Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-18 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 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 a 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 AUGUST 18, 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: Meeting ID: 848 6290 4979 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 August 4, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 37339 and Precise Plan 17-035 for the subdivision of a 7.74-acre parcel into 80 condominium units, common area amenities, and a future 1.3-acre commercial parcel located at the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street. Case Nos. TTM 37339/PP 17-035 (Wes Lind, Arcadia, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Case Nos. TTM 37339/PP 17-035, until September 19, 2021. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. NEW BUSINESS None AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 18, 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.—AT&T, Cardiff, California, Applicant). Rec: 1. 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. OR 2. By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 19-0002 to September 1, 2020, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. Action: XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 18, 2020 4 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 14th day of August 2020. CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2020 – 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRTUAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Commissioner Ron Gregory 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 Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Christina Canales, Engineering Assistant Monica O’Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice-Chair John Greenwood led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 2020 2 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION to approve a Parcel Map Waiver application for a lot line adjustment at Ironwood Country Club (APNs 655-331-005 & 771-520-006). Case No. PMW 20-0001 (Stephen Zimmer, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Case No. PMW 20-0001 Upon a motion by Commissioner DeLuna, seconded by Commissioner Gregory, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. CUP 19-0002 (Smartlink, LLC—AT&T, Cardiff, California, Applicant). Assistant Planner Nick Melloni reported that the Planning Commission continued this item at their July 7, 2020, meeting. The Commission directed the applicant to address the design and explore collocating on an existing tower. He stated that the applicant has formally requested to continue this item to respond to the Commission’s comments. Staff recommended approval of continuing Case No. CUP 19-0002 until August 18. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked if the parties involved have tried to work towards a solution or made any progress. Mr. Melloni deferred the question to the applicant. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 2020 3 Chair Holt asked if it would be appropriate to open the public hearing so the applicant could address the Commission. Mr. Stendell asked the recording secretary to clarify if the public hearing was closed on July 7. Ms. Monica O’Reilly responded that the public hearing was closed on July 7. If the Planning Commission intends to take testimony, Mr. Stendell said it would be appropriate to open the public hearing. However, the Commission could take the staff’s recommendation and continue this item. Chair Holt asked Commissioner DeLuna if she would like to hear from the applicant. Commissioner DeLuna asked if taking the applicant’s testimony would preclude the Commission from continuing this item or interrupt the process. Mr. Stendell said if the applicant provides testimony, it is most likely that both sides would want to provide testimony this evening. If the Commission feels it is pertinent, he suggested taking the testimony. The Commission could also give an additional two weeks so they could continue working through their issues by approving the staff recommendation, which is the fastest way to that outcome. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she trusts the staff’s recommendation. By Minute Motion, Vice-Chair Greenwood moved to continue Case No. CUP 19-0002 to Tuesday, August 18, 2020. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS Vice-Chair Greenwood remarked that San Pablo Avenue looks phenomenal! PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 4, 2020 4 XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY MONICA O’REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: August 18, 2020 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a request to approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 37339 and Precise Plan 17-035 for the subdivision of a 7.74-acre parcel into 80 condominium units, common area amenities, and a future 1.3-acre commercial parcel located at the northwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street. Recommendation By Minute Motion, approve a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 37339 and Precise Plan (PP) 17-035, until September 19, 2021. Property Description On September 19, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2708 approving TTM 37339 and Precise Plan 17-035 known as, “The Villas at Cook Street.” The project is a gated community located on 7.74 acres and created 80 two-story condominium units, common area amenities, and a future 1.3-acre commercial parcel. Time Extension The property is in escrow, and the new owners are requesting to extend the entitlements for an additional year. Generally, as conditioned, the project meets the vision of the General Plan of a Neighborhood Center, which includes residential and commercial uses. The project also meets the Planned Residential zone and density of 17 units per acre by providing 12 units per acre. The project also complies with all development standards, including building height. The map conforms, with the Subdivision Map Act. Staff is recommending a one-year time extension as allowed by Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.20.140 “Extensions of Time” and the Subdivision Map Act. If approved, the tentative map will remain in effect until September 19, 2021. 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: Wes Lind, 285 West Foothill Blvd, Arcadia, CA 92629 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Applicant, Site Plan, and Tentative Tract Map 37339 Wes & Arlette Lind 285 W. Foothill Blvd. Arcadia, CA. 91006 626-375-3632 wrlindinc@aol.com June 18, 2020 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260-6417 Dear Mr. Swartz, I am writing to you to request the City grant another one year time extension within which to consummate and record PP 17-035 & TTM 37337, that were approved by the City Planning Commission on 9/19/17, because of the complications caused by the virus situation. Said project is located at the northwest corner of Cook & Frank Sinatra in the City. Please let me know if there is anything further that I need to do to secure the additional time extension from the City. Sincerely, Wes Lind STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: August 18, 2020 PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner REQUEST: Consideration of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 19-0002 to allow the construction 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). Recommendation 1) 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. OR 2) By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 19-0002 to September 1, 2020, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. Architecture Review Commission (ARC) The ARC recommended approval the project’s tower design and landscaping at its June 9, 2020, meeting in a 6-0-1 vote with Chair Van Vliet abstaining. Previous Planning Commission Meetings The project appeared before the Planning Commission on July 7, 2020, where the Commission, upon hearing the staff report and all testimony voted 5-0 to continue this case until the meeting of August 4, 2020, to allow the Applicant to respond to comments raised by the Commission. At the August 4 meeting, the Commission voted 5-0 to grant a continuance to the August 18 meeting per the Applicant’s request. A copy of the July 7 Planning Commission minutes is included with this application for reference. Executive Summary This project has been continued from the August 4 meeting. In the latest submittal, the applicant has provided: • Updated project plans (the sole change is a landscape note on sheet L-1) • Additional photo renderings of the proposed tower August 18, 2020 – PC Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 Smartlink, LLC—AT&T Page 2 of 6 • A letter responding to the Commission’s comments and SBA LLC’s July letter, submitted at the meeting • Updated coverage maps The applicant is requesting a continuance to create an additional document and allow for a supporting member of the public to speak at the hearing. Based on the thorough response of the current submittal, staff recommends the Commission consider the project entirely and take a direct course of action in its decision. Approval of staff’s recommendation will allow the applicant to construct a 65-foot-tall wireless telecommunication facility (WTF) designed as an artificial date palm tree, and a 288-square-foot equipment enclosure. The proposal conforms, with development standards established for WTFs but will require a waiver for the minimum allowed separation distance from an existing cell tower 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 date palm, the Commission has the authority to grant the waiver. However, due to the tower’s height and close proximity to two high-volume arterial roadways, staff recommends the Commission condition the project to plant additional live date palms, at the maximum potential height, throughout the site to assist with screening the tower at contingent upon view studies and at the discretion of the ARC. Alternatively, if the Commission is concerned that the current design poses negative aesthetic impacts, which cannot be mitigated with landscaping, staff recommends the Commission continue the case and direct staff to prepare a resolution for the project’s denial. 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 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 is an existing cell tower 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; SBA Communications owns this tower, it is currently vacant, and was approved under CUP 00-6. Additionally, a second tower is a August 18, 2020 – PC Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 Smartlink, LLC—AT&T Page 3 of 6 65-foot monopalm, located approximately 1,004 feet to the north of the project site; Verizon Wireless operates this tower and it 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 (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 proposed to plant two new 40-foot California Fan Palms directly adjacent to the tower. Support 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 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 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and establishes development and design standards under Section 25.34.130. The Planning Commission may approve the 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, August 18, 2020 – PC Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 Smartlink, LLC—AT&T Page 4 of 6 minimum separation distances between towers, and design guidelines for the tower and support equipment. The facility conforms PDMC requirements as shown on the following page: 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 with height and setback requirements; however, it will require a waiver from the separation distance from the existing tower 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 in 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. To improve the screening of the site further, staff recommends the Commission condition the applicant to plant additional live palms throughout the site to lessen the visual prominence of the proposed tower. These palms should match the species proposed for the tower (Date Palm). The number and location of these palms should be contingent upon view studies taken from the adjacent areas and return to the ARC for formal approval. The Commission should establish a minimum brown trunk height (BTH) of 40’ to minimize the apparent height difference between the palms and tower. Alternative Sites and Coverage Gap: The applicant has provided coverage maps and a letter stating there is a significant coverage gap in the project area. The letter also states that the applicant made contact with the owners of up to five (5) other alternative sites before selecting this location. Overall, staff supports the proposed tower design, subject to additional landscaping to reduce the visual impact caused by the tower’s height. STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROJECT CONFORMS Height 65’-0” maximum 65’-0” Yes Separation between towers 1,000’ minimum 908’ 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 August 18, 2020 – PC Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 Smartlink, LLC—AT&T Page 5 of 6 Collocation: The PDMC encourages collocation as a primary means to create new WTFs under Section 25.34.130 (A)(5) and establishes an administrative approval process for collocation under PDMC Section 25.34.130 (G). During the staff review process, and later again during the February 2020 ARC meeting, and July 2020 PC meeting, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to explore the potential of collocation on the existing vacant SBA tower. In each instance, the applicant communicated that it would be unable to locate equipment on the SBA tower (refer to the attached applicant response page 4, 6). 