HomeMy WebLinkAboutB. CUP 07-17 and PP 07-15 CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of Palm Desert to approve a
request by Oakmont Senior Living, LLC, which consists of a
Conditional Use Permit and a proposed Precise Plan to construct
121 senior community care and healthcare units with decorative
architectural elements up to 34 feet 11 inches tall on 8.63 acres
located on the northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey
Avenue at 73-050 Country Club Drive. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration resulting from an Environmental Assessment pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared
for the proposed project.
SUBMITTED BY: Renee Schrader, Associate Planner
APPLICANT: The Robert L. Mayer Trust of 1982
660 Newport Center Dr. #1050
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DEVELOPER: Oakmont Senior Living, LLC
220 Concourse Blvd.
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
CASE NO(s): CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
DATE: April 15, 2008
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Recommendation to the City Council for the approval of Conditional Use Permit
07-17 and for the approval of decorative architectural elements up to 34'11" in
height of Precise Plan 07-15 would allow the applicant to develop a state
licensed institutional senior care facility and residential use on property zoned
PR-7 (Planned Residential/ 7 units per acre). The proposed project would build
117 senior care units housed in a two story building and would construct four
single story casitas on the property. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared in accordance with thresholds set by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 2 of 11
The project received unanimous approval for its exterior presentation from the
Architectural Review Commission at its February 26, 2008 meeting.
II. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
The site was previously approved in 2006 as a Tentative Tract Map to
develop 49 two-story single-family residential lots. Currently the property is
vacant. It is situated on a site that is one of the western gateway points
into the city. To the north is a residential development, to the south is a
commercial retail center, and to the west is the Rancho Mirage city limit.
B. Zoning and General Plan Designation:
Zone: PR-7 Planned Residential (7 units/acre)
General Plan CC Community Commercial
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: PR-7Planned Residential (7 units/acre) Merano Subdivision
South: PC-2 Planned Commercial Bristol Farms
East: PR-7 Planned Residential (7 units/acre) Merano Subdivision
West: City of Rancho Mirage Commercial Development
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Oakmont Senior Living intends to bring a unique campus style senior living
project to Palm Desert. Oakmont Senior Living proposes to build 121 senior
community care and healthcare units, offering a wide range of services within a
gracious and secure environment. The 8.63-acre site will accommodate
approximately 117 units in the main two-story building and four single story two-
bedroom detached "casitas". This senior health care facility will be licensed by
the Social Service Department of the State of California and carry a Certificate of
Authority. Designed architecturally from the ground up to provide for the special
needs of seniors, the luxury private rooms will be supplemented with common
areas to promote friendships and create a sense of open community.
Senior residents can choose from two-bedroom "casitas", or one of the 117
spacious one- or two-bedroom units, ranging from 486 to 1,754 square feet. The
residents will receive healthy meals, housekeeping, assistance from
knowledgeable staff, an emergency response system, programs such as aqua
aerobics, and health screening. Progressive care needs of the residents will be
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 3 of 11
addressed by providing high acuity assisted living. Also residents will be able to
take health services in their individual units.
This self-sufficient senior community will provide amenities such as private and
formal dining rooms, a café, entertainment and activity rooms, business and
computer center, beauty salon, library, outside courtyard, swimming pool, nine-
hole putting course and more. There will be an in-house fitness center, lectures,
and a private Surround-Sound theater. Luxurious comfort will be defined by the
fine woodwork, elegant furnishings, artwork, fireplaces, and fresh flowers.
Conversation areas are strategically located throughout the building to promote
socializing.
A. Site Plan:
The plan proposes a courtyard entry located within a main entry facing
Country Club Drive that would serve as vehicle and pedestrian drop-off. The
site plan illustrates that the primary vehicular entrance to the property is
from Via Scena off of Country Club Drive into the complex. A secondary
emergency gated egress empties onto Monterey Avenue. Underground
parking is accessed through the front of the project onto Country Club
Drive. The complex proposes a main building that wraps around the corner
with setbacks on the second story of the rear of the project abutting a single
family residential neighborhood. The interior of the site proposes a putting
green, and a paved walkway encircles the perimeter of the site.
B. Building Description:
Approximately 104 feet separate the second story units of the proposed
Oakmont main building from the rear property line of the residential projects
to the north. Roofline heights vary on the main building and range in height
from the predominant building line of 24' high to the tallest tower element of
34'11". The largest single building is 215,032 square feet. While the project
appears to be one solid block in plan view, its elevation is punctuated with a
series of defined modulations in the form of recessed balconies, first and
second story alcoves, articulating rooflines, and a variety of fenestration
types.
