a statement to the overall project. All along the street frontages of the project, Portola and Country Club Drive, would be a generous 32 foot landscaped area for the eight-foot meandering sidewalk which helped it blend in. Staff felt the impacts of a project like this would be minimum and certainly less than the existing approved project. He pointed out that the existing approval included 241 single family houses and 162 apartments with no age restrictions. The applicants provided a traffic study and city staff reviewed the studies and found that there would be up to 50% less traffic generated by the proposed project than the existing approved project. Included with the project would be a much needed bus stop at the project entrance across the street from Palm Desert Greens. An issue that the existing approved project didn't address were the oleanders behind Casablanca. None of the previous project approvals mentioned the oleanders and what would be done with them. He found out that the oleanders were planted and maintained by Casablanca but actually sat on this piece of property. The existing project with a normal single family tract would probably necessitate the removal of the oleanders. Single family houses only required a 20-foot setback and the oleanders were probably 20 feet wide by themselves so no one would want their whole backyards to be oleanders so they would be removed and the oleanders would have to be moved onto Casablanca property or they would lose that buffer. It was conditioned that the oleanders would have to remain, at least during grading to help mitigate any kind of dust impact from the wind that might occur, but also to provide 3 MIUTES acme PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION . SUP!ECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 1 REVIS;3N a buffer for the project itself. The applicants indicated that they reached agreement with Casablanca as far as retaining the oleanders, but he was informed right before the meeting by the President of Casablanca that there might be some mis-communication in this regard and what kind of agreement had been worked out and the President would be addressing the commission himself. The other thing staff required on the project with respect to grading along the whole southern boundary was to make sure it would conform and found a discrepancy behind the Sonata project and in those instances pads were lowered as much as five feet to make them more compatible with existing pad heights in Sonata. Staff received a letter of approval from a Sonata resident supporting the project. Other letters of support were received from the Joslyn Cove Senior Citizens Complex and a letter from the Casablanca Homeowners Association from their property management company and he was informed by the Association President that he did not know of that letter going out. The President could address that later. The project was continued previously because the property owner list supplied to staff only included half of Casablanca and that was corrected and notices were sent to the names/owners that were on the latest equalized rolls for the balance of Casablanca that had not been notified. He said it was possible that some of the rolls might be old also, but at this point in time he believed the project was no secret to anyone within the Casablanca project. The applicant met with representatives from Casablanca. Staff insisted that the applicant meet with all the adjacent homeowner associations in the area. As required by law, residents must be notified either by newspaper, property posting or mailing to adjacent property owners. Palm Desert notifies in the newspaper and also mailing, more than satisfying state requirements. With that, Mr. Joy asked for any questions and indicated that staff felt this would be a worthwhile project for the city and recommended approval. Commissioner Lopez announced that he would be abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a rendering of the main entryway on Country Club Drive. Mr. Joy noted there was a booklet of renderings. Commissioner Jonathan said he reviewed the renderings but didn't see one for the main entryway and indicated he would direct his question to the applicant. Chairperson Campbell asked if staff felt comfortable with the traffic study that was done. Mr. Greenwood stated that he hadn't had the opportunity to 4 MINUTES tlA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r ,• • SUWECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 _ REVISION review either of the traffic studies that were submitted and had only taken a cursory review. He concurred that this project would probably result in less traffic than the previously approved project. Chairperson Campbell noted that the public hearing was still open from January 5, 1999 and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. ROBERT BIGLER, President of Bigler Corporation in Scottsdale. Mr. Bigler informed commission that also attending the meeting were Wilson Jones of Jones & Mah Architects in Scottsdale, Mike Smith of Warner Engineering, and Michael LaMelza of Royce International, their client. He stated that the first drawing in the booklet was of the site plan. Their major entrance was off Country Club at the existing signalization going into Palm Desert Greens. They didn't have a rendering of the guard house at the entry. The second drawing was of the recreation building, which was the first building which would be seen after entering. That was a 30,000 square foot building: 25,000 on one level and 5,000 on the other. It had just about anything anyone would want from a general store to shops and a restaurant and snack stands. For the pool area there they were discussing the possibility of having half of it indoors and half outdoors. He felt this project was unique and to their knowledge there was nothing like this in the country. What they had found in studies was that with seniors one of the traumatic things seniors would have to do was move when they are 75 or 80 years old from one facility to another and losing the friends they have made and moving across town to become familiar with another new environment. They set this up with the idea that someone could move in at 62 or 65 and be able to stay there the rest of their days in a very nice resort environment. The first entry level was to the south with just one story. They wanted to more closely correspondence with the residential areas to the south and there were 182 casitas there. The casitas range from 1 ,400 to 1 ,800 square feet. They were trying to make them as residential as possible with clusters of 10-12 units in each cluster. The parking was not inside the cluster, but outside it. They wanted to create a pedestrian atmosphere around those units. They designed the units themselves to have front porches and back porches for places for people to congregate. They wanted a sense of community and a place for people to talk to their neighbors. They wanted to cluster the units around a central courtyard so that people could get to know their 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �* SUS!ECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 x REVISi3N neighbors. The Fire Department was concerned about how they would get the emergency vehicles in and they worked that out. There was a drive to take them back in there. They weren't saying there wouldn't be cars going back in those clusters, but that wasn't where the parking would be. If someone had to drop off groceries, or whatever, they could do that in the cluster and then move the car out to covered parking. The next level up if someone didn't want to have 1 ,400-1,800 square feet, they could go into the villas. The villas would be two stories and there would be elevators in every one of the clusters to take people to the upper level. Now they were getting into a smaller unit, 900 to 1 ,200 square feet. They were using a very Mediterranean style of architecture. He mentioned that they were particularly concerned about what the impact those units would have because they were two stories against Country Club and what would happen to the people on the other side of the street looking across. He stated that every one of those clusters was sunk down three to five feet below the curb of Country Club so they mitigated their height from anyone passing by and also mitigated any obstruction to the view lines that the people on the north side of Country Club would have. That was very well received when they met with Palm Desert Greens and there were about 300 people at a meeting there a couple of weeks ago and they were very impressed that they would be doing that for them. The third level of the project was the 150 patient room assisted living complex in the lower right-hand corner of the site plan. That would be a two-story building, but what happened was that because of the terrain there the first level was ground level, the second level was actually underneath proceeding down the hill. If they were to enter from Portola they would come in at grade, but the second floor was actually underneath them as they went down the hill. The finished floor was about the same as the Portola entrance. As they got farther down the hill, they were actually down below the curb height of Portola. The fourth level of the project was the skilled nursing center. That had 161 patient rooms. It would be a two-story building but they sank it down below the street. They were actually seven to eight feet lower than Portola (someone spoke from the audience and told him it was ten feet). He said what was significant about that was that the second floor of that building was actually four feet lower than the finished floor of the fire station. Not the first floor, but the second floor. He said they tried very hard to mitigate any kind of problem they would have from the adjacent 6 MINUTES 1 SUS'ECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION f;El1ISA JANUARY 19, 1999 neighbors. As Phil Joy pointed out, the area down to the south, they were lowering the grade down there sometimes six to eight feet to bring the grade of that right down to the level of the neighbors next door so that they didn't have a situation of looking over into their backyards. Across Country Club they did the same thing and lowered the buildings down. What they were particularly concerned about, and they were trying to nestle this down into the site, was what the big buildings looked like (the skilled nursing center and assisted living) from the street. He said that with the skilled nursing center the operative word was nursing. He didn't want the commission to confuse this with a hospital because it wasn't. Hospitals have surgery, x-rays, diagnostic laboratories and a lot of things these buildings wouldn't have. They didn't even have a full time doctor. It was nursing and was a convalescent center. People would go to Eisenhower and would come back to this facility to convalesce on their way back to their casitas if that was the case or stay in there permanently if they were in the later stages of their life. They have run into this before when people see skilled nursing center and think hospital. He said that wasn't the case here. Mr. Bigler demonstrated on their renderings the buildings that would be seen from Portola if they could be seen. He had an overlay that showed what would happen when they looked at the buildings from the curb. He said they were doing some berming along Portola, but the whole idea was to make these buildings nestle down into the site. He showed the view from Country Club and said that it impressed Palm Desert Greens. He felt that with the street scape the view of the buildings went away. He indicated the project would have security all the way around it and they were anticipating putting in the berms and then gently weaving a wrought iron fence through the berms and through the landscaping. One of the things that impressed on him coming into Palm Desert the first time was coming down Country Club and looking at all the walls lining the roads. He didn't want to do that. He wanted to make this as quiet as possible and make it interesting to people passing by. Further to the west, the project opened up and they would leave the berms out at that spot so that people could look into the green areas of the site. He also showed the renderings to the audience, pointing out the difference of the view before and after the berming. He said their idea was to make it so that about all that could be seen were the roofs. He told commission that they have tried very hard. They liked the site with the views off of it and they tried to be as 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 1999 • SUBJECT TO p ff��CCtt/I x y FJ a REVISli.