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 Public hearing notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed project and published in The Desert Sun on June 26, 2020. The Community Development Department has 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 citing the proximity and the vacancy of the SBA tower as the primary issues. A copy of the latest letter received during the July 7 Planning Commission meeting is included for reference. Additionally, emails received in support from the public are included. 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 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. August 18, 2020 – PC Staff Report Case No. CUP 19-0002 Smartlink, LLC—AT&T Page 6 of 6 Findings of Approval Findings can be made in support of the project and in accordance with 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 600 Cardiff, CA 92007 ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2779 2. Public Hearing Notice of July 7, 2020 3. Notice of Exemption 4. Planning Commission Minutes of July 7, 2020 5. Public Emails of July 7, 2020 6. Project Justification Letter 7. SBA letter July 2020 8. Applicant response dated August 2020 9. RC ALUC Approval dated July 11, 2019 10. Applicant Continuance Request 11. Coverage Maps 12. 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-TALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY, AND A 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 18th day of August 2020, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Smartlink, LLC—AT&T, 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 Smartlink, LLC—AT&T, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2779 2 The applicant has proposed 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, 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. 4. 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. The project location is near the center of a cellular telephone coverage gap. Due to the land use pattern consisting of residential land uses to the west limiting potential locations, the regional airport to the east limiting height opportunities and freeway, this location proves ideal for the applicant’s facility. Due to its proximity to heavily trafficked commercial areas, the tower must be designed as a faux palm tree to mitigate negative aesthetic impacts. 5. That the unique land use characteristics or geographic features mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. The presence of a quasi-industrial personal storage facility to the project location’s west assists in screening the tower from moderate residential communities. Existing and proposed clusters of live palm trees assist in screening the proposed tower from adjacent arterial roads. 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). PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2779 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 18th day of August 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 4 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 5 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. The applicant shall plant live Phoenix dactylifera (date palms) throughout the project site to screen the tower. The number and placement of the date palms shall be determined at the discretion and approval of the Architecture Review Committee (ARC). 15. 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: 16. This Project shall comply with the latest adopted editions of the following codes: A. 2019 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2019 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2019 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2019 California Electrical Code. E. 2019 California Energy Code. F. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. G. 2019 California Administrative Code. H. 2019 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 17. Provide two (2) complete sets of plans and structural calculations for the proposed project. 18. 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2779 6 19. 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- TALL 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: 78005 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. 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. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 2 Chair Holt said she drove down San Pablo Avenue the day before and agreed that it looks lovely. However, she asked if there is anything that could be done to stop the spread of tire tread on the crosswalks. Mr. Stendell believed someone decided to do a “brodie” (a severe vehicle skid). V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. 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. Upon a motion by Vice-Chair Greenwood, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 4-0-1 vote of the Planning Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: None; ABSTAINED: 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 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). Case No. CUP 19-0002 (Smartlink, LLC—AT&T, Cardiff, California, Applicant). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 3 Assistant Planner Nick Melloni presented the staff report (staff report(s) are available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). As part of the public hearing process, City staff received several letters in opposition from the representative for the SBA communications tower located to the north, which is an existing vacant tower. He disclosed that SBA is opposed to the design and the proximity to the existing tower. He noted that the SBA representative emailed another letter on short notice and staff forwarded to the Planning Commission around 5:00 p.m. Staff also received two emails in favor, and one voicemail opposed to the monopalm. Staff recommended approval of the monopalm as proposed, and adopting the Notice of Exemption and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2779, subject to the conditions of approval. Additionally, modify the resolution findings by referencing the waiver of the 1000-foot separation requirement because of the stealth design of the tower. He said the applicant is in attendance and prepared to present a PowerPoint. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it correct that there is a significant signal coverage gap in the project area. Mr. Melloni replied that is correct. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is also correct that other sites were infeasible. Mr. Melloni responded that the applicant identified the other sites as being infeasible due to several different reasons. He said the applicant could give more details. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is correct that the applicant tried to collocate and was unsuccessful. Mr. Melloni replied yes, due to a lack of an agreement between the two entities. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the site is adequately served by all the required facilities and public services. Mr. Melloni replied yes. Chair Holt declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. ALEXIS DUNLAP, the representative for AT&T, Cardiff, California, appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Planning Commission. She presented a PowerPoint presentation to briefly explain how a particular location for a cell site selected. She said they contacted several property owners, and they did not receive a response. The following are reasons AT&T did not consider the SBA tower as a viable alternative or candidate: 1) AT&T considered SBA an unwilling property owner. AT&T submitted a letter to the Planning Department that there was no agreement in place between AT&T and SBA. AT&T instructed her that the SBA tower is not to be considered a willing property owner in the market at this time; 2) The SBA and Verizon tower were not considered because a collocation on a monopalm defeats stealth concealment; and 3) AT&T did not consider the SBA tower as a valid collocation opportunity because the SBA tower does not have a valid permit, it is considered abandoned, and should be removed. She briefly read Section 25.34.13 regarding an abandoned tower. She added that they have been MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 4 working with Planning staff for several months, and pointed out that they moved the location of the equipment shelter, added some live palm trees and additional landscaping, and slimmed down the number of antennas to better blend with the surrounding community. She appreciated all that City staff has done to get them to this point. She offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Ron Gregory found it interesting that there is an existing vacant tower, which could adapt to the needs of AT&T, and be less expensive than building a brand new tower. He stated there is clearly negotiation problems. He asked why AT&T and SBA cannot come to an agreement. MS. DUNLAP responded that she would be happy to answer that question, but it is above her pay grade. She stated that there is a disagreement between the upper-level management of both entities. She said until it gets resolved and they could come to an agreement, the directors of AT&T instructed her that she should not consider SBA as a willing property owner. Commissioner DeLuna commented that SBA abandoned the tower for 180 days and the subsequent 180 days. She asked what the status is of the SBA tower. MS. DUNLAP answered that she has a letter from Sprint, which was the tenant on the SBA tower. The letter from Sprint states that they terminated the lease agreement effective September 30, 2018. Commissioner DeLuna clarified that the SBA well passes the 180 days. MS. DUNLAP replied that is correct. Commissioner Gregory noticed that the palms the applicant suggested to supplement the monopalm are of a different variety than the monopalm. He felt that the applicant would better camouflage or disguise the monopalm with the appropriate palms. MS. DUNLAP responded that they could change the type of monopalm or palm trees, whichever the Planning Commission would prefer. Chair Holt asked if it is correct, the minimum cell tower height would remain 65 feet. MS. DUNLAP replied that is correct. Chair Holt inquired if the proposed trees would not reach the 65-foot height. MS. DUNLAP explained that if all the trees were of the same height, they would block a portion of the signal. They always propose tress at least 10 feet shorter than the top of the antennas. Chair Holt asked if it is correct that there would always be a height differential regardless of what type of trees are planted or mimicked on the tower. MS. DUNLAP replied that is correct. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 5 Commissioner Gregory commented that real palm trees would keep growing. MS. DEVIN HINDIN asked if there is a specific software program that the applicant is using to get the RF mapping of cellular coverage. Mr. Stendell interjected that the Planning Commission is still asking questions, and the Chair will ask the public for comments in a little bit. Chair Holt agreed, adding that the public would have an opportunity to make comments. MR. JOHN HENNING, the representative for SBA, Los Angeles, California, stated that he listened with great interest to Ms. Dunlap’s presentation. He agreed with Commissioner Gregory’s comment that this is much simpler than anybody is telling him so far. The fact of the matter is SBA is prepared to lease its tower to AT&T; however, AT&T does not make the call to SBA. He stated that SBA has reached out to AT&T, and have recently made deals with SBA in southern California. He said AT&T is faking it when they are telling the Planning Commission that there is some kind of national barrier that keeps them from collocating. He said what AT&T is trying to do is get around the requirement that they seriously consider collocating. He noted that he has sent a letter 25 pages long and has sent other letters to make their case. AT&T continues to say that they cannot collocate so that they could build their tower. He believed the purpose of the City’s code is to ensure that there are not unnecessary extra towers. He said there is a vacant tower that is 900 feet away at the same height being proposed, a monopalm, and has no tenant. Therefore, AT&T could easily be the tenant for this tower. He voiced that for the Commission to accept out of hand something AT&T is representing from a person that says it is not in her pay grade to decide the question is outrageous. He said the City might as well eliminate the rule that requires people to consider collocation. The SBA tower is ready for AT&T, they have not abandoned the tower, and Mr. Ceja would confirm that his position at this point, they have used their 180 days of a 360-day period during which they have the right to re-initiate the use by simply putting another tenant on the tower. He expressed that the SBA tower is not going anywhere. If the Planning Commission approves the AT&T tower, SBA would get another tenant for the tower, and the City would have an extra tower that is not needed. He asked for a little more time to display some of his slides, which are in the letter he submitted. He requested the continued use by AT&T of the graphic that shows the horrible array below the palm frond. AT&T is aware that SBA’s equipment on the towers are not being used, and there is not going to be an array in the below the palm fronds. Additionally, AT&T never made any attempt to communicate with SBA. SBA attempted to communicate with AT&T. There is no resistance to making any kind of deal with AT&T. He stated that AT&T wants to have its own tower so they can set their own terms. He said AT&T have no technical objection to SBA’s tower. At the City’s expense, AT&T wants to put a duplicate tower up in the middle of a visible location near residential homes so that they can dictate the financial terms. He stated that AT&T is supposed to, in good faith, explore collocation. He requested more time to speak to show their misrepresentation by showing some slides. Chair Holt commented that she printed out the letter from Mr. Henning. However, she did not know if the rest of the Planning Commission had an opportunity to review the letter before making a decision. She asked City staff if it is best to allow Mr. Henning to give a presentation. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 6 Mr. Stendell responded that the staff has complied with their obligation by emailing the letter to the Planning Commission at about 5:00 p.m. He felt that the Planning Commission has gone above and beyond through the COVID-19 pandemic period to make sure voices are heard. He did not know if the Chair was willing to give more time. However, if the Planning Commission was going to allow more time, he recommended setting a time limit. He has learned with the Architectural Review Commission that meetings could go on for some time, and he does not want to turn this meeting into legal battle. He made clear that this public hearing on a land use decision. Commissioner DeLuna asked how much time did Mr. Henning have to respond to the public notice. Mr. Melloni responded that there was a 10-day public notice comment period. Commissioner DeLuna clarified that Mr. Henning had nine days and 23 hours to respond, but did not respond until an hour before the meeting. He is now asking for more time because it is a 25-page letter. Mr. Stendell reiterated that it is up to the Planning Commission if they want to give Mr. Henning additional time. In this situation, Chair Holt asked the Planning Commission if they felt it would be fair and equitable to allow an additional three minutes. Commissioner Pradetto answered that he was able to peruse part of the letter. He found some of the items in Mr. Henning’s letter persuasive. He would like to allow the additional three minutes for Mr. Henning to continue his case. The Planning Commission agreed to allow an additional three minutes. MR. HENNING displayed slides from AT&T’s simulations of their tower. He pointed out the height of the tower, trees, and surrounding area. He felt that AT&T is not doing the simulations correctly, playing it by ear, and making stuff up. He communicated that the simulation that the Planning Commission is looking at is not accurate and is misrepresented. He pointed to the SBA tower, admitting that it is not in great shape. He said AT&T would collocate with SBA if the Planning Commission denied the project. He stated AT&T have done it before in Dana Point and Desert Hot Springs. He shared that Planning Commissions’ voice their concerns with the project and they ask AT&T to consider collocating, then AT&T agrees, notwithstanding that there is no national agreement. Chair Holt interjected that Mr. Henning’s time had expired and appreciated the additional information. The following individuals provided public comment via email or voicemail (Staff forwarded emails/voicemails to the Planning Commission). MR & MRS. GENE AND JAN KNUTSON, Palm Desert, California – In favor of the project. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 7 MS. KAREN FALEN, Palm Desert, California – In favor, stating that they currently do not have quality cellular communication. MR. KERN MARLOW, Palm Desert, California – Opposed the project, stating that they do not need more monopalms. MS. DEVIN HINDIN, Palm Desert, California, asked if there is a specific type of software program to show the coverage gap that is supposedly happening in the proposed area. There is a multitude of different RF coverage software programs that you can access, and they do not show the same kind of significant coverage gap that was shown on the screen. Chair Holt made a note of the question and asked if anyone else had any comments. In closing, MS. DUNLAP stated that she did comment on whether or not AT&T and SBA could work together is above her pay grade. However, she said the Planning Commission does not have to take her word for it. She noted that AT&T’s counsel submitted two letters to the Planning staff, which are part of the public record stating that there is no national agreement in place. She said Mr. Henning mentioned that the purpose of the City of Palm Desert’s code is to keep unnecessary cell towers out of the public. She reiterated that AT&T feels very strongly that the SBA abandoned their tower. AT&T also has proof that Sprint vacated SBA’s tower on September 31, 2018, and they gave the letter to the Planning staff. Therefore, AT&T did not consider the SBA tower for multiple reasons as a collocation opportunity. She said Mr. Henning brought up some view plans, and AT&T make the stand that the plans are photo simulations. The photo simulations are only what looks like a photo, and are for plan view purposes to aid the Planning staff in making a decision. She stated that they based the photo simulations on architectural AutoCAD software. She is not completely positive about why Mr. Henning felt that AT&T is making stuff up. She also has another letter from AT&T counsel that she received not too long ago and has not shared with the Planning Commission as of yet. Again, AT&T counsel feels that not only was the SBA tower abandoned, but also they do not consider SBA a willing property owner. In response to Ms. Hindin’s question, AT&T does have a very specific software program that they use; however, she is not at liberty to give specific information with regard to the software. AT&T could provide the City of Palm Desert software information, which can give more detail as to the significant gaps in coverage. She noted that courts have generally found that the propagation maps submitted by AT&T are sufficient evidence to establish significant gaps. She offered to answer any additional questions. Chair Holt asked Ms. Dunlap if this item was denied or continued, what would be the next alternative for AT&T. She also inquired if they would look at other locations, or look at collocating. She understood that the initial presentation of the site selection is limited in the area. MS. DUNLAP responded that her client has instructed her, if the Planning Commission denied this item , they would file an appeal to the City Council. For the reason that they have met their burden of proof in showing, they do have a significant gap in coverage, and it is the least intrusive in fulfilling that particular gap. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 8 Commissioner Gregory said what if SBA wanted to charge AT&T a billion dollars to use their tower, and if AT&T recognizes that SBA has difficulty right now with a vacant tower, let us say AT&T is offering SBA $1.95 for the tower. The Planning Commission does not know what is going on; however, it is very likely the source of this disagreement. He stated that he does not know what laws prevail here. There are many issues such as the towers are very close (under 1,00 feet), a federal law requiring cities to make way for communication towers, a will of the City to not have more towers than necessary, SBA has AT&T describing them as an unwilling tenant, and SBA hired legal counsel to hurl their tower at AT&T. He said it does not make sense to him. He felt there is a business deal that is not working out well. He stated he is summarizing everything, and it is above his pay grade. He does not know what is going on with the terms concerning the negotiation process, which is not going well. With no further testimony offered, Chair Holt declared the public hearing closed. Chair Holt echoed Commissioner Gregory’s comments. Additionally, she was not sure if there is anything that the Planning Commission or City staff could do to force the hand of one company to collocate with another, assuming that is the case. She asked Mr. Stendell if that is correct. Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. He stated that they are looking at this from a land-use perspective, and that is how the staff presented it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pradetto believed that Commissioner Gregory’s comments are right, and it seems the City wrote the code to promote collocating because it makes sense in term s of aesthetics and impact. He felt the squabble between SBA and AT&T is one that would make the residents suffer, and the best thing ideally would be for collocation. Whether that happens or not, it is outside of the City’s control. In terms of land use, collocation is ideal. Vice-Chair John Greenwood commented that from a land-use perspective, the current cell tower locations are optimal compared to what AT&T proposed at the gas station site. In the initial planning stage that AT&T looked at, they provided a circle. If he looked at the circle correctly, those locations are more in the center of the circle than what is being proposed at the Mobile gas station. Therefore, considering there is an option to collocate, he leaned to continue this case to see if there are more options down the road. Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Greenwood if he thought that a resolution could be made if the Planning Commission continued this item. He wondered if the Commission has the power, so to speak, to encourage the participants in a squabble to come to the table and make an agreement. He agreed that collocation would be, as far as land use, the most opportune for the City. Vice-Chair Greenwood said if the Planning Commission continues this item, he believed the applicant would submit an appeal to the City Council. He asked Mr. Stendell if that is correct. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 9 Mr. Stendell responded if the item is denied, the Planning Commission would need to continue and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. The resolution would be brought back to a future meeting. Commissioner Pradetto asked what would happen if the item does not get a majority vote, and is that not the same as a denial. Mr. Stendell replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna voiced her concern for the neighborhood, which is lacking wireless service. She understood that the applicant and SBA negotiations have been ongoing. She noted that the SBA tower has been abandoned for over two years and not in good condition. She felt that the SBA tower would require a significant overhaul for that to be the site. She did not dislike the proposed site, but agreed the other site would be ideal. However, if AT&T and SBA cannot come to an agreement, the neighborhood would be penalized. Considering that the site is a primary entrance to the City and from a land-use perspective, Vice-Chair Greenwood stated that the Planning Commission has to be careful when considering this item. He felt uncomfortable deciding in favor of this item; the conflict is between the two parties. He said the SBA site would be more beneficial based on the presentation and is leaning toward a continuance or denial. Commissioner Pradetto agreed with Vice-Chair Greenwood. Commissioner DeLuna moved to continue this item, and Commissioner Pradetto said he would second the motion. Commissioner Pradetto asked to what date to continue this item. Mr. Melloni replied August 4, 2020. By Minute Motion, Commissioner DeLuna moved to continue Case No. CUP 19-0002 to Tuesday, August 4, 2020. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Chair Holt commented that there is an Art in Public Places meeting scheduled for July 8, 2020. 1 Melloni, Nick From:Ceja, Eric Sent:Monday, July 06, 2020 8:15 AM To:Melloni, Nick Subject:FW: Cell Tower at Washington Street FYI Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Jan Knutson <jan_knutson@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 7:18 PM To: Planning E-mail <PlanningE-mail@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Fwd: Cell Tower at Washington Street We support the cell tower for Washington st We live in Golden Sun Estates 40926 Biscayne Palm Desert 92211 Jan & Gene Knutson Begin forwarded message: From: Gene Knutson <gene_knutson@msn.com> Date: July 2, 2020 at 7:13:21 PM PDT To: Jan <jan_knutson@msn.com> Subject: Fwd: Cell Tower at Washington Street Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Karen Falen <KARENFAL@msn.com> Date: July 2, 2020 at 7:11:06 PM PDT To: "planning@cityofpalmdesert.org" <planning@cityofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Cell Tower at Washington Street Hello, I was pleasantly surprised to receive a notification at my home asking me to oppose the “fake” palm tree cell tower. As a resident in the Golden Sun Estates community for the 2 last 8 years, having no cell phone reception has been extremely frustrating. I have a signal booster, but during power outages I have zero reception and could not make a 911 call if I needed to in an emergency. The cost of a land line simply for emergency calling is not feasible. I would 100% support having a cell tower in my neighborhood and would greatly appreciate the peace of mind knowing that it could potentially help me during power outages and for the simple fact that we just don’t have quality cellular communication currently. Thank you and I hope this passes. Karen Falen 40926 Schafer Place Palm Desert, CA 92211 July 7, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Planning 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) (July 7, 2020 meeting, Agenda Item X.A) 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. This is our third letter to the City concerning this project. The first two letters, dated February 25, 2020, and June 8, 2020, respectively, were addressed to the Architectural Review Commission and they accompany your staff report. For the sake of brevity, we will not repeat the arguments made in those letters, but we do urge you to read them. My client opposes the new cell tower and asks that your Commission deny the request or, at a minimum, continue the hearing until the issues we have raised can be considered. Questions for Tonight’s Hearing. The Planning Commission faces several simple questions at tonight’s hearing. Question 1: Do we need another poorly disguised fake “palm tree” cell tower in the City? “Monopalm” cell towers are notoriously obvious due to the relatively limited coverage provided by false palm fronds. The applicant essentially concedes this, by clearly showing the antenna array panels in both the line drawings in the elevations (Sheet A-3) and simulations. Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 2 From south elevation (Sheet A‐3): Panels clearly visible  From applicant’s 2020 simulation: Looks like a cell tower  Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 3 Question 2: Should we subject residential neighbors to another prominent fake palm tree tower? The proposed tower is on a popular commercial strip but is also relatively close to residential neighborhoods. As staff notes in the staff report, there are “moderate density” multi- family residential developments to the east, west, and south. All of these developments are less than 1,000 feet from the site. In addition, a single family neighborhood of over 300 homes is about 1,000 feet southwest of the site. Altogether there are more than 1,000 homes in the area. Project location near corner of Country Club and Washington Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 4 More than 1000 homes surrounding the site  Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 5 Question 3: Should we approve a 65-foot tall cell tower based upon simulations that don’t accurately show the tower’s height? The applicant did one set of simulations in 2018, early in the application process. The tower at that time was 75 feet in height. It is shown prominently from two perspectives on Country Club, in each case towering far above the existing development. 2018 simulations #2 and #3 from Country Club (75 feet tall)  Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 6 In 2019, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the 75-foot height to be a hazard to air navigation, so the applicant reduced the height to 65 feet. In April 2020, the applicant submitted revised simulations to the City reflecting the 65 foot height and a several new and relocated existing palm trees around the tower and elsewhere on the site. In the new simulation, the 10 foot reduction resulted in a tree that appeared 20 to 30 feet shorter. 2020 simulations #2 and #3 from Country Club (65 feet tall)  Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 7 Clearly the applicant is just “winging it” when it is preparing simulations of this project. Either the 75-foot tall simulation was wrong, by a longshot, or the 65-foot tall simulation is wrong, by longshot. The Commission has no obligation to approve a project with this sort of visual impact based upon inaccurate simulations. At a minimum, the applicant should be required to construct “story poles” showing the height of the proposed structure, so that City staff, neighbors and Commission members can observe the actual visual impact of the project. Question 4: Should we reward the applicant for misrepresenting the height of existing trees that are to be relied upon as a visual buffer? A key component of the applicant’s plan is a pair of palm trees that are to be relocated from within the present parking lot island to a position in front of the proposed monopalm structure, and three existing trees adjacent to the structure, which are to remain. The applicant misrepresents the height of these five trees in both the plans and the simulations. The plans do not specify heights, but the trees are shown as almost as tall as the new 40-foot trees to be placed across the site, next to the equipment enclosure. The simulation makes the same assumption. From south elevation (Sheet A‐3): relocated trees ≈ 40 feet tall  Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 8 2020 Simulation #4, from within site (tower 65 feet tall)        2020 simulation #4: simulated relocated trees ≈ 40 feet tall  Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 9 Yet the staff report says these existing trees are 20 feet tall. (See Staff Report at pg. 2.) This height is confirmed by photos taken by City staff. The staff photos show all five of the existing trees adjacent to the Circle K car wash, which is about 15 to 18 feet in height. The trees are just a few feet taller, i.e., between 20 and 25 feet tall. Assuming a growth rate of 6 inches per year, it would take over 30 years for these trees to grow to the 40-foot height shown in the plans.       Staff photos with actual relocated trees ≈ 20 to 25 feet tall Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 10 Question 5: Should we allow the applicant to ignore our regulations requiring it to explore co-location on existing towers? The City’s requirement to look at alternative locations and to co-locate the tower if feasible isn’t just an exercise in “checking the box.” It isn’t just an invitation to the applicant to make circular arguments like “we can’t co-locate because we don’t have an agreement to co- locate.” It is a real requirement to seriously consider alternative sites before permitting a large structure with significant negative visual impacts, and it should be enforced by the Planning Commission. Otherwise, the City will quickly wind up with three or four times the number of towers that it needs to have, as each carrier insists on building its own tower and refuses to lease space on existing towers. The applicant here has never argued that the existing SBA tower cannot physically accommodate the proposed AT&T equipment. In case there is any question about this, a consulting engineer retained by SBA reviewed the project plans and concluded that the SBA tower can accommodate AT&T’s equipment without any significant modification. The engineer’s letter was included with our June 8 letter. AT&T has never disputed his conclusion, either at the ARC hearing or since. Nonetheless, the applicant has repeatedly contended at ARC hearings that if it were to co- locate on the SBA tower, it would be forced to place its equipment somewhere below the 65-foot top of the SBA tower, below the equipment of another tenant. At the second ARC hearing in June, which was conducted via a Zoom video call, the applicant’s representative held a simulation in her hand that was apparently never submitted to the City, which purported to show the SBA tower with one antenna array within the palm fronds at the top of the tower and a second array (supposedly, AT&T’s array) about 10 feet below the fronds. It wasn’t pretty. The applicant’s simulation was of course wrong. Moreover, by that point the applicant knew better than to distort the facts in this way. Before the ARC hearings began in February, the applicant may have observed existing antenna arrays on the SBA tower and may have concluded that SBA had an active tenant using the top portion of the tower, such that AT&T would have to co-locate its equipment further down on the tower. However, by the February hearing of the ARC, there was no basis for such a belief. We clearly explained at that hearing that the SBA tower had no tenant, that the existing arrays were accordingly not in use and that, if AT&T were to lease the tower, these arrays would be removed and replaced with AT&T’s equipment. Given the above facts, the applicant’s continued allegations during and since the ARC hearings that the SBA monopalm is “not suitable” for co-location have no basis in fact and appear to be part of a campaign to intentionally mislead City staff and its decisionmakers. To the contrary, as shown in a simulation prepared by SBA’s engineering consultant, M Squared Wireless, the SBA tower with the AT&T equipment would look exactly like a monopalm should, with the presently thinning fronds on the SBA tower restored as part of the installation. (See Exhibit A.) Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 11 Simulation of SBA tower with AT&T facility and new fronds Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 12 Indeed, if AT&T were to abandon this application and enter negotiations to become a tenant on the SBA tower – as it has recently done in other cities like Desert Hot Springs and Dana Point – there would be just two monopalms in this part of the City, rather than three. The City would have the same cell coverage as it would with the project, but with one less tall cell tower masquerading as a palm tree. Given the technical feasibility of locating the AT&T equipment on the SBA tower, the issue of co-location could have been, and should have been, resolved before this project came to the Planning Commission. Indeed, at the close of the first ARC hearing in February, the ARC continued the item specifically to allow AT&T time to go back and talk to SBA about locating on their tower. However, the applicant ignored the ARC’s request to contact SBA. When the applicant came back to the ARC in June, it essentially admitted that AT&T hadn’t contacted SBA in the intervening 100-plus days. Instead, as staff puts it in the staff report, the applicant made generic (and completely circular) assertions that “the two parties could not reach an agreement to locate on the existing tower.” In addition, to justify not exploring co- location in good faith, the applicant conjured up a phony legal theory supported by a letter from one of AT&T’s lawyers. The lawyer contended that the SBA tower was “deemed abandoned” under section 25.34.130.L of the City’s code because it doesn’t presently have a tenant and that SBA’s permit has therefore expired. On that basis, the AT&T lawyer said that the tower is not a legally viable tower, and thus is not a feasible alternative site for AT&T’s equipment. Although City staff did not agree with this argument at the ARC hearing, it didn’t contradict the argument either. This ambiguity evidently led the ARC members to conclude that AT&T’s position might be a reasonable basis for its refusal to explore co-location further. However, in the weeks since the June ARC hearing, City staff itself has effectively rejected the applicant’s specious argument that the SBA permit has expired due to abandonment. Specifically, because of the uncertainty created by AT&T’s allegations – both in terms of this project and in terms of SBA’s own vested rights under its permit – on June 16, 2020, I asked Eric Ceja to make a formal determination whether the SBA tower has been “deemed abandoned” under the City’s ordinance. (My letter to Mr. Ceja is attached as Exhibit B.) This led to an exchange of emails between me and Mr. Ceja, which included emails from Mr. Ceja on June 29 and June 30, 2020. (A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit C.) Mr. Ceja asked for evidence that SBA was actively trying to lease the tower, and we provided that on June 30, 2020. (This letter is attached as Exhibit D.) Since that time, and leading up to the submittal of this letter on the afternoon of the hearing, we have had no further reply from Mr. Ceja about his position.1 1 We strongly felt that City staff’s position on the question of abandonment would be relevant to this Commission’s consideration of the project, and on that basis, on June 16, 2020, we urged Mr. Ceja to refrain from scheduling the Planning Commission hearing until it could be resolved. However, the matter was subsequently scheduled for the July 7 meeting nonetheless. Although the question is largely resolved in SBA’s favor already, if there remains any doubt that the SBA tower is sufficiently viable for AT&T to co-locate there, we recommend the Commission continue its hearing to a future date so that city staff can complete its determination on the SBA tower. Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 13 To sum up Mr. Ceja’s position so far, he says that while he is presently considering whether to make a determination that the tower is “deemed abandoned,” such a finding would not automatically cause the permit to “expire” or lead to its termination by the City. Instead, the determination would, at most, simply trigger a new 180-day period specified by the ordinance, which Mr. Ceja says would begin, at the earliest, on July 1, 2020 (i.e., one week ago), and end on December 28, 2020. At any time during that period, according to the ordinance SBA would be entitled to “reactivate the use of the tower,” such as by leasing to another tenant, and it would thereby avoid any expiration or termination of the permit. Further, Mr. Ceja has emphasized to me that his goal is to “work with you and the tower owners on maintaining the tower if it is operational.” In our view there is no basis for the tower to be “deemed abandoned” in the first place, as SBA has been actively seeking to lease it since the last tenant’s lease expired in November 2019. We expect Mr. Ceja to agree about this once he has had an opportunity to review the facts. However, even if City staff takes the position that the tower has been “deemed abandoned” by the absence of a tenant, the tower will surely be reactivated by a new tenant – whether AT&T or one of numerous other telecommunications providers – well before December 28, 2020. AT&T itself can be that tenant, if this Commission holds the applicant’s feet to the fire and wields its power to deny this project. In any event, given the facts and City staff’s own stated position on abandonment, there is no basis whatsoever for AT&T to contend that it is infeasible to locate its equipment on the SBA tower. Question 6: When a cell tower is the height of a six-story building, should we do CEQA review? The project requires review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for numerous potential impacts, including but not limited to aesthetic impacts of this tall structure on presently uncluttered views of the hills beyond enjoyed by nearby residents and users of Country Club Road, Washington Street, Interstate 10 and other surrounding roadways. Yet, as the staff report indicates, “[t]he Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt [from CEQA] under Article 19 Section 15303: Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the CEQA Guidelines.” The Notice of Exemption prepared according to CEQA (Attachment 3 to the staff report) is formulaic and provides no specific detail supporting the use of this exemption. A “Class 3” CEQA exemption is not appropriate here. Categorical exemptions are to be construed narrowly, because they deprive the public of otherwise necessary environmental review. (See California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 187 (“exemptions are construed narrowly”); see also, Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1193-94.) The relevant CEQA Guideline states, in relevant part: Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 14 Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to: (a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. (b) A duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartments, duplexes, and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. (c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. (d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction. (e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. (f) An accessory steam sterilization unit for the treatment of medical waste at a facility occupied by a medical waste generator, provided that the unit is installed and operated in accordance with the Medical Waste Management Act (Section 117600, et seq., of the Health and Safety Code) and accepts no offsite waste. (14 CCR 15303). Initially, the Class 3 exemption does not apply simply because the 65-foot tall tower is not a “small” facility or structure. See California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 192 (Class 4 exemption for “minor alterations” did not apply to management plan involving conversion of agricultural parcel into wetlands because the project was not “minor”). Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 15 65‐foot height same as a 6‐story building  Tellingly, none of the examples in section 15303 is anything like the project here. A new cell tower is not a single family residence; a duplex; a store, motel, office restaurant or similar structure; a utility extension; an accessory structure; or an accessory steam sterilization unit. Indeed, these examples establish the limited scope of the exemption. (See California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 189-90 (where categorical exemption applied to acquisition of land for restoration of wetlands, court held that the Guideline examples “narrow the construction that should be given the language,” and for exemption to apply “such acquisitions would still have to be similar in kind to the listed examples”); see also, Myers v. Board of Supervisors (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 413, 423 (holding that exemption for “minor temporary uses of land such as for carnivals and sales of Christmas trees” did not apply to land division, because it was “completely unlike any of the examples listed” and “not ‘consistent with both the letter and the intent expressed in the classes.’”.) Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 16 AT&T will surely respond to the above argument by presenting the City with authorities that purportedly support the use of a categorical exemption. One of these is likely to be a recent case from San Diego, Don't Cell Our Parks v. City of San Diego, 21 Cal.App.5th 338, 346 (2018), in which the project was “an unmanned cell tower disguised as a 35-foot-high faux eucalyptus tree and a 250-square-foot landscaped equipment structure,” which was “installed in an existing stand of tall trees, two of which are about 55 feet high.” The Court noted that “the Project is much smaller than a single-family residence, store, motel, office or restaurant,” all of which are examples of “small structures” in the State CEQA Guidelines. On these facts, the Court in Don’t Cell Our Parks found that the Class 3 exemption did apply. However, here the disguised cell tower here is a far cry from the one at issue in Don’t Cell Our Parks. First, it is 65 feet tall – almost twice as tall as the 35-foot high faux tree at issue in the other case. Second, unlike the tree in Don’t Cell Our Parks, which was concealed among a stand of other (including taller) trees, the monopalm here is surrounded by no similar structure or vegetation, and in fact would be not be concealed at all by the surrounding trees, which are mainly 20 to 25 feet in height and no more than 40 feet in height. Therefore, this case does not support a Class 3 exemption. AT&T may also rely on Robinson v. City & County of San Francisco, 208 Cal.App.4th 950, 954 (2012). There, the project was “wireless equipment . . . on an existing utility pole in the utility right-of-way” on a public street in an “urbanized environment”. (Id. at 954.) The equipment was described as “three 26.1-inch high, 6.1-inch wide, 2.7-inch-deep antennas concealed within an enclosure that is affixed at the top of the utility pole and painted to match it, plus four 24-inch-high, 17-inch-wide, 11-inch-deep cabinets and a 10.88-inch-high, 8-inch-wide, 3.5-inch-deep power meter, all of which are attached to the pole at different heights.” (Id.) The cabinets and other equipment in Robinson, which were no more than 26 inches high and placed on existing utility poles, are in no way comparable to the 65-foot tall fake palm tree proposed by AT&T here. Finally, AT&T may rely upon San Francisco Beautiful v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1017. There, the