The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-07-07 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2020 – 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not appearing on the agenda may address the Planning Commission via the Zoom session at this point by giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, members will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Options for Public Participation: • Public comment may be received by email or voicemail from the time the agenda is posted up until one (1) hour prior to the posted time of meeting convening (5:00 p.m.). Emails will be distributed for the record prior to the meeting. If the sender so requests, the email will be read into the record during the virtual meeting. Emails shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes. Email: planning@cityofpalmdesert.org In consideration of the current Coronavirus/COVID-19 Pandemic and pursuant to California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders, Planning Commissioners may participate via teleconference. AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2020 2 • Voicemails will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at or near the time they are received. If the sender requests, they may also be saved and played at the appropriate point in the live meeting. Voicemails shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes. Voicemail: (760) 776-6409 • Via Zoom/teleconference: Webinar ID: 820 1262 4884 or by phone dial 1 (213) 338-8477. A password will be required to join the Zoom meeting, please email moreilly@cityofpalmdesert.org to request the password prior to meeting convening (until 5:00 p.m.). Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection on the City’s website: cityofpalmdesert.org. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII, CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER, OF THE AGENDA. A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application to merge lots at El Paseo, San Luis Rey Avenue, and Larrea Street (APNs 627- 271-015 & 627-271-006). Case No. PMW 19-0007 (P.D. Partners, LLC, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 19-0007. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. NEW BUSINESS None AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7, 2020 3 IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless the Planning Commission authorizes additional time. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-0002 to allow the construction of a 65-foot tall wireless telecommunication facility, and a 288-square-foot equipment enclosure at 78005 Country Club Drive, and adopt a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. CUP 19-0002 (Smartlink, LLC—ATT, Cardiff, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2779, approving Case No. CUP 19-0002, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopt a Notice of Exemption. Action: XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS XIV. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 2nd day of July 2020. CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 2020 – 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRUTAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Vice-Chair John Greenwood Chair Lindsay Holt Also Present: Craig Hayes, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner Christina Canales, Engineering Assistant Monica O’Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell summarized pertinent City Council actions from the meeting of June 11, 2020. He suggested that the Commission read the City Council staff report regarding the Unite Palm Desert Business Support Program (May 14, 2020). V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 2 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. Upon a motion by Vice-Chair Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 4-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Precise Plan (PP) application to convert an existing two-unit apartment complex into a seven-unit apartment complex on a 9,940-square-foot lot located at 74218 Alessandro Drive; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. PP 19-0005 (Josh & Vivian Stomel, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report (staff report(s) are available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). As part of the public hearing process, City staff received three letters in opposition to the project. He also spoke to one individual who was concerned that the proposed project would create sober living homes, which there is already a sober living facility next door. Staff supported the project, which captures the Downtown Edge Transition Overlay (DE-O) zone. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna felt that the project looks pleasing, and the concept is one that the City is glad to embrace. She voiced her concern with parking and asked if it is correct that the project is short by three parking stalls. Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna assumed that there would not be a couple with two cars. She stated that the applicant is relying on street parking, and inquired if there would be enough parking for others in the neighborhood. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 3 Mr. Swartz believed there is enough parking. He mentioned that he drove down the street at night a couple of times. He found that directly in front, parking was available on the south side, and there was more parking available further down Alessandro Drive. He said it is not uncommon for someone to walk a block or two to get to their home. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there would be any type of covered parking for the apartment complex. Mr. Swartz said no, explaining that staff wanted the overall massing along the street. He stated that the applicant could provide carports in the back since there is a five-foot setback; however, they wanted to alleviate any massing for the adjacent neighbors. Staff felt that adding trees would provide the necessary shade. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant would be installing solar panels. Mr. Swartz believed that the applicant is trying to accommodate solar panels and working with the Building and Safety Department on possibly installing panels on the one-story units located in the back. He said the Commission could ask the applicant and noted that there is room for the installation of solar panels. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she would prefer seeing carports, with solar panels on top. She asked what the material for the existing wall is. Mr. Swartz replied that the wall no longer exists, but it was a block wall. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the applicant removed the wall without a permit. Mr. Swartz believed that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked how that issue would be resolved. Mr. Swartz responded that the Code Compliance Division is working with the applicant. The City currently has an open case concerning the wall and landscape maintenance. He explained that if the City approves the project, there could be a penalty. If the City denies the project, the applicant would need to replace the wall. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the apartments are intended to be short-term rentals (STRs) or permanent residences. Mr. Swartz answered that the proposed project is an apartment complex. As part of the City’s STR Ordinance, the applicant could not rent the apartments as an STR. Therefore, the apartments are for year-round residents. Commissioner DeLuna commented that the aesthetics are pleasing and supports the concept. However, she has questions about solar panels and having enough parking for the residents. Vice-Chair Greenwood asked Mr. Swartz to display the architectural site plan. He referred to an internal wall adjacent to the pool and commented that the City is holding to an 18- PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 4 foot dimension. His concern that the applicant is placing the wall literally on the pool in with the pool, which he felt would have functional issues. He stated that they should look at a 16-foot drive aisle. He inquired if there was any discussion about the drive aisle. Mr. Swartz indicated that the DE-O zone allows for more narrow driveways. He mentioned that the City looked at a 14-foot driveway; however, the City Engineer at the time was not comfortable with the 14 feet. For that reason, they came up with the 18-foot driveway. He mentioned that the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) had concerns with the amount of hardscape and recommended a narrow driveway for this project. He felt that the driveway could be 16 feet. Vice-Chair Greenwood stated that the 16-foot driveway should be considered. He mentioned that to comply with ADA and if there is a single parking stall, he believed it had to be a van accessible stall, which makes the access aisle eight feet and not five feet. It would also need to be on the right side. He stated that it would further affect the parking count. He asked if the Building and Safety Department had any comments. Mr. Swartz replied that they did not have any comments. He said that sometimes the Building and Safety Department do not get into the details until they receive the construction plans. He also said if the project is approved and a parking space is lost, staff could bring back the project to the Planning Commission for consideration. Vice-Chair Greenwood voiced his concern with trash bins. He pointed out that the floor plan indicates five bins. With seven units proposed, he asked if all the bins are for trash and no bins for recycling. He felt that things are being sacrificed on some functional requirements based on space. Mr. Swartz responded that there were discussions with Burrtec. There would need to be the same number of recycling bins as trash bins. He stated that there would be someone responsible for hauling the recycling and trash bins to the street. Vice-Chair Greenwood commented that trash might need to be picked up multiple times during the week. Mr. Swartz commented that Burrtec did not note any concerns in their comments. Vice-Chair Greenwood asked what the retention requirements are. Engineering Assistant Christina Canales responded that the requirement is to retain on- site for the 24-hour and 100-year storm because the site is not large enough; therefore, the proposed site does not require a SWIPP or a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Chair Holt inquired if all the first-floor units would be ADA accessible. Mr. Swartz believed only one unit needs to be ADA accessible and deferred the question to the architect. Chair Holt asked if it is correct that this is the first proposed project in the DE-O zone. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 5 Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Chair Holt commented that there is no set established precedent in terms of allowing a variance for parking. Mr. Swartz replied no, but there is another project coming forward located on Deep Canyon Road. The proposed project is on a similar size lot, and the applicant is proposing 12 units. He said staff is seeing more of these types of projects. Mr. Stendell added that this is the first project proposed in the DE-O zone, so it does present a different challenge. Vice-Chair Greenwood asked if there were discussions with the applicant regarding the density, such as proposing five units versus seven and eliminating the northern addition. Mr. Swartz responded that staff did discuss fewer units with the applicant. He said the applicant’s financing was for seven units, but would let the applicant address that question. Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. JOSH STOMEL, the Applicant, Palm Desert, California, thanked the Planning Commission for their time. He informed the Commission that they would be installing solar panels; however, he did not think of the carports. He shared that they have other long- term rentals and multi-units in the area, and none of them have carports or a garage. Not having carports has never deterred attracting good tenants. He said they have never built carports, or like the look of them, and that they rather have shade from trees. Mr. Stomel disclosed that all the units would have a washer and dryer inside each unit and quartz countertops, which will attract millennials (22-29 years of age). He felt that millennials do not care if they have shade for their car. He said a lot of them use electric bikes, scooters, and skateboards to get around. He stated they are not opposed to carports; they would have to design them, so they look good. Mr. Stendell asked Mr. Stomel to address the Planning Commissions question about having five units instead of seven. MR. STOMEL communicated that when they originally acquired the property, they were going to leave it as two units. Once they found out how much it would cost for the design, construction plans, etc. and considering the cost of acquiring the property, they decided to squeeze and leverage as much as they can on the land. He said they first were thinking of having nine units, but Mr. Swartz let them know that there would be an issue with parking. After talking to multiple lenders and penciled numbers out for the design, construction plans, grading, and landscaping; they would be underwater if they only built five units. He said they only way to be above the value was to build seven units on the lot. Vice-Chair Greenwood clarified if there are six or seven units, and is the northern unit only one. If the northern unit were eliminated, it would only be six units. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 6 Mr. Swartz replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant where they intend to install the solar panels. MR. STOMEL replied that it depends when the construction is approved. He mentioned that at their other properties, they did standard 285-watt panels on the roof. He explained that the units have a composite roof, the panels go on the composite roof, and the tiles go around the panels, so you do not see them. He said another option would be to install the solar panels at the rear of the structure. Commissioner DeLuna asked the applicant if he would be building the project. MR. STOMEL replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the property for sale. MR. STOMEL responded that they had the property for sale due to not knowing if the project would get approved. They also have other properties in Palm Desert for sale, but it is all contingent on the housing market. If the project is approved, they would take it off the market and build it themselves and keep it. At this point, Mr. Stendell read into the record the following letters opposing this matter. BRIDGETTE, communicated via email to voice her concern over the high-density of the proposed project. Additionally, the owner began demolition of the duplex without pulling the proper permits. The property is now demoed, vacant, and a public nuisance. She said the property is for sale and the owners have no intention of building the project. She felt the owners do not respect the City of Palm Desert or the residents, and the City should not reward bad behavior. MS. JENNY GROAT, Palm Desert, California, communicated via email. In summary, she shared she has lived in the neighborhood for nearly 30 years. She said it has become more difficult to walk on the sidewalk along the north side of Alessandro Drive due to the increasing number of cars and people congesting the area. She did not believe that each unit in the proposed project would house one person and one car and expressed her concern with parking. At one time, the property was well maintained and occupied. She indicated that now the property is neglected, the wall was removed, and windows are boarded up. She stated she is not against more apartments in the neighborhood. However, she asked the Commission to consider denying the application for a seven-unit apartment complex. MS. KIM HOUSKEN, Palm Desert, California, communicated via email. In summary, she expressed her concern about converting the duplex into a seven-unit apartment complex. After doing some research, she learned that the property is for sale, and the listing reads as follows, “NOW ready to break ground and transform this current, functional two-unit property into a seven-unit oasis. Plans and permits completed and in place.” She presumed the applicant did not have the appropriate permits and raised the following issues. Land Use Compatibility, the proposed project is not compatible with the PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 7 surrounding area. Properties to the east and west are duplexes and single-family residences to the north. The City code lists as a characteristic of a residential ground floor unit in the Downtown District zone as being set back with small front yards, which the project does not look to have small front yards. Parking, Section 25.18.050, requires a minimum of 1.25 spaces per unit for a studio or one-bedroom in the DE-O zone. Therefore, there should be 8.75 (presumably round up to nine) parking spaces for the project. She pointed out that one space is a ADA accessible parking stall, which may further reduce the number of parking spaces. The design guidelines in the DE-O zone state that all surface parking should be screened from street views by buildings, walls, etc. The design plans for the project indicate at least two parking spaces would be visible from the street. She noted that the ARC had a concern with the amount of hardscape along the west side and recommended the applicant work with the Fire and Public Works Departments to decrease the driveway and add a landscape planter. However, she did not read any efforts being made in the staff report. Additionally, the Downtown Design Guidelines state that rear lots must meet setback requirements. She said there are parking spaces that encroach the rear and side yard setbacks. Square Footage, per the plans, the apartments would be in the range of 433 to 628 square feet. She stated that the minimum square footage in the R-2 zone should be a minimum of 600 square feet and under the R-3 zone a minimum of 450 square feet. Therefore, one or more of the units fail to comply with the minimum dwelling unit size. Required On-Site Open Space, Section 25.18.050 G, requires a minimum of 20 percent of the total lot area be on-site open space. The lot is 9,940 square feet, so at least 1,988 square feet should be open space. She stated that the open space requirement should be reviewed to see if the minimum amount is provided, noting that the staff report does not address open space. Wall Demolition, the plans note the existing C.M.U wall to be removed. She communicated that the former concrete wall in front of the duplex was removed. However, a permit for the demolition of the wall was not on file with the Building and Safety Department. In closing, she felt the project was attractive and would fit nicely on a larger lot in an area of higher density. However, the project does not conform to the code, as addressed above. She urged the Planning Commission to deny the project as presented. She also felt that the applicant had deceptive advertising and failed to obtain a permit for the removal of the wall. She did not believe the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt about any of the standards the project fails to meet. After Mr. Stendell read the letters, Ms. Housken decided to make additional comments. MS. HOUSKEN shared she grew up in Palm Desert, and her family home is on Cabrillo Avenue. She said it is the first project the Planning Commission was reviewing under the DE-O zone and noted that the Commission would set a precedent. Therefore, the applicant should follow the underlying zoning code. She found it troubling that in both the ARC and Planning Commission staff report states the proposed project meets the parking standards, which do not. She pointed out that there should be nine parking spaces; however, it was lowered to seven parking spaces because of the millennials, which staff did not present to the ARC or the Planning Commission. It made her wonder what would have happened if she had not raised the parking issue. She mentioned that she drove by the property, and the units directly to the west appeared to have inadequate parking. There are two trucks parked in front of the duplex, which she believed to belong to the units next door. So for her to hear City staff say it is normal to walk one or two blocks to get to your house is news to her because it has never happened to her before. She would PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 8 like to know who is constructing the project. She requested that the Planning Commission deny the project. If the Commission considers approving the project, she indicated that Condition of Approval No. 3 gives the applicant two years to commence the project. She stated that the Precise Plan guidelines stated that the applicant has one year to commence construction, and may be given a second year. She recommended that the Planning Commission consider giving the applicant one year to commence the project. She commented that former Councilmember Dick Kelly once said that he would never put his mother-in-law in a unit less than 600 square feet. She said the project looks beautiful, but not on the proposed site. She thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak. MR. STOMEL stated that they did ten