C. Architecture:
The project architecture is of a Spanish Colonial design, utilizing a mix of
stucco, tile and wrought iron. Awnings and light colors present a soft
appearance while protecting from solar gain. Classic shapes and rhythms
generally associated with the Spanish Colonial architectural language are
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 4 of 11
placed throughout the building elevations, contained in the representation
of surface details, and in its exterior expression of space.
Judicious use of water elements adds a cooling influence while the
landscape palette will focus on a desert theme, with plants requiring
minimal water usages. The plant selection is in conformance with the
City's Landscape Maintenance Guide and recommendations. While the
plans have not yet received Preliminary Approval from the City's
landscape specialist, they have been approved in concept.
IV. ANALYSIS:
Oakmont Senior Living conforms to all zoning regulations. The following
information analyzes the project's expected impact on the site.
A. Parking:
Parking is provided as per Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
25.58.310.C. Health Uses as follows:
Convalescent and nursing homes, homes for aged, rest homes,
children's homes and sanitariums: one parking space for every four
beds in accordance with the resident capacity of the home as listed on
the required license or permit. Oakmont Senior Living is a fully
licensed facility. For the purposes of context the following would apply:
• The minimum required parking would be approximately 121/4 =
30.25 spaces.
• If there is double occupancy in 50% of the non-casita units 181/4=
45.25 spaces.
The proposed project would provide the following parking counts:
Underground
Standard Spaces 92
Handicap Spaces 4
Casita Garages 8
Surface Spaces
Standard Spaces 57
Handicap Spaces 2
Total Parking Provided 163
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 5 of 11
It is anticipated that the majority of the residents would utilize shuttle
services that will be provided to take residents to shops, appointments
and community activities. Visitors and employees would use surface
parking spaces.
B. Height:
The project proposes to build one two-story building at the street front of
the property that would wrap around the corner and four single-story
casitas in the rear of the property. In its design the main building proposes
tile roofs that cover patios on the first floor. To create balance and
harmony the design utilizes raised architectural elements and decorative
towers. The highest of these elements is 34' 11" tall.
While the height limit for continuous rooflines in a commercial district is 30
feet, and the height limit for multi-family residence is 22' for a flat roof and
24' for a pitched roof, the predominant height of the proposed building is
24'.
The second story is stepped back in the rear of the project as it faces the
adjacent single story residents. This setback is significant. From the
second story of the Oakmont project to the residences abutting the project
to the north there is a setback of 118'6".
In accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 25.56.300 "Height of a
Structure" a decorative architectural element may be erected up to 25'
higher than the allowed height for the district. The Oakmont Senior Living
project can be considered as a multifamily development. Therefore, the
maximum allowed height for the architectural elements would be 49'.
As a policy of the City, architectural elements are reviewed by the City
Council. The Architectural Review Commission found that the decorative
aspects of the height projections enhance the overall appearance of the
building.
C. Density:
The proposed density is 14 units per acre. The density associated with the
previously approved project was 6 units per acre. However, the previously
approved 49 single-family homes were two-story structures that potentially
could result in families of three persons or more. Therefore, the Oakmont
Senior Living project could result in fewer residents overall and be
considered less dense. In addition, hardscape to pave streets and an
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 6 of 11
increase in automobile trips to service the larger number residents of
would have created a greater impact than the current proposal.
D. Landscape:
The Oakmont Senior Living project proponents were able to meet with the
Merano Homeowner's Association (HOA), the residential development to
the north that abuts the proposed construction. Oakmont's representatives
presented the features of the proposed institutional development. The
Merano HOA approved of all aspects of the project with the exception of
the proposed landscape along the adjoining property line. Homeowners
whose backyards abut the new development are opposed to trees that
appear in the design as these could litter in their pools. In the review of
new projects, the City's policy is to endorse compatibility with adjacent
neighborhoods. However, the City also maintains a strict adherence to the
Urban Forest concept, which quantifies the quality of the environment
based on a percentage of living trees.
Since receiving these comments, the applicant has redesigned the
landscape; currently proposing trees along the emergency egress only
where there are no pools. The applicant has also submitted an alternative
plan without trees that will be presented at the time of the meeting.
E. Findings of Approval for a Conditional Use Permit:
In accordance with the City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance 25.72.070,
the following findings for a Conditional Use Permit are required to be
made before granting a Conditional Use Permit:
1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with
the objectives of this title and the purpose of the district in which
the site is located;
a. The proposed location of the Oakmont Senior Living
assisted senior care residence and facility is in accordance
with the objective of the zoning ordinance, which aims to
provide compatible uses in proximity. As presented the
project is an outstanding positive architectural contribution to
the streetscape fulfilling the objectives of the transition
aspect of the gateway frontage.
b. The proposed location of the Oakmont Senior Living
assisted senior care residence and facility is cited in such a
way to make accessible uses of increased intensity such as
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 7 of 11
commercial centers yet provide a buffer to the single family
residences to the north and east of the project.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the
conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
a. The proposed location is not expected to create detrimental
effects to the public health, safety and welfare or be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the city.
b. An environmental assessment leading to a mitigated
negative declaration has been prepared that concludes that
there will be no adverse environmental effects.