�1� sensitive as they could to their neighbors. As Mr. Joy noted, they have met with the neighboring associations, with the Joslyn Center, with Palm Desert Greens across the road and have every reason to believe they have gotten a good response from them. They tried very hard to make this one of the finest projects of its kind anywhere. Some of the things they have done in terms of open space, under Palm Desert's ordinance they were required to provide 40% which would be 30 acres, and they have 67% open space. The buildings themselves were only occupying 19% of the site trying to retain the site in viable form. They have retention areas, engineering problems that have to be faced, and on the site plan they used those areas for lakes and water features throughout the site. One of the fire department requirements was access to all sides of the buildings. When it came to the assisted living and skilled nursing center that got more difficult because of the size of the buildings and they didn't want to have asphalt going all the way around so they worked out with them the idea of using a grass creek- hard surface lawn that goes around the buildings so that they could in an emergency drive their trucks in there and drive on something that was stable but not a sea of asphalt. He said they did a traffic study and Kimley-Horne was one of the best traffic engineers in the country. They have about 25 offices all across the country. Their analysis on this site came up with 56% less traffic than what would otherwise be generated by the existing zoning on the property. He asked for any questions. Commissioner Finerty asked Mr. Bigler if this would be a Medical certified facility. Mr. Bigler said that was a legal part he wasn't too sure of. The skilled nursing center would have to be certified by the state. He wasn't familiar with the California laws to tell them exactly what that certification was. That was the only part of the project that would be required to have certification. Commissioner Finerty clarified that by Medical certified what she was looking at was a financial impact--that the project would be certified to take in people who pay a portion of the daily rate and that would be supplemented by money from Medical. 8 MINUTES ems, IZT14111 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' C SUJECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 -' REVISiN He said he didn't know the answer to that and referred the question to the project's administrative consultant. MS. BIJAYA SRINIVASA stated that she was from New Jersey and explained that normally in a skilled facility people would come in with a portion of the funding and Medical would be used for a portion of the funding. Other places used Medicare. Commissioner Finerty clarified that for the skilled nursing they would be applying for Medical. Ms. Srinivasa concurred and said in some cases Medicare. Commissioner Finerty noted that Mr. Bigler mentioned that there would be 161 patient rooms with regard to the skilled nursing and asked for clarification that they would have 161 rooms or 161 beds. Mr. Bigler said that they really didn't know what would come about. The casistas were two bedrooms, sometimes three bedrooms or two bedrooms and a den. That could be a husband and wife, a widow or widower and they weren't really sure how many people would be there. The same thing happened with the villas. When they go on to the assisted living, the assisted living units were essentially suites and there were 151 suites that were like apartments without kitchens. Again, they might have a situation where there are a husband and wife living there together. When they get to the skilled nursing facility, it was anticipated that there would be 161 beds. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that it would be one bed per room and Medical would supplement this with just one bed in each room. Ms. Srinivasa explained that normally the single bedroom was a luxury that they wanted people to have. Medical would pay for the bed, not for the room. Whether there were two beds per room or one bed per room that was up to them if they provide it. Commissioner Finerty stated that right now Medical pays $91 .64 per day. She asked what kind of rate they were considering charging for the skilled nursing facility. 9 Irma ear= MINUTES Iz SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 1 JANUARY 19, 1999 u 6 REVISiui4 Ms. Srinivasa said they were reviewing their rates right now to come up with an adequate rate. Skilled nursing facilities in this area charged anywhere from $200 to $265 per day on their skilled care units. The non-skilled were any where from $90 to $180. That was the range she had seen and they had done a vast study through the whole Riverside County and that was the average from the report and they would be reviewing those figures to determine a comparable rate. Commissioner Finerty questioned that if they have done a vast study if they were aware that the three hospitals that service this area currently did not fill all the skilled nursing beds in this area. Ms. Srinivasa indicated that Monterey Palms was almost 98% filled up right now. Commissioner Finerty noted that Monterey Palms has never been filled to capacity. Ms. Srinivasa said that maybe not to 100%, but when they were there she was personally told that they had only four beds empty at the time. Commissioner Finerty explained that she spoke to a woman who has worked there for five years and during her employment there she said it was never full. Ms. Srinivasa indicated that normally skilled nursing facilities were 90% to 92% average occupancy and that was doable. Also, the Carlotta was completely filled up. Commissioner Finerty noted that the Carlotta had vacancies. Ms. Srinivasa said when she went to the facility there were no vacancies. Commissioner Finerty stated that she spoke to a woman there just yesterday and there were vacancies at Manor Care, The Carlotta and Hacienda de Monterey-Monterey Palms and she had been told and was curious about Ms. Srinivasa's study because she was told that the bedding for skilled nursing and assisted living was based on the population and right now the number of beds was considered appropriate. What concerned her about this project was 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r114141 J •, FIT SURJECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 .;; i ;� ;� REVlS3N coming in with over 700 units, not to mention what the neighboring city Rancho Mirage had going on. They have the Wellington underway which would have 120 beds, the Marriott 142, Mirage Inn another 145 and Eisenhower Village 172. All of these new projects were significantly smaller than what this project was being proposed at with 771 total, but her main concern was how, with all these new facilities coming into the valley, and right now with three hospitals that couldn't fill all of the beds, how they were going to see this be a successful project. Ms. Srinivasa said she couldn't answer all the exact details, but overall from the study they received it showed that with the population from the surrounding area there was enough and the population grows consistently and she had a chart that she said she would be happy to share with the commission but overall they were still in the process of getting more information and when they have it they could give commission a better picture on it. Commissioner Finerty noted that it seemed if right now with the number of beds they have that were not all full and with another roughly 600 going into Rancho Mirage and in addition to the proposed project, the population would have to grow pretty significantly to fill these beds for all these projects to succeed. Ms. Srinivasa said she understood that and explained that their project alone would have, with the casitas and villas, close to 300+ people in the vicinity so that as the people age, at least 10% of them would be coming in and hoped as the population grows in the Palm Desert area people would move in. The report showed a projection of at least a 5% increase in population. Commissioner Finerty said she would like to see a copy of the report Ms. Srinivasa was basing that on because she has talked to marketing directors from three of the facilities in Palm Desert and that wasn't what they were telling her. Ms. Srinivasa said she would be happy to share that with her. Commissioner Finerty noted that she recently had to place her father-in-law and grandmother in one of these homes and had never found any difficulty in 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 1999 • SUBJECT TO getting them into skilled nursing and indicated it was one of the toughest decisions that a family had to make and they usually didn't want to locate in them willingly. It was usually a struggle to get them there. She was concerned about the phasing of the project and how long it would take to complete it. Mr. Bigler said it was their intent to move as quickly as possible with the assisted living, casitas and villas. The skilled nursing center because it requires state approval would take a little bit longer, but it was the intent to build the assisted living immediately and starting the villas and casitas. As Ms. Srinivasa said, that was one of the side benefits to having the four phases of the project because the assisted living and skilled nursing facilities would be fed by the residents on the site so that there was a progression that would take place across the site. Commissioner Finerty asked how many years he was talking about. Mr. Bigler said they were looking to have the whole project to be built out within a maximum of five years, but the skilled nursing center and assisted living would be built as quickly as they could be. The villas and casitas would depend on market conditions how fast they would be filled up. Commissioner Finerty asked for clarification that Mr. Bigler said they would build the assisted living, casitas, villas and then skilled nursing. Secondly, she thought he said they would have assisted living and skilled nursing first and asked which was correct. Mr. Bigler clarified that the assisted living, the villas and the casitas would be built as quickly as they could be. The skilled nursing because it requires state approval would take longer. Finishing out all of the villas and all of the casitas would take a period of time because they would be built as the market demands. The two big buildings, the assisted living and skilled nursing, would be built in their entirety up front. Commissioner Finerty noted that another concern was Mr. Bigler's own statement that he has never done a project like this before. 