or more projects in Palm Desert, and City staff has known him and his wife for quite a while. He mentioned that they have rehabbed homes in the same neighborhood into very nice properties. He said they bought the duplex intending to turn them into vacation rentals, and then the City told him that vacation rentals were not allowed. They decided to do new construction and add more units. He communicated that squatters were living on the property, and had legal issues trying to get them off the property. The only way to get the squatters off the property was to demolish the wall to physically serve the squatters with legal papers. He stated that the City was aware of this, and they gave verbal approval to demolish the wall. He said they do not want to see the property looking vacant and unappealing. They lose money every month as it sits vacant; however, they have been working diligently with the Planning Department to get the plans done and approved. He shared that he has a bid for solar panels for four of his properties in Palm Desert, and they have rehabbed two other properties on Alessandro Drive and sold them. Mr. Stomel stated it is not their first rodeo and have every intention to make the project more beautiful than when they first purchased the property. They have a good track record in Palm Desert, and they have been successful with all the projects they have done. They are ready to get started on the project as soon as it is approved. Chair Holt asked if the applicant’s architect or engineer participating in the Zoom meeting, in case the Planning Commission has questions for them. MR. STOMEL replied that the architect is in the meeting. Chair Holt stated she would like clarification on the parking issue. She understood if you only have one designated ADA accessible parking space, the space needs to be van accessible. She said she is also has concerns with the parking spaces adjacent to the pool. MR. ANTONIO SANTAMARIA, the designer, stated that there would be five-foot fencing all around the pool. The width of five feet for the ramp is the only space where they could fit an ADA accessible space. He said he is not sure if it is necessary to have an accessible parking space unless it is a requirement. He asked if there were any other questions. With no further testimony offered, Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Ron Gregory agreed that the architecture is attractive, and if it were on an appropriate site, the proposed project would be an asset to the neighborhood and the City. He felt that the project is pushing the envelope every which way possible. He said PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 9 too much product is being put on too small of a space. He also said there is very little landscaping at the front of the project, and landscaping is supposed to be an asset. He noted that he does not care too much about covered parking; however, he does care about shade from trees. He stated that Shoestring Acacia would not provide shade; they are non-shade trees. They are the type of trees used when there is an extremely tight planting, such as in this situation. He voiced his concern with the driveway. If the City is okay to narrow the driveway, it would be okay with him. He was also concerned with insufficient parking, and the ADA van accessible parking space. He commented that people, including millennials, are moving from the city because they want to getaway. He said his daughter still lives in the City, and he remembers parking many blocks away to get to her place. He mentioned he has been in Palm Desert for over 40 years and used to own property on Alessandro Drive. He is very familiar with the street and does not see the project as an upgrade, except the architecture is very attractive. He asked how do they know millennials are going to move into the apartment complex and is there going to be restrictions that only millennials could live in the apartments. He stated that the Planning Commission looked very closely at the first application for mixed-use on El Paseo to make sure it was a good one. He indicated that he would be looking very keenly at any development in the area concerning the precedent they are going to set. He was not comfortable with the project; perhaps the applicant could make modifications, with permission from the City. He felt this project is not something he could hang his hat on. Commissioner DeLuna voiced her concern with parking and heavy density. The architecture is superior, and she liked the concept. She asked what if the applicant considered six units instead of seven, and provide additional parking. She agreed with Commissioner Gregory about setting a precedent. Vice-Chair Greenwood echoed what was said by Commissioner Gregory. He believed they are sacrificing a lot of elements. He liked the concept and did not mind the density. However, a lot is going on, on a tight lot. He stated that he would be in favor of seeing this project come back with revisions showing how the site components are being addressed, i.e., trash, location of walls, plantings, the landscape in and around the area, and the reduction of one unit on the north side to provide additional parking. Commissioner DeLuna asked the Commission how they felt about continuing this item. Mr. Swartz interjected that he has been communicating with the applicant, and the applicant has recommended a continuance so they could re-study the project after listening to the Planning Commissioners comments. Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, continue Case No. PP 19-0005 to a date uncertain. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Greenwood and carried by a 4- 0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Pradetto). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for approval to allow a 740-square-foot professional real estate office on the ground floor fronting El Paseo located at 73280 El Paseo, Suite 1; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with CEQA. Case No. CUP 20-0006 (Smoketree Investments, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 10 Mr. Swartz outlined the salient points of the staff report. He stated that the proposed project meets the intent of the El Paseo Overlay District (EPOD), and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Gregory asked if there is any discussion by the City about enforcement of controlling office uses in the commercial area, other than not having them consecutive. In other words, could every other storefront potentially be an office. Mr. Swartz responded that staff is leaving it to the Planning Commission as part of the CUP process; each CUP would be on a case-by-case basis. He explained that staff would provide a map indicating office uses. If this item were approved, City staff would add the office use to the map. With potential future office uses on El Paseo, staff would refer to the map and control where office uses are recommended for approval. On a different note, Mr. Swartz mentioned that the primary business for the CUP is a real estate office. However, the applicant would also provide financial services. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the project was approved and the business vacates, would the location automatically become office use completely, or does it vary. Mr. Swartz replied that there would be a new CUP on a case-by-case basis. He noted that the City wants the exterior to remain to have a retail look. If an office user does leave the space, the space would still be attractive for another future retail user. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the applicant is proposing a sign against the wall of the building. Mr. Swartz said this situation is a little tricky because the building is a little older, and there are other tenants. City staff would prefer to work with the property owner on an overall sign program in the future. Vice-Chair Greenwood asked if there was any discussion with the applicant about the display of available properties. He said he has seen other real estate offices post papers on their windows. Mr. Swartz responded that the applicant would like to keep the window clean and nice, and not over advertise because they are marketing to a different clientele as well. Chair Holt commented that she has seen offices use monitors that change the listings every couple of seconds, and do not have papers all over the place. She asked if having a monitor at this location possible. Mr. Swartz replied yes, and noting that the applicant has proposed having a monitor for listings. The applicant has also planned to work with other businesses to advertise specials, e.g., restaurant happy hours. Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 11 MR. JOSEF JONATHAN, the Applicant, Palm Desert, California, thanked the Planning Commission for their time. He also thanked Planning and Economic Development staff for being helpful as they bring a new business to El Paseo. As Mr. Swartz mentioned, the request for approval is to include financial services in addition to the real estate offices. He mentioned that they have pre-purchase agreements in place to buy furniture from businesses on El Paseo to furnish the suite. Ultimately, the office is intended to have an activated storefront to draw people in and generate passerby interest. He said the business is predicated upon client growth and being on El Paseo, not only to assist in bringing new businesses to this office, but to the street as well (post-meeting dining and shopping). He shared that he is a lifelong resident of Palm Desert, and truly excited to be one of the first applicants to bring this request before the Planning Commission. He is hopeful what the City had envisioned last year, and what they are starting today is only the beginning of rejuvenating the streets and their setting. He thanked the Commission again for their time and consideration. He offered to answer any questions. With no further testimony offered, Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. Vice-Chair Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2778, approving Case No. CUP 20-0006 for a real estate and financial services office use, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSENT: Gregory). Chair Holt thanked the applicant and looked forward to seeing him on El Paseo. XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION Mr. Stendell reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission briefly met to discuss the naming of a feature in the Civic Center Park. The Commission received an update on park use during the pandemic. XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS Vice-Chair Greenwood stated that San Pablo Avenue is almost done, and it is looking good. Mr. Stendell remarked that the circle is fully operational, the colored crosswalks are complete, and the landscaping is in the process of being installed. He mentioned El Rodeo PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 16, 2020 12 Café is hiring and ordering new patio furniture. Businesses are starting to see how they could use the newly created space. Vice-Chair Greenwood asked what is going in the center of the roundabout. Mr. Stendell replied that a future public art project would be installed in the center. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY MONICA O’REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: RYAN STENDELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: CHRISTINA CANALES, ENGINEERING ASSISTANT Date: June 16, 2020 Subject: PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. 19-0007 The above-referenced parcel map waiver has been reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department and found to be technically correct. Please schedule for Planning Commission action as soon as possible. PMW 19-0007: Applicant and Owner: P.D. Partners, LLC 77885 Las Montanas Road, #C Palm Desert, CA 92211 Representative: Marsha Vincelette 77885 Las Montanas Road, # C Palm Desert, CA 92211 ---------------------------------------- Christina Canales Engineering Assistant STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: July 7, 2020 PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner REQUEST: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-0002 to allow the construction of a 65-foot tall wireless telecommunication facility, and a 288-square-foot equipment enclosure at 78005 Country Club Drive, and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2779, approving Case No. CUP 19-0002, subject to the conditions of approval; and adopt a Notice of Exemption with CEQA. Architecture Review Commission (ARC) The ARC recommended approval of the project’s tower design and landscaping at its June 9, 2020, meeting in a 6-0-1 vote with Chair Van Vliet abstaining. Executive Summary Approval of staff’s recommendation will allow the applicant to construct a 65-foot-tall wireless telecommunication facility (WTF) designed as an artificial palm tree and 288- square-foot equipment enclosure. The proposal conforms to development standards established for WTFs; however, it will require a waiver for the minimum allowed separation distance from existing cell towers located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Because the proposed WTF is designed to blend in with the surrounding area as an artificial palm tree, the waiver may be granted. The applicant will plant additional live palms, Palo Verde trees, and Texas Ranger shrubs to screen the facility. Background A. Property Description: The project site is located at 78005 Country Club Drive on the southwest corner of Country Club Drive and Washington Street near the Palm Desert city boundary with Bermuda Dunes/County of Riverside. The site is 1.56-acre property comprised of two (2) parcels and developed with a gas station, convenience store, and automated car July 7, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 AT&T Monopalm Page 2 of 5 wash. The site is fully accessible from adjacent public streets and shares a private drive with the adjacent shopping center to the south. The land use pattern in the immediate vicinity of the site is commercial and transitions to moderate density multi-family residential to the east, west, and south. The nearest residential communities are the Desert Oasis Apartments and Shadow Hills Townhomes in Palm Desert, and Mira Bella apartments in Bermuda Dunes. At the time of this application, there are two existing cell towers within 1,000 feet of the proposed tower. Both towers are located within the parking area of the Desert Country Plaza shopping center at 77988 Country Club. The first tower is a 65-foot-tall monopalm located 908 feet to the north of the project site. This tower is owned by SBA Communications, currently vacant, and was approved under CUP 00-6. The second tower is a 65-foot monopalm, located approximately 989 feet to the north of the project site. This tower is operated by Verizon Wireless and was approved under CUP 01-3. The project site is within Zone C of the Bermuda Dunes Airport Compatibility Plan due to its proximity to the Bermuda Dunes Airport runway approximately one mile to the east. B. Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation: Zone: District Commercial Center (PC-2)/Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) General Plan: Industrial C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: P.C.-2, FCOZ / Commercial Center South: P.C.-2, FCOZ / Commercial Center East: City Boundary-County of Riverside / Commercial Center West: P.C.-2, FCOZ / Life Storage – personal storage facility Project Description The project applicant, Smartlink, LLC, on behalf of AT&T, is requesting approval to construct a 65-foot-tall WTF designed as an artificial palm tree on the subject property. The tower will be placed within an existing landscape planter adjacent to the existing car wash building, as shown on the attached site plan (Sheet A-1 of Plans). The tower will feature nine (9) panel antennas, and 36 remote radio units (RRUs) mounted at a height of 56 feet and screened by faux palm fronds (see Sheet A-2 - A.3 of Plans). The applicant proposes to relocate the existing 20-foot palms found on the site to this planter as a means to cluster live palm trees around the tower. The applicant will plant two additional 40-foot palms along the eastern edge of the project site. July 7, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 AT&T Monopalm Page 3 of 5 Supporting equipment for the tower, consisting of multiple electrical cabinets and a backup diesel generator, will be ground-mounted and placed within a 288-square-foot enclosure. The walls of the enclosure will be eight (8) feet in height and finished with a white smooth stucco to match the adjacent buildings. The enclosure is located adjacent to a trash enclosure along Washington Street and screened with Texas Ranger shrubs. The electrical and utility conduit between the enclosure and tower will be trenched under an existing private drive. The facility will be unmanned and operate 24 hours a day. The total lease area is approximately 660 square feet. Analysis The Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) allows WTFs, with the approval of a CUP, and establishes development and design standards under Section 25.34.130. The Planning Commission may approve CUP, subject to findings listed under PDMC Section 25.34.130 (E). The development and design standards are intended to minimize the visual impact of towers by establishing allowed zones, maximum height, minimum separation distances between towers, and design guidelines for the tower and supporting equipment. The facility conforms to PDMC requirements as follows: Table 1: Project Conformance Determination *Separation standards may be waived by the Commission for stealth design per PDMC 25.34.130 (O) (2). Separation from Existing Towers: As summarized in Table 1, the WTF conforms to the height and setback requirements; however, it will require a waiver from the separation distance from existing towers located within 1000 feet. The PDMC establishes that the Planning Commission may waive this separation requirement under Section 25.34.130 (O) (2), if the facility uses an approved stealth design, specifically mentioning artificial palms as an acceptable design. The proposed facility is designed as an artificial palm and uses live palms to create a cluster effect to blend with the surrounding area. The applicant worked with the ARC to gain their approval of this stealth design by adding additional fronds, a bark-like finish to the pole to simulate the trunk of a palm, and reducing the number of antennas to ensure better screening. STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROJECT CONFORMS Height 65’-0” maximum 65’-0” Yes Separation between towers 1,000’ minimum 908’ and 989’ No* Separation from residential 300’ minimum 388’ min. Yes Front Setback - 72’-0” Yes Rear Setback - 55’-0” Yes Interior Side Setback - 36’-0” Yes Street Side Setback - N/A N/A July 7, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 AT&T Monopalm Page 4 of 5 Alternative Sites and Coverage Gap: The applicant has provided coverage maps (Attachment 8) and a letter (Attachment 4) stating there is a significant signal coverage gap in the project area. The applicant researched multiple alternative sites for this new facility, which proved infeasible due to lack of agreement with owners, inability to contact. A list of these alternative sites can be found on page 3 of the attached project justification letter (Attachment 4). The list of alternative sites includes a vacant cell tower owned by SBA Communications located 908’ feet to the northwest. SBA has reached out to Smartlink over the prospect of locating the new facility on this existing cell tower. During the February 25, 2020 ARC meeting, SBA provided a letter to the commission and staff identifying the potential of locating the proposed WTF on this existing tower. The ARC directed Smartlink to explore the possibility of locating on this existing tower, in addition to their design comments. Prior to the June 9th, 2020 ARC meeting, Smartlink stated the two parties could not reach an agreement to locate on the existing tower. The Palm Desert Municipal Code allows and encourages collocation as the primary option to new facilities, but does not require it. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RC ALUC): The project received approval from the RC ALUC on July 19, 2019, certifying that the project complies with the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. A copy of the approval is included with this report. Public Input City staff mailed public hearing notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and published in The Desert Sun on June 26, 2020. During the ARC meetings on the project during February 2020 and June 2020, the Community Development Department received several letters from the representatives of the existing SBA tower located 908 feet to the northwest of the proposed tower voicing opposition to the proposed tower. They cited that the proximity and vacancy of the SBA tower as the primary issues. A copy of these letters and the applicant’s response are included with this report. Environmental Review The Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt under Article 19 Section 15303: Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation and applicable General Plan policies, as well as applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project site has been previously graded and has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Project approval would not result in the possibility of significant cumulative July 7, 2020 – Planning Commission Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 AT&T Monopalm Page 5 of 5 impacts upon the environment. The site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, based on the above findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Categorical Exemption for the proposed project. Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the project and under the City’s Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2779, attached to this staff report. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER N/A Robert W. Hargreaves City Attorney Ryan Stendell Ryan Stendell Dir. of Community Development N/A Janet Moore Director of Finance N/A Andy Firestine Assistant City Manager City Manager, Lauri Aylaian: N/A APPLICANT: AT&T—Smartlink, LLC 2033 San Elijo Avenue, Suite No. 600 Cardiff, CA 92007 ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2779 2. Public Hearing Notice 3. Notice of Exemption 4. Project Justification Letter 5. RC ALUC Approval dated July 11, 2019 6. SBA letters dated February 2020 and June 2020 7. Applicant response to SBA dated May 2020 8. Coverage Maps 9. Facility Plans PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2779 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 65-FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND 288-SQUARE-FOOT EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE AT 78005 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE; AND ADOPTING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CASE NO: CUP 19-0002 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of July 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by AT&T- Smartlink for approval of the above-noted; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9th day of June 2020, held a meeting to consider the request by AT&T- Smartlink, and recommended approval of the above-noted project request; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of CEQA” Resolution No. 2019-41, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and that the project is categorically exempt under Article 19, Section 15303 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Class 3) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at the 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 the approval of said request: FINDINGS OF APPROVAL: Findings for Approval: 1. That existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider. The applicant has provided a justification letter and coverage map indicating the locations of existing telecommunication sites in the area. The closest site for this operator is over one (1) mile away to the east and locating new equipment at that site will not fill the coverage gaps in this area. In addition, an existing facility located adjacent to the proposed tower is operating at maximum capacity, and collocation at this facility is infeasible due to City screening requirements. 2. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna at the height proposed. The applicant has proposed the installation of a freestanding tower designed to resemble a fan palm (monopalm). The site was specifically chosen because of the service gap and the need for a new facility in the vicinity. Surrounding areas are a mix of commercial properties in the immediate vicinity and multi-family residential properties to the west, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2779 2 east, and south. The proposed location cannot be bifurcated as other areas in the vicinity are more visible from the public right-of-way and technologically cannot fill in the coverage gaps in the area. 3. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility. The technological reasons are stated in the project description letter submitted for the Commission’s review. Existing coverage and technology in the area is inadequate for existing customers. The proposed facility will allow for better service and create a larger network leading to increased capacity. The applicant has enclosed a copy of their coverage map based on the new wireless site, along with a letter of site justification. 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 Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 19-0002, subject to the conditions of approval (attached). PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 7th day of July 2020, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2779 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 19-0002 Department of Community Development: 1. The Project site shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the approved plans on file with the Department of Community Development, except as modified by conditions herein. 2. All construction documentation shall be coordinated for consistency, including, but not limited to, architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, landscape and irrigation, grading, and street improvement plans. All such plans shall be consistent with the approved entitlement plans on file with the Department of Community Development. 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. Construction 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. 5. Any proposed modifications to this Conditional Use Permit shall require an amendment to the application, which will result in a new public hearing. 6. 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: Building & Safety Department City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Coachella Valley Water District 7. The Applicant shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City of Palm Desert or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, any approval of the City of Palm Desert, whether by its City Council, Planning Commission, or other authorized board or officer of the City. 8. Final landscape and irrigation documents shall be prepared by a Landscape Architect registered with the State of California and shall be submitted to the City’s Department of Community Development and the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval. All sheets shall be wet signed by the Landscape Architect and shall include the license number and the expiration date. The landscape plan shall conform to the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part of this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape material. All plants shall be a minimum of five gallons in size, and all trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box in size. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2779 4 9. All project irrigation systems shall function properly, and landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. The maintenance of landscaping and the irrigation system shall be permanently provided for all areas of the project site, as well as walkways and the portion of public right-of-way abutting the project site (parkways and medians). Furthermore, the plans shall identify responsibility for the continued maintenance (such as a homeowners’ association, landscape maintenance district, property owner, etc.). 10. Site lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Community Development and shall conform to the City’s Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. 11. All conduits running between the tower and equipment enclosure shall be installed underground. 12. All conduits running up the tower shall be contained within the tower itself. No wiring conduit shall be installed on the outside of the tower. 13. The applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations. 14. A copy of the herein-listed conditions of approval shall be included in the construction documentation package for the project, which shall be continuously maintained on-site during project construction. Department of Building and Safety: 15. This Project shall comply with the latest adopted editions of the following codes: A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2016 California Electrical Code. E. 2016 California Energy Code. F. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. G. 2016 California Administrative Code. H. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 16. Provide two (2) complete sets of plans and structural calculations for the proposed project. 17. 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. 18. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers’ Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. END OF CONDITIONS CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 19-0002 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A NEW 65-FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND NEW EQUIPMENT SHELTER LOCATED AT 78005 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE; AND ADOPTION OF A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under CEQA, has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review in accordance with Section 15303: Class 3 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the CEQA Guidelines. Project Location/Description: Project Location: 78-005 Country Club Drive (APN: 632-052-070) Project Description: Smartlink LLC. (“Applicant”) has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application (the “Project”) to construct a new 65-foot wireless telecommunication facility and ground-mounted equipment at 78005 Country Club Drive. The facility will be located in the parking area of the property, which is developed with a gas station. The facility is designed as a faux palm tree, and will be screened with landscaping consisting of new palm trees and shrubs. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the Project, subject to the conditions of approval. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on July 7, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. via Zoom. The hearing will be conducted in accordance with the City’s emergency protocols for social distancing. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at: https://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/our-city/committees-and- commissions/planning-commission-information-center. Comment Period: The public comment period for this project is from June 28, 2020, to July 7, 2020. Public Review: The plans and related documents are available for public review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. by contacting the project planner, Mr. Nick Melloni. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611, Extension 479 nmelloni@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY June 26, 2020 Palm Desert Planning Commission Notice of Exemption FORM “B” NOTICE OF EXEMPTION TO: Office of Planning and Research P. O. Box 3044, Room 113 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 FROM: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or County Clerk County of: Riverside 2724 Gateway Dr, Riverside, CA 92507 1. Project Title: CUP 19-0002 2. Project Applicant: AT&T-Smartlink 3. Project Location – Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’ topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 78-005 Country Club Drive / APN: 632-052-070) 4. (a) Project Location – City: Palm Desert (b) Project Location – County: Riverside 5. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries of Project: Request to construct a new 65-foot wireless telecommunication facility and 288-square-foot equipment enclosure 6. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Palm Desert 7. Name of Person or Agency undertaking the project, including any person undertaking an activity that receives financial assistance from the Public Agency as part of the activity or the person receiving a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement of use from the Public Agency as part of the activity: AT&T – Smartlink / 8. Exempt status: (check one) (a) Ministerial project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(1); State CEQA Guidelines § 15268) (b) Not a project. (c) Emergency Project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(4); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(b),(c)) (d) Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Class 3 “Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”; State CEQA Guidelines §15303 (e) Declared Emergency. (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(b)(3); State CEQA Guidelines § 15269(a)) (f) Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) Other. Explanation: General Rule – Section 15061(b)(3) 9. Reason why project was exempt: This proposal is consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning regulations; the project site has been previously disturbed and has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; the proposed project does not have a reasonable possibility for significant cumulative impacts Notice of Exemption FORM “B” upon the environment; and the site can adequately be served by all required utilities and public services. 10. Lead Agency Contact Person: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Telephone: (760) 346-0611 11. If filed by applicant: Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form “A”) before filing. 12. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? ⁭ Yes ⁭ No 13. Was a public hearing held by the lead agency to consider the exemption? ⁭ Yes ⁭ No If yes, the date of the public hearing was: July 7, 2020 Signature:__________________________________ Date:_______________ Title:__________________________ ⁭ Signed by Lead Agency ⁭ Signed by Applicant Date Received for Filing: (Clerk Stamp Here) Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21100, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION LETTER RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT APPROVAL (RC ALUC) SBA LETTERS FEB 2020 & JUN 2020 February 25, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Architectural Review Commission City of Palm Desert c/o Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert, California 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: CUP 19-0002 - 78005 Country Club Drive (AT&T Smartlink / Chris Doheny) Honorable Commissioners: I represent SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC, which owns and operates a cell tower on property within Palm Desert, just 908 feet northwest of the site where this cell tower project is proposed. My client opposes the new cell tower and asks that your Commission recommend the denial of the request or, at a minimum, continue the hearing until the issues raised in this letter can be considered. 1. A CUP is Not Warranted Because The Project is Not Needed: The Same Coverage Can Be Achieved by Co-Locating on the Nearby SBA Tower. As City staff indicates in its staff report, there is an existing 65-foot tall SBA tower located just 908 feet from the new site, at 77988 Country Club Drive and within the city limits of the City of Palm Desert. Like many SBA towers, the Country Club Drive tower is designed to allow multiple carriers to "co-locate" their telecommunications equipment on the same tower. Co-location allows multiple carriers to share the same tower, thereby minimizing the need for multiple towers with overlapping coverage and the resulting aesthetic and other impacts. Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 2 SBA’s tower is presently vacant and is available for lease by AT&T. It would accommodate all of AT&T’s tower equipment at precisely the same height as on the proposed tower, and it has plenty of room to accommodate AT&T’s ground level equipment. Given the proximity of the two sites and the roughly flat terrain between them, the coverage provided by the SBA tower would be essentially the same as that provided by the proposed AT&T tower. A letter from Markella Markouizos, SBA’s site marketing manager for the California region, is attached as Exhibit A. Ms. Markouizos has reviewed the AT&T plans and confirms the above facts. She is also responsible for SBA’s negotiations with the various cell carriers about co-locating opportunities and lease terms for the SBA tower and others in California. SBA has co-location agreements with AT&T all over the United States, and in numerous locations in Southern California. To Ms. Markouizos’ knowledge, AT&T has not contacted SBA about co-locating on the SBA tower, but AT&T is surely aware of the SBA tower and knows that it is available for lease. The proximity of the two sites and the lack of any intervening topography such as hills establish that the coverage of the proposed AT&T tower and the existing SBA tower would be essentially identical and overlapping. However, in order to confirm that a new tower would not provide any additional coverage, SBA commissioned an analysis by David Cotton, a registered professional engineer. Mr. Cotton’s letter is attached as Exhibit B. Mr. Cotton concludes: 3. CONCLUSION. Based on the coverage comparison presented above, the proposed site provides comparable coverage to Palm Desert, CA area due to its close proximity to the existing site. For wireless operators with antennas mounted on the existing site, the installation of additional antennas on the proposed site would be considered to be an “overbuild” or impractical given the coverage overlap. In support of its application, AT&T has submitted to the Planning Department a set of slides entitled “LTE Justification Plots.” These slides purportedly show the existing coverage conditions as well as anticipated coverage with the new tower, to support AT&T’s contention that there is a gap in coverage that would be filled by the proposed project. However, to the extent they show existing conditions, these slides merely reflect the coverage provided by AT&T’s own towers. They do not reflect the coverage readily available to AT&T through third party towers such as the nearby SBA tower. Since AT&T’s analysis ignores the existing SBA towers, AT&T has not contradicted Mr. Cotton’s contention above that the coverage provided by the new AT&T tower would completely overlap the coverage already provided by the existing SBA tower. In fact, AT&T would achieve precisely the same coverage and service it desires by simply co-locating on the SBA tower. Evidently, AT&T wants to completely duplicate the SBA tower right next door, merely so that it can avoid doing business with SBA – not in order to convey any benefit to the City, the City’s residents, emergency service providers or the traveling public. Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 3 2. The City Has Discretion to Deny This Project Because the Necessary Findings Cannot Be Made. The Planning Commission has broad discretion to deny this cell tower project, and should do so. Among the stated purposes of the Communication Tower and Antenna Regulations (PDMC sec. 25.34.130) are as follows: A. Purpose and intent. The regulations and requirements set forth herein are adopted for the following purposes: ... 3. To minimize adverse visual impacts of commercial communication towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques. ... 5. To promote and encourage shared use/collocation of existing and new commercial communication towers as a primary option rather than construction of additional single-use towers. (PDMC se. 25.34.130.A (emphasis supplied).) Given the existence of a readily available co-location opportunity just 908 feet away on the nearby SBA tower, the best way to minimize the adverse visual impacts of the proposed AT&T tower, and to promote and encourage shared use/collocation rather than the construction of additional single-use towers, is to not build the tower at all. The project also should not be approved because none of the necessary three findings can be made, when in fact all three findings must be made. These findings are: E. Findings. New freestanding commercial communication towers/commercial communication antennas shall not be allowed unless the applicant substantiates to the satisfaction of the Commission: 1. That existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider. 2. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna at the height proposed. Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 4 3. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility. (PDMC sec. 25.34.130.E.) As to finding (1), AT&T has made no showing that existing towers (including the nearby SBA tower) “do not technologically afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider.” In fact, as we have shown in this letter, existing towers do afford AT&T the ability to provide the necessary service. As to finding (2), AT&T has not established that “the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna at the height proposed.” There is no evidence to this effect in the record at all. As to finding (3), AT&T has not shown “compelling technological or economic reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility.” As discussed above, AT&T’s showing of need simply ignores the nearby existing SBA tower, which provides completely overlapping coverage and is available for lease by AT&T. Since all three of the above findings must be made and none of them can in fact be made, the project should not be approved. 3. There is No Justification to Grant an Exception or Waiver From the Required 1,000-foot Separation Distance Between Commercial Towers. As the staff report states, there is a 1,000 foot minimum separation distance between commercial towers. (PDMC sec. 25.34.130.F.3.) Yet the proposed project is just 908 from an existing tower. Although 92 feet may seem a small divergence from the rule, there is no justification for granting any exception or waiver from the rule. In order to grant an “exception” from the minimum separation distance, the Planning Commission would need to make both of the following two findings: N. Exception process—Findings. The Commission shall make the following findings to approve exceptions. 