3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or
adjustments;
a. The proposed conditional use complies with each of the
applicable provisions of Title 25 "Zoning".
b. The proposed Conditional Use Permit does not request of
the Planning Commission any adjustments or variances. The
decorative architectural elements of the project are allowed
by the zoning ordinance and have been approved by the
Architectural Review Commission.
4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan.
a. The project as proposed is designed in accordance with the
goals and objectives of the City's General Plan for this area.
The General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use (MU)
Commercial high density (R-H) 10-22 dwelling units per acre
project.
b. The Oakmont Senior Living provides housing in a garden
setting at 14 dwelling units per acre. It can be found that the
use is compatible with the objectives and polices of the
General Plan. The institutional aspect provides a slight but
welcomed increase of employment in the area.
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 8 of 11
In addition to the above Code-referenced findings, the Planning
Commission may wish to consider the traffic impacts in order to approve a
Conditional Use Permit for an institutional use in a residential zone.
As part of the conditions of approval, the applicant shall be required to
provide road improvements as provided by the Circulation Element of the
General Plan. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed
above, the project should not generate additional demands on existing
transportation systems. The proposed circulation systems have sufficient
capacity to accept any additional traffic produced by the proposed
residential project.
The applicant has submitted a Trip Generation Comparison Analysis that
studied the proposed project's impact on local "Level of Service" (LOS).
Expected weekday daily and peak hour trip generation form the proposed
121-unit Continuing Care Retirement Community project (340 daily trips,
23 two-way AM peak hour trips and 36 two-way PM peak hour trips)
versus trip generation from 49 single family units (468 daily trips, 36 two-
way AM peak hour trips and 49 two way PM peak hour trips).
In contrast to the 49 single family development, the 121 unit continuing
Care retirement community project would result in about 128 fewer daily
trips (about 27 percent fewer) with 13 fewer AM peak hour trips and
(about 36 percent fewer), and 13 fewer PM peak hour trips (about 26
percent fewer). Therefore, the project is not anticipated to deteriorate the
Level of Service (LOS) on either Monterey Avenue or Country Club Drive.
Principal access to the project area will be through Via Scena, which is
designed to handle vehicular traffic for this type of use.
F. Findings for Approval of a Precise Plan
1. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.73 Precise Plan, the
Planning Commission may find that if the proposed precise plan
would substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or
would unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property
in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes or would
endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare, such
plan shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before
adoption as to remove said objections.
The proposed plan, as designed, would upgrade rather than
degrade or endanger the appearance of the current vacant
lot and create a gateway statement. New landscape would
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 9 of 11
formalize the site and create compatibility with the adjacent
surroundings.
2. In addition to the foregoing grounds of rejection, the Planning
Commission may also consider and take into account the exterior
architectural design, general exterior appearances, landscape,
color, texture of surface materials and exterior construction, shape
and bulk, and other physical characteristics including location and
type of public utility facilities, and if the Planning Commission were
to find that the proposed precise plan of design, including the
considerations enumerated in the Code would interfere with the
orderly development in the vicinity of the precise plan area, or with
the existing or proposed use thereof, it could reject or modify the
precise plan or condition its approval as to remove the objections.
The proposed architectural style is iterated to convey a rich
mixture of modulated spaces with maximum attention given
to detailing of the architectural language in such a manner
as to provide a lasting positive contribution to the built
environment. Where there are architectural elements up to
34'11" in height, the architectural elements enhance the
street presence. The proposed materials and forms will
render a unique and aesthetic appearance.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Oakmont Senior
Living assisted residential facility. Due to its location in an urbanized infill setting,
it has been determined that Mandatory Findings of Significance are less than
significant with the exception of incorporating the following mitigation measures:
• The collection of the mitigation fees established by the Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan to provide conservation for biological
resources for which mitigation fees will be applied. (See Initial Study IV.
a).
• The requirement of a Native American Archeological monitor to be
present during the excavation phase of the project. (See Initial Study V.
a-d).
• The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 10 of 11
settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures
must be designed to the 2007 California Building Code requirements to
insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set
forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed.
(See Initial Study VI a (i-iv)).
• Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required.
Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be
required. Noise levels will be mitigated so that the General Plan Noise
Element limits are not exceeded. (See Initial Study XI. a-d)
VI. CONCLUSION:
The Oakmont Senior Living conforms to all zoning regulations. Its impact on
density would be minimal as the subject property faces an intersection
developed with high intensity commercial venues. Therefore, its approval would
create a buffer between the abutting single family residential properties to the
north and east and the existing busy commercial corner. The Oakmont Senior
Living facility will have little or no impact with regard to:
• Traffic: Low impact, and would not affect the AM/PM peak commute
times.
• Schools: All residents are senior citizens; therefore schools are not
affected.
• Noise: Once constructed, probably the least noise of any type of
development.
It can be concluded that the proposed institutional use would be a favorable
addition to the vicinity.
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. , approving CUP 07-17 and PP 07-15 subject
to conditions attached.
Staff Report
Case No.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
April 15, 2008
Page 11 of 11
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Negative Declaration Environmental Checklist
D. Initial Study (Comments from Checklist)
E. Architectural Review Commission Notice of Action and Minutes
F. Exhibits
Submitted by: Department Head:
Renee Schrader- Lauri Aylaian
Associate Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
Homer Croy
ACM for Development Services
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A PRECISE PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT 121 SENIOR COMMUNITY CARE AND HEALTHCARE
UNITS WITH DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS UP TO 34
FEET 11 INCHES TALL ON 8.63 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND MONTEREY
AVENUE AT 73-050 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION RESULTING FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED
PROJECT.
CASE NO.s CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 15th day of April, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
by the OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING, LLC, for approval of the above noted; 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. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project as mitigated will not have a significant impact on the environment and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said
Conditional Use Permit Request that:
1. The proposed location of the senior licensed assisted care residential
institution requiring a conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this
title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located;
2. The proposed design of the senior licensed assisted care residential
institution, as conditioned, is in accord with the objectives and policies of
the general plan and zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in
which the site is located.
3. The proposed location of the senior licensed assisted care residential
institution and the conditions under which it will be operated and
maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to
justify approval of said Precise Plan Request that:
1. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.73 Precise Plan, the
Planning Commission finds that if the proposed precise plan would
substantially depreciate property values in the vicinity or would
unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity
by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes or would endanger the public
peace, health, safety or general welfare, such plan shall be rejected or
shall be so modified or conditioned before adoption as to remove said
objections.
The proposed plan, as designed would upgrade, rather than
degrade or endanger, the appearance of the current vacant lot and
create a gateway statement. New landscape would formalize the
site and create compatibility with the adjacent surroundings.
2. The Planning Commission may also consider and take into account the
exterior architectural design, general exterior appearances, landscape,
color, texture of surface materials and exterior construction, shape and
bulk and other physical characteristics including location and type of
public utility facilities and, if it is found that the proposed precise plan of
design, including the considerations enumerated in this chapter would
interfere with the orderly development in the vicinity of the precise plan
area, or with the existing or proposed use thereof, such precise plan of
design shall be rejected or shall be so modified or conditioned before
approval as to remove the objections.
The proposed architectural style is iterated to convey a rich mixture
of modulated spaces with maximum attention given to detailing of
the architectural language in such a manner as to provide a lasting
positive contribution to the built environment. Where an approval
for architectural elements up to 34'11" in height is requested, the
architectural elements enhance the street presence. The proposed
materials and forms will render a unique and aesthetic appearance.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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 it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 07-17 and Precise
Plan 07-15, subject to conditions attached.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of April, 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DAVID E. TSCHOPP, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP 07-14
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Construction of said project shall commence within one (1) 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. 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.
4. 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.
5. Applicant shall comply with each mitigation measure as identified in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared March 26, 2008, summarized in the Staff Report
prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 2008, and stated in detail
within the attached Initial Study comments.
6. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Fringe-Toed Lizard or
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Conservation Plan, TUMF, School Mitigation and
Housing Mitigation fees.
7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval,
subject to applicable lighting standards. The plan must be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
8. The project is subject to the Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal
Code Chapter 4.10.
9. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office
before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to
the Department of Community Development/Planning.
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. All landscape maintenance shall be performed by the property owner and the
applicant shall enter into a landscape maintenance agreement with the City for the
life of the project, consistent with the Municipal Code provisions and the approved
landscaped plan.
2. 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.
BONDS AND FEES
3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permit.
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 standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
6. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code
shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
7. Storm drain design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study
prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to
retain on-site a 25 year storm and conform to the Merano Drainage Master
Plan. If the existing retention basin is used, then a sub-surface nuisance
water retention/infiltration system shall be installed and the developer shall
enter into a maintenance agreement with the owner of the basin.
8. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to
the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any
permits.
9. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
10. Pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26
of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
11. Landscape installation shall be drought tolerant in nature and in accordance with the
City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (24.04).
12. Landscape plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans.
13. The applicant shall provide cobble and boulders as landscape for the adjacent right
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
turn pocket island and it shall match the cobble and boulders of the landscape on
site.