project was 726 new utility cabinets on public sidewalks in the heavily urbanized city of San Francisco. The court noted that “[t]he majority of the cabinets would be approximately 48 inches high, 51.7 inches wide, and 26 inches deep.” These 4-foot deep cabinets are a far cry from the 65-foot tall monopalm proposed by AT&T here. AT&T may also attempt to latch its project onto the Class 3 exemption by arguing that a cell tower fits one of the examples set forth in the Guidelines – i.e., subsection (d), which specifies “(d) Water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions, including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.” However, AT&T will be hard put to find any case law that would suggest that a private company’s cell tower, disguised as a free-standing, 65-foot tall palm tree, qualifies as a “utility extension,” especially when it is not attached to an existing utility pole. (See, e.g., Aptos Residents Assn. v. Cty. of Santa Cruz, 20 Cal.App.5th 1039, 1047 (2018) (microcell units installed on existing utility poles and consisting Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 17 of “two-foot by one-foot antenna mounted on an extender pole that was no more than six feet in length”) qualified for Class 3 exemption).) AT&T may also contend that the Class 3 exemption applies on the ground that the disguised cell tower qualifies as an “accessory structure,” which is another one of the examples set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. In fact, this tower does not qualify as such a structure. The Guideline itself defines “accessory” as “appurtenant”. The existing use on the property is a convenience store and car wash. A cell tower is not “accessory” or “appurtenant” to a convenience store or a car wash. Instead, it is an entirely separate use that has no connection to the underlying use. The owner of the facility is a shell entity controlled by AT&T, and there is no allegation in the application or in the staff report that the cell tower is intended to serve the convenience store or car wash, or to facilitate those existing uses. Further, the City’s zoning code defines “accessory structure” as follows: Accessory building or structure. Accessory building or structure means a subordinate building or structure located on a building site, the use of which is customarily related to that of a main building or to the use of the land. PDMC section 25.99.020. This definition is consistent with the common understanding of “accessory” structures reflected in the examples contained in the CEQA Guideline itself – garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences. Such structures are all patently subordinate to the underlying use, commonly a residential or commercial use. Stores and homes require, or are least facilitated or enhanced by, garages, patios, pools and fences. They do not require, and are not facilitated or enhanced by, cell towers. Therefore, a cell tower cannot be “accessory” to the present use. In sum, a Class 3 exemption from CEQA cannot be applied. Instead, the City must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) identifying the potentially significant aesthetic impact, any identifying any measures to mitigate that impact below the threshold of significance. Even if a categorical exemption might apply under the Guideline, there is a separate provision of CEQA that prohibits the use of an exemption “where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c).) As the California Supreme Court has held: “A party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without evidence of an environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance. Alternatively, under our reading of the guideline, a party may establish an unusual Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 18 circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105 (emphasis supplied).) In Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1096, an irrigation district applied the Class 3 categorical exemption for “new, small facilities or structures, including water main and other utility extensions,” to the water supply for a casino and hotel project. (Id. at 1105-1106.) The court held that “unusual circumstances” precluded the use of the exemption, because it was typically applied to smaller construction projects, and noted that “[t]he sheer amount of water to be conveyed under the MOU” was itself an unusual circumstance: “[A]n unusual circumstance refers to ‘some feature of the project that distinguishes it’ from others in the exempt class. In other words, ‘whether a circumstance is “unusual” is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project. . . . We do not look only to the project's possible environmental effects. Rather, we determine as a matter of law whether “the circumstances of a particular project ... differ from the general circumstances of the projects covered by a particular categorical exemption.” (Voices for Rural Living, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at 1109-10.) Unusual circumstances were also present in Lewis v. Seventeenth Dist. Agric. Assn. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 823. There, the operator of a county fairground determined that a contract for auto racing was subject to a categorical exemption for “the normal operations of existing facilities for public gatherings for which the facilities were designed . . . includ[ing] racetracks.” (Id. at 828-29.) However, the court precluded the exemption, noting “there is no question of the existence of unusual circumstances - the adjacency of residential areas to the racetrack.” (Id.) For the project at issue here, there are at least two “unusual circumstances” that give rise to a “reasonable possibility” that this project would have a significant effect on the environment. Either one of these is sufficient to preclude the application of the Class 3 exemption for smaller structures. First, the structure at issue is a cell tower, which is an unusually intrusive and obviously industrial structure. Second, at 65 feet in height (the approximate height of a six-story building), the cell tower is unusually tall in comparison to other structures in the City. To our knowledge, only a handful of structures in the City are over 50 feet tall, and all of them are either other telecommunications towers or freestanding signage. To illustrate how rare tall structures are in the City, to our knowledge the only multi-story building in the City taller than 38 feet is the Desert Springs Marriott, at 98 feet tall. Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 19 “[W]hen there are ‘unusual circumstances,’ it is appropriate for public agencies to apply the fair argument standard in determining whether “there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at 1115.) Here, even using the self-serving simulations prepared by the applicant, there is certainly a fair argument that there is a “reasonable possibility” that the project will have a significant impact on aesthetics and on public safety. In addition, under the alternative formulation prescribed by the court in Berkeley Hillside, there is also strong evidence that the project “will have” a significant effect in at least two of these categories, i.e., aesthetics and public safety. This is an independent basis for finding “unusual circumstances.” (See Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 576.) Finally, the City cannot salvage the categorical exemption by imposing mitigation measures such as the requirement to plant or relocate trees around the monopalm tower. Mitigation measures cannot be considered in determining whether there are significant impacts due to unusual circumstances. (See Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1106 (citing to Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199–1200).) Conclusion. We recognize that the City is under a great deal of pressure to approve cell tower projects because of federal laws frequently cited by AT&T and other project applicants. However, no law requires your Commission to approve an exception to a duly adopted and facially reasonable 1,000 foot minimum separation distance like the one that applies here. AT&T doesn’t argue otherwise. This project is entirely within your discretion to deny, and you should deny it. At a minimum, we respectfully request that you continue the hearing to allow the Commission time to meaningfully address our comments. Thank you for your kind consideration of our comments on this project. Very truly yours, John A. Henning, Jr. Enclosures: EXHIBIT A: Simulations of SBA tower with AT&T Equipment by M Squared Wireless EXHIBIT B: June 16, 2020, letter from John Henning to Eric Ceja EXHIBIT C: June 29 and June 30, 2020 emails from Eric Ceja to John Henning EXHIBIT D: June 30, 2020, letter from John Henning to Eric Ceja Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 20 EXHIBIT A: SIMULATIONS OF SBA TOWER WITH AT&T EQUIPMENT BY M SQUARED WIRELESS PROPOSED CO-LOCATED MONOPALM PROPOSED CO-LOCATED MONOPALM Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 21 EXHIBIT B: JUNE 16, 2020 LETTER FROM JOHN HENNING TO ERIC CEJA June 16, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Eric Ceja Principal Planner City of Palm Desert, California 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: CUP 00-06 - 77850 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Ceja: I represent SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC, which owns and operates a cell tower on property at 77850 Country Club Drive, pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 00-06. At the recent public hearings of the Architectural Review Commission (“ARC”) relating to a proposed new cell tower nearby at 78005 Country Club Drive (CUP 19-0002), the project applicant alleged that SBA’s tower has been “deemed abandoned” as that phrase is used in PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L, on the ground that the “use” of the SBA tower has been “discontinued” for a certain period of time. In a similar vein, the applicant argued that the required minimum 1,000 foot separation distance in the code does not apply to its project, because the SBA tower is not “legally viable.” As we set forth in our correspondence of June 8, 2020 to the ARC, and as discussed during my comments to the ARC at its June 9, 2020, hearing, SBA strenuously disagrees with the applicant’s contentions in this regard. You evidently reviewed both SBA’s letter and a letter submitted by the applicant on this issue, and you acknowledged the allegations during your remarks to the ARC. We were pleased to note that you did not say that you agreed with the applicant’s allegations. Nor did you state that staff considers the SBA tower to be “deemed abandoned” or that SBA has lost any of its vested legal rights to operate the tower. Mr. Ceja June 16, 2020 Page 2 We surmise that, at a minimum, you question the applicant’s assertions in this regard, and that you may have already determined that they lack any legal merit. However, it is urgent that we clear this matter up once and for all. The continuing uncertainty about the legal status of the SBA tower has enabled the applicant for the new tower to make what we consider to be utterly baseless allegations to both City staff and City commissions about its purported inability to co- locate on the SBA tower, and even to question the application of the 1,000-foot separation requirement to the pending project. As this project is soon to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and may also be appealed to the City Council, for the sake of the City’s own decision making process it is imperative that you clarify the legal status of the SBA tower. Moreover, quite aside from the present proceedings over the new tower, the present lack of clarity as to SBA’s rights is substantially interfering with SBA’s ongoing efforts to negotiate with prospective tenants who might locate their equipment on its tower. The CUP for the SBA tower is attached for your convenience. Our position is as set forth in the June 8, 2020, letter to the ARC. We request an immediate determination by your Director of Community Development (or other suitable City official) that the SBA tower is not “deemed abandoned” for purposes of section 25.34.13.L, and that SBA’s rights under the CUP remain in effect. It is not clear to us whether the City’s code and/or policies provide a formal procedure for such a determination, but we request one regardless. Your determination, if favorable, would help to avoid the need for SBA to seek declaratory relief from the courts about the scope of its rights. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, John A. Henning, Jr. Enclosure cc: Nick Melloni (via electronic mail) Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 22 EXHIBIT C: JUNE 29 AND JUNE 30, 2020 EMAILS FROM ERIC CEJA TO JOHN HENNING From: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 4:29 PM To: jhenning@planninglawgroup.com Subject: RE: CUP 00-06 - 77850 Country Club Drive   Hi John,     Since we were not aware that the tower was inoperable until recently, and since I was only able to  provide you a response yesterday, my preference is to have the 180‐days start July 1, 2020. I ask that  you work with the tower owner to find a new operator and new tower user in the near future. In the  meantime, please provide information related to the efforts to lease the tower to other operators.    Thanks,       Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org   From: John A. Henning, Jr. <jhenning@planninglawgroup.com>   Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:10 PM  To: Ceja, Eric <eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org>  Subject: RE: CUP 00‐06 ‐ 77850 Country Club Drive    Eric,    I will talk to my client and will reply to you shortly with information and any evidence that the tower  should not be considered abandoned.  In the meantime would you please clarify whether, if you were to  initiate proceedings after receiving this evidence, the City would contend that the tower is “deemed  abandoned” in the sense that the first 180‐day period has lapsed, thereby allowing the owner/operator  an additional 180 days within which to either reactivate the use/transfer the tower (option 1) or  dismantle and remove the tower (option 2)?      For your convenience, the ordinance states:    L.            Abandonment. In the event the use of any commercial communication tower  has been discontinued for a period of 180 consecutive days, the tower shall be  deemed to have been abandoned. Upon such abandonment, the  owner/operator of the tower shall have an additional 180 days within which to:  (1) reactivate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to another  owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower; or (2) dismantle and  remove the tower. At the earlier of 181 days from the date of abandonment  without reactivation or upon completion of dismantling and removal, any  variance approval for the tower shall automatically expire.                      (PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L (emphasis supplied).)    Please reply about this, or give me a call to discuss.    Best,    John    _________________________________________________    John A. Henning, Jr.  Attorney at Law  125 N. Sweetzer Ave. Unit 202  Los Angeles, CA  90048    Ph.  (323) 655‐6171  Fax (323) 655‐6109  jhenning@planninglawgroup.com      From: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:48 PM To: jhenning@planninglawgroup.com Subject: RE: CUP 00-06 - 77850 Country Club Drive   Hi John,    I understand the tower is not currently leased to a cell provider. Based on the that, it appears that the  tower should be deemed abandoned pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code and the CUP.  Before the  City initiates proceedings in that regard, please provide any information you have that it should not be  considered abandoned including all efforts to lease the tower to other users. It is not my intention to  have the tower and associated improvements removed immediately and would like to work with you  and the tower owners on maintaining the tower if it is operational.     Thanks,     Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org   Honorable Commissioners July 7, 2020 Page 23 EXHIBIT D: JUNE 30, 2020, LETTER FROM JOHN HENNING TO ERIC CEJA June 30, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Eric Ceja Principal Planner City of Palm Desert, California 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: CUP 00-06 - 77850 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Ceja: This is to follow up on my letter to you of June 16, 2020, regarding the legal status of my client’s cell tower at 77850 Country Club Drive. We have received your emails of June 29 and June 30, 2020, in which you said that you believed that the tower should be “deemed abandoned” pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code and the CUP, but that before the City initiates proceedings in that regard you would be receptive to any information we may have that it should not be considered abandoned, including any evidence of SBA’s efforts to lease the tower to other users or operators. You also clarified that even if the City were to deem the tower to be abandoned at this point, only the first 180 day period set forth in PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L would have expired, and that, in the words of the ordinance, SBA would still “have an additional 180 days within which to: (1) reactivate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to another owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower; or (2) dismantle and remove the tower.” SBA’s site marketing manager Markella Markouizos has prepared a letter addressed to you, dated June 30, 2020, and attached hereto. In the letter, Ms. Markouizos reiterates that SBA had a tenant at the site with an active lease that expired on November 9, 2019, i.e., less than 8 months ago. Mr. Ceja June 30, 2020 Page 2 Your recent emails have implied that the absence of an active lease for the tower may be sufficient in itself for the City to deem the tower to be abandoned under section 25.34.130.L. We urge you to consider the implications of such an interpretation. The question under the ordinance is whether “the use of ... [the] tower has been discontinued for a period of 180 consecutive days.” The ordinance does not require an owner like SBA to be actually leasing the tower to a telecommunications provider in order to be continuing the “use” of the tower. Instead, SBA, by merely attempting to lease the tower, is continuing its “use” of the tower and is evidencing its intention to continue the use in the future. By way of analogy, the “use” of a cell tower does not become “discontinued” or “abandoned” simply because of the absence of a tenant, any more than the “use” of a restaurant becomes “discontinued” or “abandoned” simply because one tenant leaves and there is no tenant operating a restaurant there for a period of time. Indeed, an interpretation of the ordinance requiring constant leasing of the tower in order to avoid a finding that it is “deemed abandoned” would be harsh and illogical and would subject SBA to a forfeiture of a legally vested right to operate its tower simply because it is unable for a short time to find a tenant, regardless of its intent and good-faith efforts to find a tenant. We are pleased that you have acknowledged that evidence of SBA’s active efforts to lease the tower to other users or operators would have a bearing on whether the tower can be “deemed abandoned” at this point. In this regard, as Ms. Markouizos states in her letter, SBA has continuously operated this tower, and sought tenants for it, from acquisition through to the present. Specifically, Ms. Markouizos states for each of the last several calendar quarters, this tower has been included in a marketing list of available sites for the State of California sent out to multiple carriers, most recently including Verizon and AT&T. In addition, Ms. Markousizos notes that since early March 2020, SBA has actively sought to lease the tower to AT&T in particular, as an alternative to the new tower it is proposing across the street at 77805 Country Club Drive. Ms. Markouizos describes a series of contacts beginning in March 2020, first with Chris Doheny of Smartlink, an AT&T agent for purposes of the proposed project, and leading eventually to communications in June 2020 with Christopher Morse of AT&T, who is responsible for AT&T’s leasing efforts in Palm Desert. Although those marketing efforts have not borne fruit so far, Ms. Markouizos emphasizes that SBA remains willing to discuss terms of a lease with AT&T for this tower. In sum, SBA has never intended to abandon the tower, nor do its actions or omissions reasonably support a finding of abandonment. Thus, we respectfully request an immediate determination by your Director of Community Development (or other suitable City official) that the SBA tower is not “deemed abandoned” for purposes of section 25.34.13.L, and that SBA’s rights under the CUP remain fully in effect. Alternatively, if it is the City’s position that the tower is “deemed abandoned” for purposes of the ordinance, we request that you confirm that only the first 180-day period set Mr. Ceja June 30, 2020 Page 3 forth in the ordinance has transpired, and that SBA has an additional 180 days within which to either “reactivate” the use of the tower, transfer the tower to another owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower, or dismantle and remove the tower. Please reply at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, John A. Henning, Jr. Enclosure cc: Nick Melloni (via electronic mail) June 30, 2020 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: CUP 00-06 - 77850 Country Club Drive Dear Mr. Ceja: I am the site marketing manager for the existing SBA cell tower located at 77850 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert, California. I am responsible for SBA’s efforts to lease this tower and others in California. I understand that you have asked for any information establishing that this tower should not be considered abandoned, including all efforts to lease the tower to other users. SBA acquired this site from Sprint/Nextel and has continuously operated it and sought tenants for it, from our acquisition through to the present. Our last tenant had a lease that expired on November 9, 2019. Each calendar quarter it is our practice to send out a marketing list of available sites for the State of California to multiple carriers, most recently including Verizon and AT&T. In this list, each site is described by its address, latitude/longitude, height and other particulars. The tower at issue here has been included on this list each of the last several quarters. In addition, since early March 2020, we have actively sought to lease the tower to AT&T in particular, as an alternative to the new tower it is proposing across the street at 77805 Country Club Drive. On March 2, 2020, I called Chris Doheny of Smartlink, which is AT&T’s agent for purposes of the proposed project, and introduced myself and offered to discuss leasing opportunities. Mr. Doheny said he would refer my inquiry to the AT&T leasing manager. I then wrote a confirming email to him and asked him to pass my name along to the leasing manager. Two days later, on March 4, 2020, I wrote another email to Mr. Doheny, and mentioned that our tower was presently vacant of tenants and could immediately accommodate the proposed AT&T equipment, and that SBA was open to discussing the terms of a long-term lease for this use. On June 4, 2020, I left a voice mail for Mr. Doheny to the same effect. On June 8, 2020, I left a similar voice mail for Christopher Morse of AT&T, the Area Manager / New Site Build for the Greater Los Angeles area, who is responsible for AT&T’s leasing efforts in Palm Desert. On June 9, 2020, Mr. Morse and I discussed the possibility of AT&T locating on our tower. We remain willing to discuss terms of a lease with AT&T for this tower. Very truly yours, Markella Markouizos Site Marketing Manager - California VIA E-MAIL August 12, 2020 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert c/o Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner City of Palm Desert, California 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: CUP 19-0002 – 78005 Country Club Drive (AT&T Smartlink / Chris Doheny) Honorable