1. That there is a unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic feature which results in a compelling technological need to locate the commercial communication towers and/or commercial communication antennas in the location and/or at the height proposed. 2. That the unique land use characteristics or geographic features mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 5 (PDMC sec. 25.34.130.N (emphasis supplied.) These findings simply cannot be made. There is no “unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic feature” at all, much less one that “results in a compelling technological need to locate the commercial communication towers and/or commercial communication antennas in the location and/or at the height proposed.” In fact, the surrounding land use is a typical commercial area, and the geography is extremely flat, just like the vast majority of the City. Therefore, there is no justification for an exception from the 1,000 foot separation requirement. A separate section of the code allows the Planning Commission to grant a “waiver” from the separation requirement for a tower that “utilizes an approved stealth design (e.g., artificial palm tree).” (PDMC sec. 25.34.130.O.2.ii.) There are no specific findings set out in the ordinance for such a “waiver,” and it is unclear whether such a waiver could be granted without making the findings for an “exception” set forth in the preceding section. However, even if no findings are required at all for a “waiver,” the Planning Commission in granting a waiver should still be guided by the purpose and intent of the ordinance itself as well as the overarching findings necessary for any tower project. As discussed above, the stated purpose and intent of the regulations is to minimize adverse visual impacts, and to promote and encourage co-location and shared use of towers rather than construction of new single-use towers. Given that purpose and intent, there is no justification for a waiver that places a new tower even closer than the minimum 1,000 foot distance required by the zoning code. 4. If the Project is Approved Subject to the Installation of a Field of Real Palm Trees, the Conditions Should Require the Approval of a Specific Plan With Trees at Least 55 Feet in Height and a Maintenance Covenant. Staff has proposed to mitigate visual impacts of the 65-foot monopalm tower by requiring a field of new natural “mature” palm trees on the same property, with perhaps 3 to 5 trees immediately surrounding the monopalm tower and numerous other trees scattered around the property. It is not clear how tall staff wants the “mature” trees to be. In fact, it is important to consdider that palm trees grow very slowly (about 6 inches a year), so trees significantly shorter than the 65-foot tower would remain that way for decades, providing no mitigation of visual impacts. Thus, in order to create a meaningful visual buffer, only large trees (at least 55 feet in height) should be installed around the cell tower. These trees are readily available in the local area. My client retained a professional certified arborist, Carl Mellinger, to provide an independent opinion on this issue issues. Mr. Mellinger wrote a letter dated February 24, 2020, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. According to Mr. Mellinger, there are three candidate species for natural palm trees at this site: Mexican fan palm, California fan palm and date palm. Importantly, he noted: Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 6 “Both the Mexican fan palm and date palm are expected to grow approximately 6 inches per year, and the California fan palm tends to grow more slowly than that. Therefore, for example, if 20-foot-tall Mexican fan palms or date palms were planted, it would take approximately 90 years before they would reach the height of the proposed 65-foot tall simulated palm tree cell tower.” Mr. Mellinger did a survey of several nurseries in Southern California and determined that tall specimens of these species (ranging 40 to 55 feet in height) are readily available and would perform well at this site. Mr. Mellinger inquired with three local sources. One source offered Mexican fan palms 55 feet in height, at a cost including installation of $5,250 per tree, and also offered date palms at 50 feet in height, for $5,000 each including installation. A second source offered 40 to 50 foot specimens of all three of the candidate species, at a cost of $1,000- 3,000 and an unknown cost of installation. The third source offered 39-foot tall Mexican fan palms at $3,000, with installation not quoted. In light of Mr. Mellinger’s opinion, if the project is approved at all it should be subject to a condition of approval requiring the applicant to prepare a specific plan to install trees at least 55 feet in height, for approval by the Community Development Department. We suggest a condition to this effect: Installation of Natural Tree Field. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a field of at least ___ natural living palm trees (of species Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), or date palm (Phoenix dactylifera). Such trees shall be at least 55 feet in height and shall be located on the same parcel in which the tower is to be installed. The final design and details of the tree field shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. Further, the project should be subject to a separate condition of approval that requires the owner of the site to enter into a recorded covenant providing for continued maintenance of these trees over time. We suggest a condition to this effect: Covenant to Maintain Natural Tree Field. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner shall enter into a recorded covenant on a form provided by the Community Development Department, providing for the maintenance of the trees indefinitely. The covenant shall provide that for the life of the permit, and for as long as the subject tower remains on the property, each of the trees shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department (including, but not limited to, periodic tree trimming), and that trees shall be replaced as necessary with trees of similar height, species and quality, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, all at the owner’s sole expense. In the event that the City deems the project as in violation of this condition, it shall provide the owner with a notice of deficiency. The owner shall correct the deficiency within 72 hours of such notice. Failure to correct the Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 7 deficiency within that time shall be a violation of the conditions of approval sufficient to institute revocation proceedings. In conclusion, we ask that your Commission recommend the denial of the permit or, at a minimum, continue the hearing to allow the application to be modified to address the above comments. Very truly yours, John A. Henning, Jr. Enclosures: Exhibit A: February 25, 2020, letter from Markella Markouizos Exhibit B: February 25, 2020, letter from David Cotton Exhibit C: February 24, 2020, letter from Carl Mellinger Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 8 EXHIBIT A: FEBRUARY 10, 2020 LETTER FROM MARKELLA MARKOUIZOS Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 9 EXHIBIT B: AUGUST 1, 2019 LETTER FROM DAVID COTTON David Cotton, PE 17852 Lizern Ln, Redding, CA, 96003-0775 SBA Communications Corporation 8051 Congress Avenue Boca Raton, FL 33487-1307 Subject: RF Coverage Plot Analysis: Palm Desert, CA Date: August 1, 2019 1. METHODOLOGY. The attached plots depict broadcast radio frequency (RF) coverage from the existing site to Palm Desert, CA and a proposed site approximately 0.1675 miles to the south. At each location, cellular industry typical LTE operating parameters were considered for omnidirectional antennas mounted at 60 feet above ground level at the existing site, and at 60 feet above ground level for the proposed site. Ground elevations are 110 and 112 feet above mean sea level, respectively. 5G Broadcast RF coverage was not reviewed since it is not operational as of this date. Plots for both locations were generated for 700, 850, 1900 and 2100 MHz operations. The signal levels depicted are associated with LTE service reliability where the strong coverage levels in green and blue occur near the towers and decrease with distance from the sites and intervening terrain obstructions. Signal levels greater than -70 dBm shown as blue are associated with feasible coverage within buildings. Marginal coverage is provided in the regions depicted in yellow between -90 dBm and -80 dBm and signal levels between -100 dBm and -90 dBm shown as red represent poor coverage associated with call failures. A comparison of coverage performance for each site is based on low band (700 and 850 MHz) and high band (1900 and 2100 MHz) prediction results. Radiowave propagation conditions between these bands differ because of terrain and ground clutter (e.g. vegetation) effects at different frequencies. Generally, low band operations provide greater area coverage. Therefore, high band operations provide additional customer traffic capacity closer to the cellular site. 2. COMPARISON. The sites considered in these coverage plots provide service to the depicted locations and roads leading to Palm Desert, CA. For low band operations, the existing site provides strong coverage approximately 0.6 miles in all directions and to non-contiguous areas to 4.3 miles from the site. This includes 1.2 miles of Columbus Transcontinental Hwy. The proposed site provides similar strong coverage 0.6 miles in all directions and to non-contiguous areas to 4.3 miles. This includes 1.1 miles of Columbus Transcontinental Hwy. Both sites provide marginal coverage to non-contiguous areas up to 6.0 miles from the site. For high band operations, both sites provide strong coverage to areas 0.3 miles in all directions. David Cotton, PE 17852 Lizern Ln, Redding, CA, 96003-0775 3. CONCLUSION. Based on the coverage comparison presented above, the proposed site provides comparable coverage to Palm Desert, CA area due to its close proximity to the existing site. For wireless operators with antennas mounted on the existing site, the installation of additional antennas on the proposed site would be considered to be an “overbuild” or impractical given the coverage overlap. Site Name CA45536-A Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.7595 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.304 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):2.0 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmExisting 700 MHz Coverage –SBA Site Name Inv. 2965 Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.757111 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.303500 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):2.0 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmProposed 700 MHz Coverage –Applicant Site Name CA45536-A Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.7595 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.304 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):2.0 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmExisting 850 MHz Coverage –SBA Site Name Inv. 2965 Antenna:15.