14. Full public improvements, as required by Section 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code, shall be installed in accordance with City standards including:
• Installation of 8' meandering sidewalk minimum 4' setback from back of curb.
• Rights-of-way necessary for the installation of the above referenced
improvements shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of any
permits associated with this project.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and no occupancy permit shall be granted until the improvements have been
completed.
15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12,
Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and
Discharge Control.
16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to
the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water
discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County
Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. Entrance to underground parking shall be posted for "No Visitor Parking, Assigned
Spaces Only".
18. Developer shall contribute proportionately for a landscaped center median on
Monterey Avenue adjacent to their project. The landscaped portion shall be
measured from the corresponding Oakmont Senior Living property lines westward
and a centerline down the median corresponding to the City of Palm Desert city limit.
Developer shall contribute a per square foot dollar amount as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
Building & Safety Department:
1. Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of
plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time:
2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 2006 IBC)
2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2006 UMC)
2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2006 UPC)
2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2005 NEC)
2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in every building
(except R3 occupancies) where the total accumulation of gross floor area is 3000
square feet or more. (Reference City of Palm Desert Ordinance 1054)
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
3. Compliance with Ordinance 1124, Local Energy Efficiency Standards. The
requirements are more restrictive than the 2007 California Energy Code. Please
obtain a copy of the Ordinance for further information.
4. A disabled access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to
the Dept of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements
as per 2007 CBC Chapters 11 A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10.
5. All entrances and exits of the common facilities must provide an accessible path of
travel to the public way. (CBC 1024.6 & 1127B.1)
6. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11336.8 and
11276.5 (7). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an
ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA
requirement shall supercede the State requirement.
7. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is
required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Dept of Building and
Safety.
8. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Dept of
Environmental Health and then submitted to Dept of Building and Safety. Pools and
Spas for public use are required to be fully accessible.
8. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5.
9. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's
Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per
California Labor Code, Section 3700.
10. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1006 (Palm Desert
Municipal Code 15.04.110 through 15.04.160). Compliance with Ordinance 1006
regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street,
height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building
elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping,
backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall
be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance
1006 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff.
11. Please contact Debbie Le Blanc, Land Management Specialist, at the Department of
Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or
suites.
Riverside County Fire Department:
11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project,
the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized
Fire Protection Standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all buildings per UFC article 87.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
3. Provide or show that there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of
3000 gpm for commercial buildings.
4. The required flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4" x 2 Y "x
21", located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of a multi-family
dwelling measured via vehicular driveway or 150' from a commercial building
measured via vehicular travel-way.
5. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the
water system will produce the required fire flow.
6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a
3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and
connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an
approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings.
7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-
flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9.
8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3.
9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire
extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens.
10. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public
and private cooking operations except single family residential use if kitchen is
installed in the main building.
11. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of
all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than
24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is
required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with
parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a
minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments.
12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
12.Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system
for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum
vertical clearance of 13'6".
13.A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or
other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshall. Under no circumstance
shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted.
14.A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
form a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development.
15.All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
16.All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction.
17.Turn Around is required at the main building
18. Knox Box is required at the rear secondary access.
19. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
Coachella Valley Water District:
1. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the
District for review to ensure efficient water management.
13
CITY Of PHA DESERT
I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
WW1 PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
1. .•, , - lr TEL:760 346-0611
•\:r :`' FAX:760 341-7098
•�:a -;:' infoC4palm-deser:.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.CUP 07-17 PP 07-15
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission to consider a request by Oakmont Senior Living, LLC, to approve a Conditional
Use Permit and a proposed Precise Plan for Oakmont Senior Living to construct 121 senior
community care and healthcare units on 8.63 acres located on the northeast corner of Country
Club Drive and Monterey Avenue at 73-050 Country Club Drive. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration resulting from an Environmental Assessment pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) has been prepared for the proposed project and is on file in
the City of Pam Desert Planning Department.
r
1
I
Ill. ~
IN
Ell 2
IN k
Li al �N� :5--11 _
ri■.Iu■.*.IN uii
illrer
II
o)
OUNTRY CLUB DR COUNTRY CLUB DR
-
.,
�.
Mae" I
I
ft
vivo
ililb ail
48447116
mu, AL _ l
NORTH
SAID public hearing will be held on April 15, 2008, at 6:00 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 Planning Commission at,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
March 19,2008 Palm Desert Planning Commission
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
❑ Aesthetics 0 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 0 Public Services
❑ Agriculture Resources 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Recreation
❑ Air Quality 0 Land Use/Planning 0 Transportation/Traffic
❑ Biological Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 Utilities/Service System
❑ Cultural Resource 0 Noise
❑ Geology/Soils 0 Population/ Housing
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.