12 MINUTES DWINO SUR)ECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION * 6 REVISith9 JANUARY 19, 1999 Mr. Bigler said it wasn't that he hasn't done it, but that this kind of project has not been built where they have a project with four phases. Commissioner Finerty stated that this type of project is quite common and it's called a tier level where they provide residential, assisted living and skilled nursing. In doing some other research, she discovered there are many facilities across the country, but none that she had been able to find had this many units. Generally they were kept at around 100 units which would be consistent with the Wellington, Marriott, Mirage and Eisenhower Village. She knew from this area that many of these facilities have a real employment problem. They could look in the Desert Sun newspaper almost any day and there were ads all the time because it wasn't a very pleasant job and since they have had to put their loved ones there, and she really admired the people that do this kind of work, nevertheless it was very difficult to keep the positions filled even at the smaller capacities and they were now coming in with 771 units. That was another concern. Mr. Bigler said they wouldn't be doing this project if they didn't think it would be successful. A great deal of money has been spent to get it to this far and a great deal of money was spent on the dirt. A great deal of money would be spent getting this project built. They would not be doing that if they thought the project was not going to be successful. He said yes, there were a number of projects across the country that do multi levels but never on this kind of scale and never with this kind of living environment. Mostly what they have seen across the country, and they have them in Phoenix, here, and all over the country, high rise buildings stacking people up, and they were not in a resort type development. When he said this hadn't been done, they haven't been done on this kind of a scale, this kind of a site, developing something that has a residential scale rather than a clinical one. Mr. Bigler said that Commissioner Finerty put her family into a rest home and he himself watched both of his parents die in facilities that smelled and were terrible facilities. That was what they didn't want here. They wanted something where people could spend out the rest of their lives in dignity. Commissioner Finerty recognized that there were certain problems associated with running these facilities and she was very aware of that. She asked his 13 MINUTES / E-7.1PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO .` JANUARY 19, 1999 REViSs�;�'� i ,'; thoughts on how he proposed to fill all of these beds. Mr. Bigler said he was the architect, not the owner. Commissioner Jonathan asked if McBail currently owned the property. Mr. Bigler said that was his understanding. Commissioner Jonathan asked if there was a representative of the applicant present that could answer those types of questions or if he should direct the questions to Mr. Bigler. Mr. Bigler asked what he wanted to know. Commissioner Jonathan wanted to know if McBail owned the property, what Mr. Bigler's expectations were. He noted that the City has approved four projects and wanted to gain some insight as to how realistic an expectation the City might have that this would go through if approval was granted. Mr. Bigler deferred the question to Mr. LaMelza. MR. MICHAEL LAMELZA said that for the last subdivision that was approved apparently the numbers just didn't work. Looking at it as a developer and looking at the cost of developing the land, the power lines would cost $1 million to put in the ground. When the developer or builder puts in all of those costs including the cost of the land, it made it difficult to make the numbers work. With this concept because it was designed for a long term and they were able to absorb some of those costs and also work something out with the city. Instead of putting those lines into the ground immediately, they could be phased in according to the job. He felt that Mr. Bigler brought up something important and that was that they were going to start the villas and casitas on a sample and they would be building custom while they were marketing and working with the assisted living. He knew there were a lot of jobs that have been approved in the community but they felt they have something that was all encompassing, a resort. Most places didn't have that and there were larger ones and he could furnish the commission with information of projects any where from 100 to 500 dwelling units including the assisted living and the skilled care. They felt this was a long term type of investment rather than short term. The 14 MINUTES ,,, 7. PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' SUPJECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 REVIS ON builder comes in and in essence he is looking for the short term turnover to make his money and move on and it was difficult to absorb all of the costs. They looked at it as a very long term--a 20, 30 or 40-year term. Commissioner Jonathan noted there were four projects previously approved for this site and asked how likely it was that if approved this project would actually move forward. Mr. LaMelza said that based upon what they designed, if the commission approved it they would move along as aggressively as they could. Again, he was very candid with the city when he said he saw this as a five-year project and he saw certain components happening first. Assisted living would happen first, including marketing of the villas and casitas and the clubhouse because that amenity was needed. With that happening, it would depend upon the market conditions of the community, the marketplace as far as economy, and things of that nature over which they had no control. What happened to their predecessors was exactly what he said. The predecessors put the numbers together and they didn't work and they were looking at a short term turnover to make the numbers work. They didn't look at it that way. They were looking at it long term. The project would happen. They were paying cash for the land so they wouldn't have the debt. They would probably also pay 50% cash for the improvements so they wouldn't have any debt service for the improvements. Commissioner Jonathan said that he was hearing that it was Mr. LaMelza's expectation that the project would move forward if approved. Mr. LaMelza concurred. Commissioner Jonathan asked if their investors expected to make a profit from this project over whatever time horizon. Mr. LaMelza said he assumed so. Commissioner Jonathan asked if in that regard Mr. LaMelza had conducted a financial feasibility analysis to determine if in fact there is a demand for the product. 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r�: SUMECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 REVIS;;,N Mr. LaMelza stated that there is a definite demand for senior housing. The housing would happen in certain parts of the country. What was happening, and he had seen this in California and he lived in California, a lot of people were moving out of California and going to other areas like Arizona, Las Vegas and Nevada because of the tax situation. They thought they had a great product here and they were in a good city where the taxes are reasonable and they could control their costs. They could keep the people here that want to stay in California. He was talking about attracting people not only in a 10 or 20-mile radius but a 100-mile radius of Palm Desert. He lives in Santa Barbara and people from Santa Barbara come here to play golf and whatever. There was no reason why they wouldn't consider this as a retirement place especially when they reach 70-80 years of age. They would also provide amenities outside that would include an 18-hole putting golf course, croquette, tennis, an indoor-outdoor swimming pool, a fitness club, indoor padded track, etc., and if there was something else that seniors needed they would take a look at adding it. Commissioner Jonathan asked if they were looking at a potential five-year build out, and he assumed they weren't going into this project to create a vacant, empty project and asked if it was fair to say that their expectations based on the financial feasibility analysis that was conducted, that it is their expectation that there is a demand for the project and that there will be reasonable occupancy. Mr. LaMelza said absolutely. Looking at the architecture they are designing, how many units they are designing, they were designing something where people would just be changing from a 4,000 square foot house to an 1 ,800 square foot house with all the other amenities and he thought it wouldn't be a step down, but a step that would ensure their future and health. Chairperson Campbell noted that Mr. Bigler said they met with Palm Desert Greens residents. Mr. Bigler concurred. Chairperson Campbell asked if they met with Silver Sands. 16 MINUTES a, REv�s���ro _ SUEUECT TO '- `• ` ��• PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION a d JANUARY 19, 1999 Mr. Bigler said yes. They met with the Board of Directors for Silver Sands, Casablanca, numerous individuals from Sonata and anyone else that wanted to talk with them. They gave a presentation to the Joslyn Center and they were enthusiastic about the project and sent a letter. Chairperson Campbell asked for confirmation that they met only with the Board of Directors of Casablanca but not the residents. Mr. Bigler said they didn't meet with the residents as a whole. They did with Palm Desert Greens and probably had 250 people in that presentation. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR of the project. There was no one. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MRS. VIVIAN SLOR, 41591 Colada Court in Casablanca, stated that they came to the last meeting. They were not notified as Mr. Joy said because they were in the half that were evidently overlooked. She said they live in a PUD, planned urban development, which meant they owned the land right under their home. They were told then that there would only be a two-week change and then everyone would be notified. She said they are absentee owners and come down here to enjoy the winter and then go to their other homes. Mr. Joy tried to call her twice and she would agree to that but they were never notified even in the second phase of this that there was going to be this meeting. She said it seemed he based, and he was very cooperative, he based his records on something that was provided to him from the tax agency and asked if that was correct. Mr. Joy said it was from the Riverside County Assessor Rolls. Ms. Slor stated that her address was listed in the name of owners who owned the place ten years ago. They have been paying their taxes with their own name and they certainly knew where they were located because they have gotten their bills for the past eight and a half to nine years. There were many new owners in their area and she felt this oversight with an outdated roll meant a lot of people were not notified in their area and since there were many absentee people who live other 17 MINUTES f -TN' PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION k" kNin. SUBJECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 REV{Siti places than Palm Desert, the Palm Desert Sun was not available to them in the other places they live. The notices were not given and the third way of notification was posting the property. Since at least a third of the owners at Casablanca were absentee she thought that many people present had been notified by word of mouth but had not been notified. She felt this was very unfair. They bought their probably based on and trusting in the zoning boards zoning. She thought very few of them would have purchased if they knew that down the line they would change the zoning to this high density use that they were worried and concerned about, particularly since their fences join not only the casitas with the high density, but also right in the corner there would be parking and a maintenance yard. She was an old social worker who worked with geriatrics and questioned the sense of putting a skilled nursing facility next to a fire station that is always going off and ringing. She said it might hasten some of their patients along the way. Considering also that she is in that age bracket, she would not call this a resort. She thanked the commission for their consideration. MR. ALFRED SLOR complimented Commissioner Finerty for bringing up points that were very poignant. It appeared to him as if the developers had not properly studied this project to find out what their own financial impact would be because many of the questions they could not answer. For the amount of money that something like this would cost, even the preparation costs, he thought the developers would have done their studies and been able to answer the questions definitively and had counters to the issues brought up. The number of facilities such as this who were not filled in the area was a question they were wondering about and he thanked Commissioner Finerty for bringing that up because this would introduce another facility which would also not be filled and would impact all the others. He noted that Mark Greenwood said that he hadn't studied the traffic studies. He had just gotten them, there were two of them, and he didn't have a chance to look at them. Yet about two minutes into this discussion he said that he would approve the thing which he felt was strange because without having looked at them, he asked how Mr. Greenwood could approve of them. Mr. Greenwood clarified that he had not given them a thorough review and had not read every word of the studies which was his normal habit. He reviewed the conclusions and he agreed with the basis of the conclusions and the 18 MINUTES ' m SUruECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION i;EVISM'V JANUARY 19, 1999 calculations and the studies concluded that the proposed site would generate half the traffic of the approved residential site and with that particular statement he agreed. Mr. Slor said he did a little bit of work on that and there were about 750 residents in this facility and the number of workers and everyone else would probably be around 2,000 total people. About two thirds would be workers in the facility, all leaving about the same time of day so that although on the average there might be less traffic spread out through the day, during morning hours, afternoon hours and evening hours they would have something which approaches a real traffic jam on Country Club. He objected to this totally. It would all be concentrated at one time of the day. MRS. LINDA POHLMAN, 41-630 Colada Court, invited the commission, particularly Mr. Greenwood, to come to her house at any time day or night and listen to the noise now. Then they could imagine what it would be after the facility was put in. She said they were all welcome to visit her house. MR. LARRY ALLEN, 73-780 Calle Bisque in Casablanca, spoke regarding a letter dated January 15 to Bob Bigler written by Martha Osborne, Quality Management of the Desert, on behalf of the Board of Directors. He talked to Martha, the Board talked to Martha, and the Board had not given the "Board" approval. He personally said to Martha that he was in favor of the project and saw no objection to the project as presented. It would be underground so to speak and would not bother them at all. He felt it would improve their property values. But Martha perhaps on her own when he said "I" as President of the Association thought he meant the whole Board. He apologized for any confusion. He said it was on their agenda for tomorrow's meeting for the Board to vote on. He was only speaking on his own behalf and he approved of it. He wasn't aware of the letter until about an hour before the meeting. He confirmed that he was in favor of the project, thought the project would improve the values and would not create problems. MRS. RUTH FINE, 73-800 Calle Bisque in Casablanca, asked what their utility equipment was. Another thing she wanted to know was if this company, Bigler and/or Royce International, what they have built and 19 MINUTES rt SUEUECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVIOV JANUARY 19, 1999 where. She was assuming they have built a project like this elsewhere and she wanted to know where it was and if it was still in existence. Mr. Bigler readdressed the commission. He noted that one of the questions that was raised was that the southeast corner of the property was where the maintenance property was. The southeast corner of the property was out of their jurisdiction and was the Coachella Valley Water District well site that they had to dedicate to them and that was where it would be. It became a logical position to put the maintenance building in the same area. From what the commission saw in the drawings in their packets, they had the building down right next to the property line. In discussions with the city they moved it 80 feet further north to get it away from the property lines so that they could retain some of the oleanders down there. Mr. Joy indicated that the latest site plans Mr. Bigler was referring to were in the commission packets. That was the biggest conflict between the conceptual plan in the colored site plan booklet and the revised plan. Mr. Bigler said the other issue that came up was traffic. He said he wasn't a traffic engineer and all he could do was read from Kimley- Horne's findings and this was one of the biggest traffic engineers in the United States with 20-30 offices throughout the country. He indicated that on page four of the study it said that the Villa Portofino community was expected to generate a total of 1 ,503 trip ends on an average weekday with approximately 173 and 125 trip ends occurring during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Compared to the next paragraph it said that a residential development consisting of 241 single family homes and 162 apartments, which was what it was approved for, would generate 3,434 trip ends on an average weekday. That was 3,434 compared to 1 ,503. With the a.m. and p.m. peak hours being 262 and 324 as compared to 173 and 125. It was their finding, the experts, that were telling them that it was a substantial decrease all day long with 56% less traffic, but they could also see it during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours with about half there as well. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Bigler to address the question about the utilities. Mr. Bigler thought that was referring to the maintenance yard. 20 rot sl!, MINUTES r. SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' REVISION JANUARY 19, 1999 Mr. Drell said it referred to the undergrounding of the power lines. Mr. Bigler said the undergrounding was something that was being worked out now between the developer and the City in terms of taking the power lines down. From a cost standpoint it was very expensive to take them down. What they were working on was an agreement whereby they would initially go in and put in conduit and as the project develops those lines would be taken down and put into that conduit. Eventually those lines would come down. Mr. Joy noted that one of the requirements of the first phase was the need for a bus shelter at the entrance of the property opposite Palm Desert Greens and that would be one of the City's requirements, that the bus turnout be improved as part of the first phase also. Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. MR. LARRY FINE asked for and was granted permission to address the commission. He asked if there could be a postponement in view of what had happened here in terms of their feeling that there was not notification. He wanted to bring that concern to the commission's attention. Someone from the audience spoke and said that the applicant had not addressed all of their questions such as what other projects like this they had built. Mr. Bigler stated that this kind of project had not been built at this scale and scope before so he couldn't say he had done a project like this. Royce International had not done a project like this. He said he has been a practicing architect in Arizona, California, Colorado and New Mexico for 25 years. Their resume included numerous medical facilities, residential facilities, apartment complexes, an urgent care center--all of those. Wilson Jones had a similar background. He pointed out that he spent five years and Mr. Jones spent eight years working with Benny Gonzales who designed Palm Desert City Hall. 21 MINUTES ' k. SUE?EC;' TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISiOi'd JANUARY 19, 1999 Commissioner Beaty noted there was one other question about any projects that Royce International has built. Mr. LaMelza explained that Royce International is an investment company. Royce International hired, and Mr. Snyder was working for Royce and Royce had given the commission Mr. Snyder's resume. He built hospitals, the Merrill Lynch facility which is a couple of million square feet in Princeton, the Liberty Place at 1 .2 million square feet in Philadelphia, etc. There was a five-page resume of his accomplishments. Mr. Snyder would build this project and he would be one of the first residents in this project and would probably retire in this area. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Drell for confirmation that as far as the City was concerned, notices were mailed. Mr. Drell concurred and indicated that the legal requirement was to send out notices according to the County roll and the goal was to make the project known. Obviously by the attendance tonight the existence of the project and the existence of this hearing was known. He noted that this was not the final action on this item. If it was approved, it would be going to City Council and he suggested that all of those present who did not get a notice, regardless of where or how they were listed in the rolls, could get a notice. He also noted that the notices only go out to the property owners within 300 feet of the property automatically. If those beyond 300 feet requested notification, staff would send them a notification as well. If they wished to give the City the entire mailing list for everyone in Casablanca for the city council hearing, staff would send a notice to everyone in Casablanca to any address they wanted it sent to, but legally the City was required to send it to the County roll. Staff could send it beyond that if it addresses were supplied to staff. Mr. Joy mentioned that he talked with the property manager and she had volunteered to give him all of the addresses of the residents so there wouldn't be any further confusion. Staff could also address the mail to just "resident" of the unit itself. Chairperson Campbell asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Finerty noted that they were being asked to approve a change of zone and generally speaking there needed to be a compelling reason as to why they would change the zone. As far as she was concerned, there was no reason to change the zone but rather a compelling concern on her part as to 22 MINUTES , 1r SUER. ECT TO • PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION JANUARY 19, 1999 how this project would succeed and how they would fill the beds given the fact that with the three existing hospitals now and the current population, all of the skilled nursing beds were not full and given the fact that 600+ units were going into Rancho Mirage she didn't feel this project would succeed. She was concerned with the phasing, with having empty buildings and didn't think it was in the city's best interest at this time. She thought the project was very beautiful and supported providing homes and places to live for senior citizens that need help, but to change the zone to accommodate a project this large that has never been built before, when there was nothing they could even measure it to that this company has ever done before, and they could look at competitive companies building like facilities and they weren't this size, at least in this area, so she was opposed to the change of zone. Commissioner Beaty said he didn't share Commissioner Finerty's concern. He didn't think that if the project had no hope of working that the applicants would be before them risking the kind of money they were talking about, although that wasn't his concern. He didn't feel he should base his judgement on whether or not he thought it would succeed. He didn't hear anything from the testimony that was substantiated. It didn't matter what was going to be built there. Noise would increase. Traffic would increase. He noted that he lives right across the street from the Carlotta and they were great neighbors. Yes, there were times when an ambulance came. If he had a choice of living there or in a neighborhood full of the general population, the Carlotta was a great neighborhood and he sensed this would be a similar situation. He was in favor of the project. Chairperson Campbell said she also lived across from Casablanca and knew the traffic that goes on there, especially during church services on Sundays. As far as the project was concerned, just because this has never been built before that didn't mean it wouldn't work. She felt it was an excellent area and the project would be very well camouflaged. As Commissioner Beaty pointed out, the applicants do their homework and she didn't feel they would be spending their money if they didn't think this was the right place to build and she was in favor of the project. Commissioner Jonathan complimented the architects. He said that if this project was ultimately built and looked half as good in reality as it did in the pictures he would be very pleased. In his opinion it looked absolutely beautiful. It was also very well laid out in terms of the internal circulation and 23 MINUTES ,‘ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION r. SURJECT TO JANUARY 19, 1999 REVISi +'V in terms of the impacts to the outside traffic. He thought it was a very thoughtful concept and the aesthetics in his opinion were very pleasing. There were some concerns he felt were valid that were expressed tonight including traffic, density, and noise. He noted that he has been on the commission a long time and some were newer residents to this community than he has been on the commission and he heard people express the same concerns about them when their projects were being built, the Sonata, Casablanca and so forth. Somehow they welcomed them and managed to survive them being here. The reality was that when they evaluate the impacts of a proposed project they couldn't do it in isolation in comparison to the dirt because something would be built next to them. That was the reality. The question was what it would be and when they looked at the impact of this proposed project, they had to look at it in comparison to what was already approved and he believed that what they would get with this project would be a vast improvement over what was currently approved for the site. If they had before them the project that was approved on that site, there probably wouldn't be any sitting room because there would be so many in objection. He thought, and hoped, that this project would be a blessing in disguise in terms of the ultimate impact. One thing for sure was that they wouldn't have vacant dirt there forever. Something would be built there. It was only a question of what. He acknowledged that there seemed to be some problem with the notification process and apologized for that. He thought it was ironic when someone complained about not being notified and they were at the meeting, so somehow they heard about it and presumably most people had heard about it. He proposed to staff that in the future when there was a planned unit development involved that staff contact the homeowner's association and get a mailing list from them of their members and make sure that those people are mailed notification of the public hearing, regardless of whether they fall within the 300-foot notification radius or not. Those comments were heard and they would try to improve on the process. He believed that the City was in compliance with the legal requirements but sometimes that wasn't enough and if it wasn't enough in this case, he apologized, and stated that we would do a better job in the future. Apparently most residents seemed to be in favor. It was like a political process. People in favor tended not to show up and people that objected tended to show up. Apparently Palm Desert Greens had 250 people listen personally to the presentation and none of them were here or at least didn't voice an objection to the project. There seemed to be a tendency for support, which didn't make those in opposition wrong just because they were in the minority and didn't 24 ' SURJECT TO MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 1999 mean their concerns were not valid, but they had to take that into consideration. Finally, with regard to some of the comments made, he hoped this project was successful. Whenever a project comes before them they hoped it would be successful, but there was a bit of a cushion here. The project would only be built in the way it was approved. If the applicant received Planning Commission approval and subsequently Council approval, the project that went up would look substantially like the renderings and architectural drawings and eventually detailed working drawings that would be presented. If the applicant goofed up and failed financially, the likelihood was that it wouldn't sit there empty but someone else would buy it out like they have seen done in other places and operate it more efficiently and more effectively. Physically, in terms of looking at the land use, they should and could expect to end up with something that looked like what was presented. From there they could only hope that the applicants had done their homework and done the financial feasibility analysis appropriate in this case and had a reasonable likelihood of operating this profitably so that things ended up the way they expected and hoped that they would, but if not, he felt there was a cushion there and didn't want to be in a position of second guessing the financial feasibility because that was a whole different world than what they were to deal with which was a land use issue. Based on all of the above, his inclination was to agree with much of what had been said and he would be in favor of the project as presented. Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no and Commissioner Lopez abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Chairperson Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1912, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 and associated development agreement, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-1-1 (Commissioner Finerty voted no and Commissioner Lopez abstained). A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED AT 8:28 P.M. CHAIRPERSON CAMPBELL RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 8:35 P.M. 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MS. LINDA POHLMAN, 4163 Colada Court in Palm Desert, addressed the commission regarding Royce International Investments. She said she understood that the project on Country Club between Portola and Monterey for the nursing home facility or some type of care use had been extended to January 19. She said she only saw the papers briefly, but the hospital rooms were scaled down from 280 to approximately 160. If commission was aware, Eisenhower Hospital has around 230. Chairperson Campbell informed Ms. Pohlman that the item she was addressing was on the agenda as a public hearing item and it would be moved up first for anyone present who wished to speak and that would be the appropriate time to address the commission. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 98-23 - MINISTRELLI DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND BIGHORN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust lot lines between Lot 12 of Tract 27520-3 and Lot "C" of Tract No. 28287 to widen Lot 12. B. Case No. PMW 98-27 - SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to merge two lots to allow construction of condominium units on Lots 9 and 10 of Tract 261 23-3 on White Horse Trail within Indian Ridge Country Club. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he/she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. F. Case Nos. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 - ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO., Applicant Request for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to senior overlay, zone change from planned residential five dwelling units per acre to senior overlay, a precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 161-bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 apartment units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Chairperson Campbell noted that this item was going to be continued and asked how many persons in the audience were present for the item. (Several raised their hands.) Chairperson Campbell advised that the item would be continued and anyone wishing to speak could, or they could wait until the next meeting. Mr. Drell explained that the item was being continued for two reasons. One was that the title company did not give the city a full mailing list for the legal notice, so in fact there was a defect in the legal notice. Also, the project architect had a family medical emergency and couldn't attend. Mr. Drell explained that staff would not be giving a presentation on the project until the next meeting. Mr. Joy clarified that the next meeting date was January 19, 1999. Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission. MS. LINDA POHLMAN, 4163 Colada Court, readdressed the commission and explained that her husband met with one of the builders and the builder was trying to tell them how it would be, but she said that really had no consequence because once the zoning was 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 changed, they could do anything they wanted. She was concerned because she came from Denver Colorado originally and she has seen a lot of these types of places go in and not make it because the people that go in these places simply run out of money from the high prices. They would end up again with empty buildings all along Country Club which she considered a nice area with the Marriott and all the golf courses going in. There was also a fire station on the corner. She said she lives directly behind there and right now she knew it was zoned for single family homes and she was told a traffic study was done and that there would be less traffic if they had the nursing homes and casitas instead of homes. She felt the traffic was very bad now because she lives right on Portola and she while she knew that when she bought it, the project would make it worse. If they thought it would be better they were wrong because with a hospital, and she used to live near a hospital in Denver, there was no noise from the office buildings, but from the hospital there were constantly emergency vehicles from the fire station. She said that for the tennis club across the street, there were no representatives at the meeting from there and she found it very funny that only one of their people got a notice of the meeting and when another person called, they were told there was an overlook and the notice wasn't sent to all the homeowners. That led her to believe that this was going to be "railroaded" through and she was very concerned because this area was going to be built up with homes and there was a parcel of land on Portola and Hovley that was originally supposed to be a park. Now she was told there would be homes there. She felt they were going to end up just like Palm Springs with lots of empty buildings in the years to come because she knew for a fact that for these types of things they were trying to build people went out of money and were the lousiest investments to make. She knew people who have done it and were very sorry to have to walk away from it before they got in any deeper. She didn't know how much the city knew about the builder. They intended to look into it and she just felt that there was enough commercial going on that Palm Desert has enough money and that single family homes were how it should stay and she would not approve at all what was proposed to be built there. Even as it stood now, they could change it. She said she had one last question. She would bet that the tax the city would collect from this project would be more than from homes. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 5, 1999 MS. VIVIAN SLOR, 41 -591 Carlotta Court, stated that she would be back on the 19th, but she was concerned that they were not notified. They have approximately 130+ planned urban developments in Casablanca. This has come up and they just happened to find out and as Mr. Joy knew, she called yesterday and just then he checked and found that more than half of their particular development which would abut this one were not notified and she really had concerns about that. She thought that if he had not discovered this at this time, the city would have gone ahead and people would not have been represented as they should be because they were not notified, and this would have been passed. She thought that in the future this should be checked out very carefully so that people are properly as by law notified if there is going to be a change or an application to change a zone. Chairperson Campbell left the public hearing open and asked for a motion to continue. Commissioner Beaty asked if there was a problem with notification or if the city complied with the requirements. Mr. Drell explained that half of those residents required to be notified in Casablanca were not notified. There were two assessors' maps for Casablanca and the title company only took names and addresses off of one of them. Commissioner Beaty said he would move to continue the hearing to the 19th. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, to continue Case Nos. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 and associated development agreement to January 19, 1999 by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. A. Case No. VAR 98-2 - PAUL BAUER, Applicant Request for approval of a variance to allow the conversion and expansion of an existing carport into a garage with a one foot side yard setback and a rear/side yard building addition with a three-foot setback at 44-250 Russell Lane. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1912 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SENIOR OVERLAY, ZONE CHANGE FROM PLANNED RESIDENTIAL FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO SENIOR OVERLAY, A PRECISE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HEALTH AND WELLNESS RESORT FOR SENIORS CONSISTING OF A 161 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, 150 BED ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, 288 APARTMENT UNITS AND 182 CASITA UNITS, WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 75 ACRES SOUTHWEST OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVENUE. CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7 AND PP/CUP 98-21 AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of January, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to January 19, 1999, to consider the request of ROYCE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS CO. for approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to senior overlay, zone change from planned residential five dwelling units per acre to senior overlay, a precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 161 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 apartment units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue; 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; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said request: 1 . The site is suitable for the general plan amendment. 2. The zone change is consistent with the general plan amendment. 3. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned �—+ Residential zone and Senior Housing Overlay. PLANNING COMMISSIOII :SOLUTION NO. 1912 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. 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 98-6, Change of Zone 98-7 and Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 98-21 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 (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 19th day of January, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, JONATHAN, CAMPBELL NOES: FINERTY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: LOPEZ -J /SSONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, lecretary ... Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. 1912 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Each villa and casita unit shall have designated a parking space under a carport. 7. Oleanders behind Casablanca shall be preserved until site soil has been stabilized as determined by the Director of Community Development. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION. ....SOLUTION NO. 1912 8. 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. 9. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 10. Project shall be subject to the $600/acre Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard mitigation fee. In addition, project shall pay a special fee of $6,000 toward mitigation of habitat destruction of other species of concern included in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 1 1 . Parking spaces for skilled nursing facility shall be relocated where they conflict with fire access road. Department of Public Works: 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 civic engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall utilize existing off-site drainage facilities as may be appropriate for project drainage. 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. The costs associated with the modification of the existing Country Club Drive/project entry traffic signal system may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. 1912 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. In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a median island in Country Club Drive shall be provided. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for the required median island shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 1 1 . Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided in the same manner specified above. ...., 12. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION :SOLUTION NO. 1912 1 3. 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 Portola Avenue access points and full access (with traffic signal) for the Country Club Drive access point. 14. 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 with the improvement of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards and the city's Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration along both the Country Club Drive and the Portola Avenue project frontages. * Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the Country Club Drive and northerly Portola Avenue project entries. * Construction of transit facilities in accordance with Sunline Transit Agency specifications including a custom non-advertising bus shelter consistent with project architecture. * Modification of existing traffic signal at the Country Club Drive entry for project entry/exit including interconnect to existing signals to the east and west and provisions for cost sharing (25%) for future energy and maintenance costs. Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with the project. 16. Traffic safety striping on Country Club Drive, Portola Avenue and the proposed interior streets shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public "'I Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 6 PLANNING COMMISSIOIN :SOLUTION NO. 1912 17. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 18. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit a Waiver of Parcel Map application for lot line adjustment. 19. As required under the Palm Desert Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground in accordance with the respective utility company recommendation. 20. 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. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA UFC, and UBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 2500 for multi-family and 3000 gpm for assisted living and skilled nursing. 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. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x4"x2-1/2"x2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000 feet elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction Nom that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION KESOLUTION NO. 1912 6. 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. NFPA 13R will not be recognized on any buildings. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/ or California Fire Code. Minimum requirements is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are requires for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (UFC Sec. 14.103 (a)) 10. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet # 10, but not less than 2A1OBC 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. 1 1 . 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. 12. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 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. 