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.757111 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.303500 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):2.0 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmProposed 850 MHz Coverage –Applicant Site Name CA45536-A Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.7595 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.304 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):4.7 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmExisting 1900 MHz Coverage –SBA Site Name Inv. 2965 Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.757111 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.303500 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):4.7 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmProposed 1900 MHz Coverage –Applicant Site Name CA45536-A Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.7595 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.304 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):4.7 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmExisting 2100 MHz Coverage –SBA Site Name Inv. 2965 Antenna:17.15 dBi Omni Latitude:33.757111 N Alpha Rad Center (ft):60 Longitude:116.303500 W Azimuth (Deg):0 ERP per RS (W):4.7 RSRP: < -100 dBm >= -100 dBm >= -90 dBm >=-80 dBm >=-70 dBmProposed 2100 MHz Coverage –Applicant Honorable Commissioners February 25, 2020 Page 10 EXHIBIT C: FEBRUARY 24, 2020 LETTER FROM CARL MELLINGER CARL MELLINGER CONSULTING, LLC CELL TOWER PALM HEIGHT REPORT FEBRUARY 24, 2020 P.O. Box 1135 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 | (310) 454-6915 | GinkgoOne@aol.com 1 CLIENT: John A. Henning, Jr. SITE ADDRESS: 78005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92203 CONTACT INFO: (323) 655-6171, jhenning@planninglawgroup.com ASSIGNMENT: I was requested by John A. Henning, Jr. to prepare a report detailing my opinions regarding the use of large palm trees to camouflage a simulated palm tree cell tower. SUMMARY: A 65-foot-tall simulated palm tree cell tower is proposed for a property at 78005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92203. City staff has recommended that the property owner surround the cell tower with numerous real palm trees (possibly 3 to 5 trees clustered around the facility and additional trees elsewhere on the site). An important question is how tall these surrounding trees should be. Palm trees appropriate for this site include Mexican fan palm, California fan palm, and date palm. These species may be found locally at specialized nurseries at 40- to 55-foot- tall, and trees of those heights should perform well in this desert location. Although smaller trees are more widely available at nurseries, palm trees grow slowly and smaller trees would take decades to grow to the same height as the proposed 65-foot tall simulated tree. OBSERVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISCUSSION: I reviewed photos from the applicant which depict the site of the proposed simulated palm tree and a rendering of the proposed simulated tree itself. City staff has recommended that the property owner surround the cell tower with numerous real palm trees (possibly 3 to 5 trees clustered around the facility and additional trees elsewhere on the site). Recommended species for this desert location are Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), and date palm (Phoenix dactylifera). In my opinion, all of these species can perform well at this site, even if the heights as installed are 40 to 65 feet. Although smaller specimens of these species are commonly available at nurseries, it would take many decades for these smaller trees to reach the height of the simulated trees. Both the Mexican fan palm and date palm are expected to grow approximately 6 inches per year, and the California fan palm tends to grow more slowly than that. Therefore, for example, if 20-foot-tall Mexican fan palms or date palms were planted, it would take approximately 90 years before they would reach the height of the proposed 65-foot tall simulated palm tree cell tower. Tall specimens of these species are readily available on the market. In July 2019, I surveyed the local market for such trees and found larger trees available from three CARL MELLINGER CONSULTING, LLC CELL TOWER PALM HEIGHT REPORT FEBRUARY 24, 2020 P.O. Box 1135 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 | (310) 454-6915 | GinkgoOne@aol.com 2 different sources. This information is still current. These sources, along with costs for the trees and installation, are listed below: 1. W. D. Young & Sons Palm Nursery, Indio - Mexican fan palms are available at 40- to 50-foot-tall with a delivered cost (including purchase of tree and delivery to the site) of approximately $1,000 plus tax. The cost of installation is unknown at this time. - Date palms are available at 40- to 50-foot-tall with a delivered cost of approximately $3,000 with no tax. The cost of installation is unknown at this time. - California fan palms are available at 40- to 50-foot-tall with a delivered cost of approximately $3,000 plus tax. The cost of installation is unknown at this time. 2. Senna Tree Company, LLC, Sun Valley - Mexican fan palms are available at approximately 55-foot-tall at $50/foot. Each palm would cost $2,500 to install. Thus, the installed cost of a 55-foot-tall tree should be approximately $5,250. Even taller specimens may possibly be obtained. - Date palms are available at approximately 50-foot-tall. Purchase, delivery, and installation should cost approximately $5,000 per tree. - No California fan palms are available but tall specimens can be located with time and a procurement contract. 3. BrightView Tree Company, Fillmore - Mexican fan palms are available at various heights. The tallest available, at 39- foot-tall, would cost approximately $3,000 delivered. The cost of installation is unknown at this time. Sincerely, Carl Mellinger CERTIFIED ARBORIST #WE-1976A REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORIST #620 TREE RISK ASSESSOR QUALIFIED #1365 Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance their health and beauty and to attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist or to seek additional advice. Trees and other plant life are living, changing organisms affected by innumerable factors beyond our control. Trees fail in ways and because of conditions we do not fully understand. Arborists cannot detect or anticipate every condition or event that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Conditions are often hidden within the trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, for any specific period or when a tree or its parts may fail. Further, remedial treatments, as with any treatment or therapy, cannot be guaranteed. CARL MELLINGER CONSULTING, LLC CELL TOWER PALM HEIGHT REPORT FEBRUARY 24, 2020 P.O. Box 1135 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 | (310) 454-6915 | GinkgoOne@aol.com 3 Treatment, pruning, bracing and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborists skills and usual services such as the boundaries of properties, property ownership, site lines, neighbor disputes and agreements and other issues. Therefore, arborists cannot consider such issues unless complete and accurate information is disclosed in a timely fashion. Then, the arborist can reasonably be expected to rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed but not controlled. To live near trees, regardless of their condition, is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. APPLICANT RESPONSE LETTER COVERAGE MAPS LTE Justification Plots Market Name:Los Angeles Site ID: CSL02434 Site ID: Circle K Site Address: 78005 Country Club Dr, Palm Desert, CA 92211 ATOLL Plots Completion Date: November 29, 2018 Page 2 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. Propagation of the site plots are based on our current Atoll (Design tool) project tool that shows the preferred design of the AT&T 4G-LTE network coverage. The propagation referenced in this package is based on proposed LTE coverage of AT&T users in the surrounding buildings, in vehicles and at street level . For your reference, the scale shown ranges from good to poor coverage with gradual changes in coverage showing best coverage to marginal and finally poor signal levels. The plots shown are based on the following criteria: Existing: Since LTE network modifications are not yet On-Air. The first slide is a snap shot of the area showing the existing site without LTE coverage in the AT&T network. The Planned LTE Coverage with the Referenced Site: Assuming all the planned neighboring sites of the target site are approved by the jurisdiction and the referenced site is also approved and On-Air, the propagation is displayed with the planned legends provided. Without Target site: Assuming all the planned neighboring sites are approved by the jurisdiction and On-Air and the referenced site is Off-Air, the propagation is displayed with the legends provided. Assumptions Page 3 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage Before site CSL02434 CSL02434 Page 4 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage After site CSL02434 CSL02434 Page 5 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage standalone site CSL02434 CSL02434 Coverage Legend In-Building Service:In general, the areas shown in dark green should have the strongest signal strength and be sufficient for most in-building coverage. However, in-building coverage can and will be adversely affected by the thickness/construction type of walls, or your location in the building (i.e., in the basement, in the middle of the building with multiple walls, etc.) In-Transit Service: The areas shown in the yellow should be sufficient for on- street or in-the-open coverage, most in-vehicle coverage and possibly some in-building coverage. Outdoor Service:The areas shown in the purple should have sufficient signal strength for on-street or in-the-open coverage, but may not have it for in- vehicle coverage or in-building coverage. FACILITY PLANS