Cl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
March 26, 2008
Sign ture '--J Date
EL cyi.e4 v Ei 2
Printed Name
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 2 of 15
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer
is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project
will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be
cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a
brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects
in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 3 of 15
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No ImF
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ 0 ❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not 0 ❑ ❑
limited to,tress,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ [ ❑
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which 0 0 ❑
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
•
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland 0 0 ❑
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑
Williamson Act contract?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 4 of 15
Lcss Than
Significant
Issues: Potentially With Lcss Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable El El El
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ 0 ( ❑
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
•
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ 0 0
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ �]
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑ g3,
of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or
regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 5 of 15
41111
Less Than
Significant
Issues: Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No In
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 0 ❑ 0
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 ❑ 0
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 ❑ ❑
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 0 ❑
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ; 1 ❑
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tgt. ❑ 0
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ ❑ ❑
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ LAC
outside of formal cemeteries?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "1"
Page 6 of 15
MIL
Less Than
Significant
Issues: Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Irr.
Impact Incorporated Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ❑ j 0
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the 0 0 ❑
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ Cg ['� ❑
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ (� ❑
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 0 ❑ ❑
that would become unstable as a result of the project,and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ❑ (� ❑
the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
CITY/RVPl 8i2002i313785 FORM "J"
Page 7 of 15
Less Than
Significant
Issues: Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im
Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 ❑ ❑
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ 0 0 [5k
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 0 ❑ ❑
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport,would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would 0 0 0
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 8 of 15
Less Than
Significant
Issues: Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im
Impact Incorporated Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g.,the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ ❑ ❑ (x
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ❑ ❑ ❑ [
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ 0
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ [ (
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ 0 0 [ j
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑
would impede or redirect flood flows?
CITY/RVPLB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 9 of 15
(( l
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No In
Impact Incorporated Impact
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ 0
LX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 124,
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or ❑ ❑ ❑
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
•
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ J .
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 0 El
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ 0
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 10 of 15
•
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Iml
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ 0 0 C(
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ��', �[ .
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ 0 0
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ 0 •
❑ rve
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ ❑
directly (for example,by proposing new homes and
businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension
of road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ fg
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: •
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 11 of 15
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No In'
Impact Incorporated Impact
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 0 ❑ 0
Police protection? 0 ❑ 0
Schools? 0 ❑ 0
Parks? ❑ ❑ 0
Other public facilities? ❑ El ❑
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ 0
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑ 0
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 12 of 15
C 4
Less Than
Significant
Issues: Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ 0 ❑
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 0 0 ❑ a_
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 0 0 0
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ [x�
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 ❑ ❑ .
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ 0 (�
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ❑ (�
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
C1TY/RVPUB/20021313785 FORM "J"
Page 13 of 15
ux� i nan
C Significant
Issues: �.entially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im
Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ 0
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this
determination, the City shall consider whether the project
is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of
Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), and the
requirements of Government Code Section 664737(SB
221).
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ 0 (x)
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity ❑ ❑ ❑
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ 0 121
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 0 ❑ ❑
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑
limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects.)
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 14 of 15
Less Than
Significant
Issues: Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Im
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ 0 ❑
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
CITY/RVPUB/2002/313785 FORM "J"
Page 15 of 15
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. CUP 07/17 PP 07-15
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
AESTHETICS
a-c. The site is presently vacant and can be termed as aesthetically neutral.
The Palm Desert Architectural Commission has approved the proposed
development as a positive contribution to the streetscape and the
surrounding scenic vistas. While some portion of mountain views will be
changed by the proposed construction, the surrounding street corners are
densely developed commercial venues. Therefore, while a change would
occur to the current vacant appearance and to the views of the
surrounding neighborhood, the proposed development would improve the
scenic quality.
d. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent
lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting
plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a, b, c.
The site is vacant desert with minor amounts of native desert vegetation.
The site has never been used for agricultural purposes nor shown on
maps as agricultural.
III. AIR QUALITY
a & b.
During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a
short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be watered during days in
which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. City of Palm Desert
Grading Ordinance requires this.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not
result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is
supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003051103) prepared for the City of
Palm Desert September 2003. Completed development of the site will
result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's
vacant condition.
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due
to its size and identified uses.
d. The proposed development does not call for uses that would create
substantial pollutant concentrations.
e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The property is in the designated area of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard. This project will eliminate all fringe-toed lizards within the project
boundaries. Pursuant to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Plan and Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan the loss of
lizards and habitat can be mitigated by the applicable per acre fee for each acre
developed at the time of obtaining permits. Project will be conditioned to pay
said fee. The mitigation fee will be collected and paid to the Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission and used to purchase land in special preserves. The
preserved lands will create suitable habitat for lizards as well as other biological
species in the community conservation plan.