13. Whenever access into a private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard house or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled mom access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system 8 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. 1912 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 hall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 14. 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. 15. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the cities of Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage or Palm Desert. 16. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 17. 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. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ;OLUTION NO. 1912 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 98-21 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Royce International Investments Co. Michael G. LaMelza 249 Las Entradas Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93108 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 161-bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 apartment units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. -r ry 19, 1999 PHILIP DREL DATE DIRECTOR 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION :SOLUTION NO. 1912 EXHIBIT B SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROYCE INTERNATIONAL THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this , day of ,1998, between Royce International (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 (PP 98-21) to construct a health club and wellness resort for seniors, 288 apartments, 182 casita units, 161 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility and zone change to senior overlay; 11 PLANNING COMMISSION ngESOLUTION NO. 1912 C. The DEVELOPER has applied for precise plan approval pursuant to Chapter 25.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, Senior Housing Overlay District which allows for significant density increases in return for building specialized housing designed and restricted to residents over age 62 years; D. The City Council of City has found that the development agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Senior Overlay; and 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 98-21 . (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 ..SOLUTION NO. 1912 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 not be transferred or assigned unless the written consent of the City is first obtained, whose approval shall 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 health club and wellness resort for seniors, 288 apartments, 182 casita units, 161 bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility and zone change to senior overlay on the PROPERTY by Precise Plan 98-21 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. 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 3.17 units/acre or 243 of the 625 total project units. In consideration for the relatively small density bonus being granted, the 25% 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1912 affordable requirement shall be applied only to the 243. The project's affordable housing requirement shall therefore be established at 61 units. (b) Due to the unique range of services provided by the PROJECT, in-lieu of the requirements above the Property Owner shall provide: 1 . Payment of $12,000 per affordable unit totaling $729,000 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 building permit(s) for the project at the rate of $1 ,166 per unit. Fees shall be paid at time of Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted living and skilled nursing. (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 in not effective until the parties amend this AGREEMENT to incorporate it. (f) Hold Harmless. Property Owner agrees to and shall hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury including death and claims for property damage which pow may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Property Owner or those of his 14 PLANNING COMMISSION .._SOLUTION NO. 1912 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. 1912 notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by City which alter or amend the rules, regulations or policies governing permitted uses of the land, density, design, improvement and construction standards and specifications. (j) Events of default. Property Owner is in default under this AGREEMENT upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: i. If a warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by Property Owner to City is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made; ii. A finding and determination by City made following a periodic review under the procedure provided for in Government Code, Section 65865.1 , that upon the basis of substantial evidence Property Owner has not complied in good faith with any of the terms or conditions of this AGREEMENT. iii. Property Owner's failure to maintain the Real Property in substantially the same condition as it exists on the date that City issues the Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the PROJECT or to restore promptly in a good and workmanlike manner any building which may be damaged or destroyed. iv. Property Owner's failure to appear in and defend any action or proceeding purporting to affect the rights or powers of City under the terms of this DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, and to pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees in a reasonable sum, in any such action or proceeding in which City may appear. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. 1912 (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 hESOLUTION NO. 1912 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: 249 Las Entradas Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93108. 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. i. 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 win remainder of this AGREEMENT is not affected. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. 1912 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. Imo 19 PLANNING COMMISSION rstSOLUTION NO. 1912 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: ROYCE INTERNATIONAL By: By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) On this day of , 1998, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared , known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed the within instrument on behalf of , and acknowledged to me that executed the same. 20 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 19, 1999 continued from January 5, 1999 CASE NOS: GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 REQUEST: Approval of a general plan amendment from low density residential to senior overlay, zone change from planned residential five dwelling units per acre to senior overlay, a precise plan and conditional use permit for a health and wellness resort for seniors consisting of a 161 -bed skilled nursing facility, 150 bed assisted living facility, 288 apartment units and 182 casita units, with a development agreement on 75 acres southwest of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. APPLICANTS: Royce International Investments Co. Michael G. LaMelza 249 Las Entradas Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Jones & Mah Architects, Incorporated 7509 East McKnight Avenue Scottsdale, AZ 85251 The Robert C. Bigler Corporation 23031 North Via Ventosa Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Warner Engineering 73-185 Highway 1 1 1 , Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND: A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The undeveloped site consists of creosote-covered sand dunes and slopes downward in a southwesterly direction. The site drops 25 to 30 feet north to south and eight to 10 feet east to west. There's also a signalized intersection on Country Club Drive at the entrance to Palm Desert Greens for the project STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 JANUARY 19, 1999 to utilize. Curb, gutter and tie-in paving is lacking on Country Club and Portola Avenue frontages. B. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: North: County/Palm Desert Greens South: PR-5/Casablanca condominiums and Sonata single family residential East: PR-5/Silver Sands Racquet Club West: AHPDR-22/San Tropez Apartments C. SITE HISTORY: The site has been approved for development four times in the past. The first was in 1984 when the majority of the site was rezoned from R-1 2,000 to PR- 5 and the fire station was dedicated. The last approval was in 1994 by the current owner McBail Co. consisting of 241 single family homes and 162 apartments - the apartments on Country Club between the project entry and San Tropez Apartments. Although no elevations were submitted for the apartments, the density (16.2 dwelling units per acre) would dictate two story construction. This last approval is still alive and could still be built. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of four components: skilled nursing, assisted living apartments/villas and casitas. Each product provides progressive levels of senior care, meal services, social and recreational amenities ranging from active independent living to supervised medical care within a relatively low density resort environment. The entire site is planned to be a self contained gate guarded community. The skilled nursing facility is located in the northeast project portion while the assisted living is in the southeast portion also along Portola. They are separated by an ingress/egress road to Portola that continues west across the site. This same road as it extends west across the site, divides the apartments to the north and the casitas to the south. A clubhouse is on the south side of this road at the intersection of another roadway that runs north to the signalized intersection at the entrance to Palm Desert Greens. The entry/exit on Portola is conditioned to be right turn in and out only while the Country Club Drive access is unrestricted and is signalized. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 JANUARY 19, 1999 The three transitions in living facilities for seniors are similar to other projects in the area but on a larger scale. The Carlotta's numbers for comparative purposes are 109 apartments, 22 assisted living units and a 59 bed skilled nursing facility. The Monterey Palms/Hacienda de Monterey project combine for 180 assisted living/independent living units and a 99 bed skilled nursing facility. The unique part of the project is that the assisted living building has two levels that step down the slopes so that it's one story on top of the slope and two story at the bottom. A. SKILLED NURSING: This one and two story facility provides 161 beds for those in need of more constant care and medical attention. The building sets back 140 feet to 260 feet from the Portola property line and 120 feet from the Country Club Drive property line. This use requires 40 parking spaces while 110 are provided. B. ASSISTED LIVING: This one and two story structure will have 150 rooms and is designed for those that require a small degree of help in their daily lives. The structure is setback 140 feet to 260 feet from Portola. There will be a 270-foot setback from Casablanca for the 37-foot lobby as measured from the lowest pad levels that are the same height as corresponding grade at Casablanca. The maintenance building located in this same area will be a maximum 18 feet in height and help hide the assisted living building from Casablanca and is setback 80 feet from the property line while the Casablanca units are setback a minimum 18 feet from the property line. This use requires 37 parking spaces while 135 are provided. BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS While building heights are normally measured from finished pad elevations, the complicated interaction between existing natural grades, finished grades, street elevations and architectural design make height determination a matter of interpretation. The finished pads for the skilled nursing and assisted living facilities have been graded and lowered so that the buildings will step down to match the descending contour of Portola Avenue. The pads have been lowered an 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 JANUARY 19, 1999 average of eight feet below existing grade and street elevation. Although building height measured from these lowered pads range from 20 feet for single story elements, 28 feet to 32 feet from two story elements and 37 feet for the architectural tower above the lobby, heights relative to natural grade based on a line of sight will appear to be 24 feet or less (with the exception of the towers). The towers with a line of sight height of 27 feet and 37 feet will be setback 260 feet from Portola Avenue. With the exception of the two tower elements the assisted living and skilled nursing buildings will meet the line of sight intent of the 24-foot height limitation in the PR zone. In general, the combination of lowered pad elevations, setbacks and berming justify approval of the buildings as designed. C. APARTMENTS/VILLAS: These two story structures are on the project's northern portion and setbacks range from 54 feet from property line to 200 feet. The main portion of these buildings are 24 feet in height with some projections extending to 28 feet. The pads for these buildings range from one foot to ten feet below Country Club Drive. Berming, setbacks and a natural lower grade offset the height of the architectural projections. One parking space per unit is provided as required, and conditioned to be covered. The units range in size from 900 square feet one bedroom (96 units) to 1 ,200 square feet two bedrooms with patios and balconies (192 units). Twelve villas per building will be constructed with elevators to the second floor. 24 hour call service to the health care facility will be provided to each unit. Adjacent parking is provided and is conditioned to be covered. D. CASITAS: The single story two bedroom casitas are in the southern project portion and setback a minimum 32 feet from the south property line bordering Sonata and Casablanca. The main structures are 15 feet in height with projections extending to 19 feet. The sizes range from 1 ,400 to 1 ,800 square feet arranged in a courtyard/duplex fashion with vehicular access into the courtyards for drop-offs. The applicant exceeds the one space per unit parking requirement while ample space is available - if needed - for extra parking on site. The one parking space required is provided and ample room exists if more parking is needed. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 JANUARY 19, 1999 Similar to the villas, 24 hour call service to the health care facility will be provided. Not dealt with on the previous projects are the oleanders between Casablanca and the casitas that grow on the applicant's property. A condition has been placed requiring preservation of these oleanders until the soil has been stabilized to prevent drifting sand problems, associated with projects once under construction. The applicant indicated that he's reached agreement with Casablanca to permanently retain the oleanders. E. CLUBHOUSE: The centrally located 30,000 square foot clubhouse will provide many amenities that would make it possible not to ever have to leave the premises. Amenities include a general store, barber/beauty shop, bank and theater. Of the 30,000 square feet 25,000 square feet are on the first floor and 5,000 square feet are on the second floor, maximum 30 feet in height setback 680 feet from Country Club Drive and 480 feet from Casablanca. A fitness center of 5,000 square feet is planned to encourage the wellness aspect of the project. III. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REVIEW: The project received preliminary ARC review on January 12 after minor revisions to the buildings. The landscaping, however, was continued with the proposed berming. IV. TRAFFIC: A traffic study has been prepared that shows the project will generate 56% less traffic than the existing approval on the site of 241 single family homes and 162 apartments. This reduction results from the lower trip generation of retirement housing in comparison to standard housing. The city's Traffic Engineer indicates that the intersection of Country Club Drive and Portola will continue to operate at level "C" or better. The project will be required to pay TUMF fees in addition to improving the signalized intersection opposite Palm Desert Greens. 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 JANUARY 19, 1999 The project will also pay for half a landscaped center median on Country Club Drive making it less expensive to complete this improvement in the future. The project will upgrade a bus turnout desperately in need of upgrading. Other improvements include curb, gutter, tie-in paving and eight foot meandering sidewalk in a 32 foot parkway along Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Developer will have the option of constructing a shelter to match the project's architecture or providing the pad for a Sunline shelter. V. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: The project will require a general plan land use amendment to Senior Overlay, change or zone adding the Senior Overlay and a development agreement. The Senior Overlay designation was designed to provide increased density and special development standards to encourage the development of specialized forms of senior housing. When the Senior Overlay was created, it was anticipated that senior projects would be requesting densities in excess of 20 units per acre. Due to the significantly lower traffic and other impacts of senior housing, the overlay allows these densities based on a population per acre land use intensity formula. The overlay also requires that senior housing projects include up to 25% affordable housing in exchange for these large density bonuses. For example Hacienda de Monterey, the first project approved under the overlay, received a density increase from R-1 10,000 (three units per acre) to 23 units per acre. Total allowable units increase from 31 to 233. For projects over 100 units the affordable housing inclusionary requirement mandates 10% moderate income units, 10% low income units, and 5% very low income units. Since high end congregate care and assisted living projects provide a wider range of services (meals, recreation, maid service, medical care, etc.) beyond basic housing it has been nearly impossible to determine an appropriate affordable housing cost. As a result, the City and developers of these projects have historically agreed through a development agreement to substitute an in-lieu fee which would be used by the City to subsidize senior housing. In the case of Hacienda de Monterey (approved in 1985) an $8,000 per required affordable unit was assessed totaling $460,000. In this case the applicant is requesting a density bonus far smaller then previous projects which have historically ranged from 10 to 20 units per acre over the base 6 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 JANUARY 19, 1999 zone density. The proposal is requesting 625 equivalent residential units (assisted and skilled nursing facilities are counted at two beds per unit) or 8.17 units per acre. This is only 243 units over the 382 units allowed by the base five units per acre zoning. The requested three units per acre density bonus is a small fraction of the ten to 20 units per acre bonuses previously approved under the overlay. It is therefore recommended that.the 25% inclusionary requirement only apply to the 243 additional bonus units. Also, the per unit assessment should be increased from the 1985 $8,0000 level to $12,000 per unit accounting for inflation. Based on this recommendation the development agreement contains an in-lieu affordable housing fee of $729,000 (243 units x .25 = 60.75 x $12,000 = $729,000) payable at a rate of $1 ,166.40 per unit at Certificate of Occupancy issuance for assisted living and skilled nursing facilities and at permit issuance for casitas and villas. VI. DATA SUMMARY: PROJECT ORDINANCE Site Area 76.42 acres Units 288 apartment units 182 casitas 80 unit 161 bed skilled nursing 75 unit 150 bed assisted living 625 units Senior Overlay Intensity 1 ,250 persons 3,821 persons Building Coverage 19% Open Space 51 .40/acre (67.25%) 30.57/acre (40%) Parking 770 spaces 583 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been previously assessed as part of the last project approval (May 17, 1994 TT 26432). Traffic projections show that the project will generate 25% to 60% fewer ADT than the existing approved tentative map. Incremental impacts to the regional circulation system will be mitigated through payment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The project is within the fee area for 7 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 98-6, C/Z 98-7, PP/CUP 98-21 JANUARY 19, 1999 the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and will be assessed $600 per acre to mitigate destruction of dune habitat. VIII. CONCLUSION: The project as designed is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Residential zone and the Senior Overlay. It will provide a unique combination of life services, social, recreational and cultural amenities within a resort environment normally associated with high end country clubs. It will also make a significant financial contribution to the city's low income senior housing program. The project has been designed to be sensitive to the concerns of each of the adjacent residential developments. The developer and project architect have made presentations to each of the adjacent residential developments and has received a favorable response. IX. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to the Council approval of the project. X. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice C. Correspondence D. Environmental documentation E. Plans and exhibits Prepared by D �' '✓ Phil Jo y Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell /tm 8 FEB-11-99 THU 02:56 PM PALM ""EAT GREENS HOA FAX:760 568 496- PAGE Palm Desert Greens Association 73.750 Country Club Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2398 (760)346-8005 Fax(760) 568-4965 February 10, 1999 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Mr. Phillip Drell Director of Community Development Re: Portofino Project Dear Mr. Drell: The Palm Desert Greens Association has no objection to the Portofino Project with the following provisions: • All construction traffic to the.project will utilize Portola Avenue and not utilize Country Club Drive. • The finish floors of structures will be ten (10') ft. below the existing fire station located at the corner of Portola and Country Club. This will ensure the existing view corridor of the PDG homes located on Country Club Drive will not be eliminated. The project appears very well conceived and will be a positive addition to the area. Sincerely, 4e/ar Frank . Melon CCAM, RPA, CEM General Manager