The site may contain other dune species, which are of statewide concern (i.e.,
Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan has
been prepared by CVAG and adopted by the City of Palm Desert City Council,
which establishes preserves and conservation practices to insure the future
survival of these dune species.
b. No riparian habitat present on site.
c. No wetlands habitat present on site.
d. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site.
e. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other than that
delineated in item (a) above.
f. See (a) above. The dune species of concern are not migratory in nature. The
site has been designated for development with mitigation fees within the
Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan or the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan, whichever Plan is formalized at the time of
fee collection.
2
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the City of Palm Desert
General Plan Environmental Impact Report found no evidence of any cultural,
archeological or historical significance on this site. However, a Native American
archeological monitor shall be required to be present during the site grading
process, which entails excavation. In addition, state law requires that should
any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the
site cleared. Construction would be reactivated upon the expert advice of a
qualified Archeologist.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
a (i-iv).
The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various studies have
concluded that with proper building design, which is required by the 2007
California Building Code, people will not be exposed to substantial adverse
effects. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report and
recommendations from the report are included in the following mitigation
measures.
MITIGATION MEASURES for Geology and Soils a.(i-iv)
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require detailed
geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and
expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed to the 2007
California Building Code requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within
the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies
being developed.
b. Development will reduce blow sand erosion, which is common in this area.
There is no topsoil present.
c. See mitigation measure a.i-iv. above.
d. See mitigation measure a.i-iv. above.
e. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks but they will not be used, as
sewers are available.
3
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
Mitigation measure as recommended per submitted Geotechnical Report:
General Site grading:
An on-site pre-job meeting with the developer, the contractor and soils
engineer shall occur prior to all grading operations. Grading of the site
shall be performed at a minimum in accordance with these
recommendations and with applicable portions of the 2007 California
Building Code.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials.
b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards.
c. Currently, there is no school within 1/4 mile of the site. However, the Foundation
for the Retarded, which is an institution operates less than 1/4 mile away. The
institution is an out-patient learning and training center. The Oakmont Senior
Living project is not anticipated to generate any hazardous materials that would
impact the learning institution.
d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites.
e. Site is not within two miles of a public airport.
f. No private airstrip in area.
g. Project will not interfere with the City's emergency response or evacuation plan.
h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or
trees.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount
otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District
assures that there is a sufficient water supply to accommodate this growth. In addition,
the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the
Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development.
4
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage
and the grading ordinance.
b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater
recharge.
c, d, e.
Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to
accept the water from the site.
f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality.
g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard. The site is located in flood zone C,
which is designated an area of minimal flooding.
h. See (g).
I. Area is not subject to flooding.
j. Area is flat desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a. The site is zoned for residential uses. The Oakmont Senior Living project
proposes to change from the single-family residential use to an allowed private
institutional use under a Conditional Use Permit. The state licensed assisted
community project is anticipated to operate as a residential use with persons
living in an apartment style garden setting. A less than significant impact is
anticipated.
b. Should the project be approved as a conditional use it is consistent with the
General Plan and zoning.
c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan, other than that discussed in Section IV(a).
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. No known mineral resources.
b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general
plan.
5
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
Xl. NOISE
a, b, c, d.
Construction of the project will increase ambient noise level. The increase is not
expected to create an annoyance to adjacent residential properties. Post
construction all uses on the site will be required to comply with the City Noise
Ordinance. Ample setbacks are proposed including the distance from the
recreation areas and dining facilities to the adjacent residences, which should
mitigate any disturbances.
MITIGATION MEASURES for XI a-d.
Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures
to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise levels will be mitigated
so that the General Plan Noise Element limits are not exceeded.
e & f.
Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in vicinity of a private airstrip.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a-c. The proposed project is for the construction of one contiguous building
proposed to house 117 apartments; four casitas, and underground parking for
residents. While an increase in residents would be generated from the project,
these would not create the need for additional infrastructure such as schools or
parks. There is an existing road that allows an entrance to the project. No
existing residents would be displaced.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment
to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been
developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated for a planned
residential development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., interior drives,
utilities) will be installed by the developer. The proposed land use would
increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and
greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of
the land.
6
AMIIIIMMIIMINNINNOW
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
Fire and Police Protection
Police and Fire services have indicated that they can service the proposed project.
Schools
The project will not be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time of
building permit issuance.
Parks
The school and family services center project will not impact parks.
Other Public Facilities
Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project. In addition the
project proposes to construct a private library within the site.
XIV. RECREATION
a-b. The Oakmont project will not increase the use of current parks or recreational
facilities within the area. A pool, a professionally designed 9-hole putting green,
a movie theater, a ball room and a gym are designed into the project.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a-b. As part of the conditions of approval the applicant shall be required to provide
road improvements as provided by the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above, the project should
not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. The
proposed circulation systems have sufficient capacity to accept any additional
traffic produced by the proposed residential project.
The applicant has submitted a Trip Generation Comparison Analysis that
studied the proposed project's impact on local LOS. Expected weekday daily
and peak hour trip generation form the proposed 121-unit Continuing Care
Retirement Community project (340 daily trips, 23 two-way AM peak hour trips
and 36 two-way PM peak hour trips) versus trip generation from 49 single family
units (468 daily trips, 36 two-way AM peak hour trips and 49 two way PM peak
hour trips). In contrast to the 49 single family development the 121 unit
continuing Care retirement community project would result in about 128 fewer
7
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
daily trips (about 27 percent fewer daily trips) with 13 fewer AM peak hour trips
and (about 36 percent fewer AM peak hour trips, and 13 fewer PM peak hour
trips (about 26 percent PM peak hour trips). Therefore, the project is not
anticipated to deteriorate the Level of Service (LOS) on either Monterey Avenue
or Country Club Drive.
Principal access to the project area will be through Via Scena, which is
designed to handle vehicular traffic for this type of use.
c. Project will not change air traffic patterns.
d. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and
the project will not include incompatible uses.
e. Emergency access will be acceptable.
f. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities, which will be supplied by
the project on site in compliance with city code.
g. Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists. Street
improvements will minimize traffic hazards to motor vehicles.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a. Project will not exceed limits.
b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project.
c. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They will occur with or
without this project.
d. See (b) above.
e. See (b) above.
f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available
at Eagle Mountain.
g. City will enforce these statutes through the Community Development/Planning
Department.
8
INITIAL STUDY
CUP 07-17/PP 07-15
Oakmont Senior Living
Planning Commission April 15, 2008
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Mandatory Findings of Significance are less than significant with the exception
of incorporating the following mitigation measures:
• The collection of the mitigation fees established by the Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan to provide conservation for biological resources for which
mitigation fees will be applied. (See Initial Study IV. a).
• The requirement of a Native American Archeological monitor to be present
during the excavation phase of the project. (See Initial Study V. a-d).
• The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be
designed to the 2007 California Building Code requirements to insure that
buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for
the type of building and occupancies being developed. (See Initial Study VI a
(i-iv)).
• Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional
measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise levels
will be mitigated so that the General Plan Noise Element limits are not
exceeded. (See Initial Study Xl. a-d)
b. None.
c. None.
9
. ......
.••••
CITY Of PRIm DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
.d PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
` •• TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 340-0574
•
• info@palm-desert.org
March 6, 2008
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO: CUP 07-17, PP 07-15
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST OF 1982, 660
Newport Center Dr. #1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of
architectural design for a proposed Precise Plan to construct 121 senior community
care and healthcare units on 8.63 acres: Oakmont Senior Living.
LOCATION: 73-050 Country Club Drive
ZONE: PR-7
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval by minute
motion.
Date of Action: February 26, 2008
Vote: Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Gregory
abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent
(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 re-submitted to 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 meeting's agenda,
new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the
Monday eight days prior to the next meeting.
0 MOM.�00
ARCHITECTURAL R lEW COMMISSION
MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2008
ordinance allows for the towers and we are not trying to approve
the whole building over the height limit. We look at things in
context with the code. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that the vast
majority of these buildings are well under the height limit; it's not
like a huge mass up at 34 feet going straight across. Mr. Palmer
stated that if you were to average the height, the percentage of
floor area that exceeds it is probably less than 2% of the whole
center. Commissioner Lambell asked what size the cupolas were.
Mr. Palmer answered that they were eight feet by eight feet.
Commissioner Hanson made a motion for approval and
Commissioner Gregory asked if the motion could include putting a
little pressure on the applicant to put that archway there because
that will really help that spot. Mr. Lang stated that they were in
complete agreement.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner
Lambell, to grant approval subject to including the archway. Motion
carried 4-1-0-1, with Commissioner DeLuna voting NO and Commissioner
Vuksic absent.
3. CASE NO: CUP 07-17, PP 07-15
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): THE ROBERT L. MAYER TRUST
OF 1982, 660 Newport Center Dr. #1050, Newport Beach, CA 92660
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary
approval of architectural design for a proposed Precise Plan to
construct 121 senior community care and healthcare units on 8.63
acres: Oakmont Senior Living.
LOCATION: 73-050 Country Club Drive
ZONE: PR-7
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Hanson and seconded by Commissioner
Lambell, to grant approval by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0-1-1, with
Commissioner Gregory abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent.
G.,Planning\Janine Judy\Word Fdn\ARC Minutesk2008\AR080226.doc 1 0