Commissioners: This law firm is counsel for AT&T in connection with the above referenced CUP 19-0002 (“CUP”) for AT&T’s proposed installation and operation of a communications tower and associated equipment to be located at 78005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211. This Letter is in response to SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC (“SBA”) third (3rd) objection letter dated July 7, 2020 (“SBA Letter”) submitted to the Planning Commission by John A. Henning, Jr, subject to and expressly reserving AT&T’s right to provide additional comments and responses to all or a portion of SBA’s Letter. On June 9, 2020 the Architectural Review Commission (“ARC”) recommended approval of AT&T’s design and move forward to the Planning Commission with the motion carried 6-0-1 with one abstention. My client respectfully requests that your Commission approve the CUP for AT&T’s design as recommended by your Architectural Review Commission. SBA’S TOWER ABANDONED AND IN VIOLATION OF CITY OF PALM DESERT’S ORDINANCE PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” It is AT&T’s position that SBA’s tower is abandoned as that term is defined in PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” which states as follows: “In the event the use of any commercial communication tower has been discontinued for a period of 180 consecutive days, the tower shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Upon such abandonment, the owner/operator of the tower shall have an additional 180 days within which to: (1) reactivate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to another owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower; or (2) dismantle and remove the tower. At the earlier of 181 days from the date of abandonment without reactivation or upon completion of dismantling and removal, any variance approval for the tower shall automatically expire.” As more clearly described in Exhibit A to this letter, the antennas located on SBA’s tower are outdated antennas of two (2) other communications carr iers, neither of which are currently in business or operational. It is our belief that the antennas on SBA’s tower are the property of Clearwire and Nextel. In 2005 Sprint by merger acquired Nextel, and in 2013 Sprint acquired 100% ownership of Clearwire. And as you may be aware, Sprint and T-Mobile announced in 2018 a merger of the two (2) companies with T-Mobile being the surviving brand. T-Mobile’s communications facility is located approximately half a block to the west of AT&T’s proposed site, and it would be highly unusual for T-Mobile to continue operations of redundant facilities so close in proximity to each other. Based on the foregoing, it is our belief that SBA has had no active tenants on its tower for a period of time of at least 360 days, and therefore the tower should be deemed “abandoned.” Furthermore, it has come to AT&T’s consultant, Chris Doheny’s attention from Southern California Edison that there has been no electrical service since July of 2019, which clearly exceeds the 360 day time period to deem SBA’s tower abandoned, which includes the initial 180 day period, and the additional 180 day period to reactivate use of the tower. With the above time periods in mind, as of today’s date, at a minimum, the initial 180 day period would have commenced July 30, 2019, expiring 180 days thereafter. SBA would then have th e second (2nd) 180 day period commencing on January 25, 2020, expiring on July 23, 2020, at which point the tower is deemed abandoned as required under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment”. Mr. Henning in his objection letters states that his client has had a tenant within such period but provides no information or evidence to support his claim, except for the generic statement in SBA’s letter dated June 30, 2020 from Markella Markouizos which states that “Our last tenant had a lease that expired on November 9, 2019,” attached to this letter as Exhibit B. Is this tenant Sprint/Nextel? Mr. Henning further contends that the mere attempt at leasing SBA’s tower to another party satisfies the “use” requirement under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment”. We disagree with Mr. Henning’s position. “Use” under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” for this tower should be interpreted to be actual use as a communications tower as approved by the City of Palm Desert for the conditional use permit CUP 00-6 and the conditions of approval in connection therewith (“SBA’s CUP”) attached to this letter as Exhibit C. The second (2nd) part of PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” expands, and clarifies, the term “use” which reads as follows: “Upon such abandonment, the owner/operator of the tower shall have an additional 180 days within which to: (1) reactivate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to another owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower; or (2) dismantle and remove the tower. At the earlier of 181 days from the date of abandonment without reactivation or upon completion of dismantling and removal, any variance approval for the tower shall automatically expire.” The second (2nd) part of PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” gives the owner/operator an additional 180 days to either (1) reactivate the “use of the tower” or “transfer the tower to another owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower.” The ordinance itself clarifies the meaning of the word “use” whereby to demonstrate “use” under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” the owner/operator must show either “reactivation” or transfer to another owner/operator who makes “actual use” of the tower. SBA has not demonstrated such “use” as required under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment.” Additionally, there is no “notice” required under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” and SBA is on notice of the requirement to comply with the “Abandonment” ordinance as it is clearly stated under condition 8 of SBA’s CUP conditions of approval. SBA had an obligation to report such non-use to the City of Palm Desert and to take necessary steps as permitted under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” to continue such “use” within the second (2nd) 180 day period or dismantle and remove its tower and comply with the ordinance and the conditions of approval. It is the owner/operator’s obligation under PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment” to give notice to the City of such non-use since the owner/operator is in the best position to know their own status of use or non-use. Other municipalities have similar “abandonment” rules and includes within the conditions of approval an express obligation on the owner/operator to disclose such non-use, and this is clearly a self- reporting requirement which SBA has failed to do. For the reasons stated in this response letter, it is AT&T’s position that co- location on SBA’s tower is not feasible, and that SBA did abandon its tower, and that SBA’s tower is in violation of, and is not legally compliant with, and does not legally conform with the City of Palm Desert’s ordinance PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment.” Abandonment is clearly defined in the City of Palm Desert’s ordinance PDMC sec. 25.34.130, and SBA has provided no additional verifiable information to suggest that its tower is not abandoned within the meaning of the ordinance. As a result of SBA’s failure to comply with the City of Palm Desert’s ordinance. PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L “Abandonment,” SBA’s CUP 00-6 is no longer valid and is expired by operation of law, and SBA’s tower is in violation of not only PDMC sec. 25.34.130, but also condition number 8 in the Conditions of Approval for CUP 00-6. SBA is effectively requesting that AT&T co-locate on its tower in violation of the City’s ordinance. SBA’S TOWER In Mr. Henning’s July 7th Letter Mr. Henning asks “Do we need another poorly disguised fake “palm tree” cell tower in the City?” and thereafter provides AT&T’s photo simulation of AT&T’s proposed “palm tree,” which in a side by side comparison to SBA’s “palm tree” is clearly more aesthetically pleasing to the eye compared to the poorly maintained and designed palm fronds on SBA’s tower (AT&T’s Photo Simulations attached hereto as Exhibit D). Should the City reward SBA for its own poorly maintained and designed palm tree? Additional photos of SBA’s equipment compound as shown below clearly shows that the tower and palm fronds have been poorly maintained, most likely a result of non-use. SBA TOWER PHOTO: SBA EQUIPMENT COMPOUND PHOTO: Mr. Henning’s July 7th Letter includes SBA’s photo simulations of its “palm tree” with palm fronds extending well beyond the antennas in excess of 10 feet which is not accurate. Palm fronds are manufactured at no greater than 10 feet in length, otherwise, they would not meet California wind loading requirements. We feel SBA’s photo simulations are misleading and inaccurate. Mr. Henning further suggests that the neighborhood should not be subjected to another “prominent fake palm tree” but there have been no objections from the nearby residents with respect to AT&T’s proposed facility. AT&T’S PHOTO SIMULATIONS As referenced above, AT&T’s photo simulations are attached hereto as Exhibit D. LANDSCAPING The landscape design was approved by ARC. AT&T’s tower is 65 feet tall, and the proposed trees are 40 feet tall as recommended and approved by ARC. The 20 foot trees which Mr. Henning references in his July 7th Letter are the trees to be relocated from its current location to the new location as approved by ARC. At the last Planning Commission Hearing on July 7, 2020, AT&T was asked if it could change the species of the mono-palm to the species of live trees on the property. We cannot change the mono-palm tree type to a fan palm because fan palm fronds only come in 7’ lengths due to wind loading requirements which would not adequately screen the antennas, however, we did change the proposed live tree type to date palms to provide for a more uniform, and to match the live trees with the faux tree species. AT&T Propagation Maps AT&T’s proposed location provides better coverage from SBA’s location as shown in the propagation maps attached hereto as Exhibit E. CEQA In an effort to obtain a denial of AT&T’s CUP, SBA now argues AT&T’s proposed 65 foot mono-palm requires CEQA, an argument which has no merit in light of the fact that SBA’s CUP includes the same exemption. What is the difference between AT&T’s proposed tower and SBA’s tower to require CEQA? A “Class 3” CEQA exemption is appropriate for AT&T’s proposed mono-palm as it was for SBA’s mono- palm, and we do not feel the need to expand on the City’s grant of such exemption. CONCLUSION SBA’s Letter makes reference to other co-location agreements between SBA and AT&T throughout the United States and in California, but fails to state that the number of new agreements entered into by the parties in the Southern California market in recent years has been extremely limited for various reasons, including without limitation, the terms and conditions of the agreements, and the financial consideration and cost of doing business with SBA for the initial site built and subsequent modifications to the site. In fact SBA references two (2) other potential sites which AT&T has entered negotiations to become a tenant of SBA (Desert Hot Springs and Dana Point), but fails to mention that no negotiations for the terms of use of SBA’s facilities has actually commenced aside from the submission of applications to SBA. (Please note SBA has on multiple occasions attempted to oppose AT&T at jurisdictional hearings.) AT&T has determined for those sites referenced by SBA that it may be feasible to enter into an agreement for use of SBA’s facilities at those locations, but such feasibility has not been finalized, and SBA has provided no agreements for those sites to begin the negotiations. AT&T may ultimately determine that the SBA facilities for those sites do not fall within the economic or technical feasibility requirements of AT&T, and may abandon the applications submitted to SBA for those sites. For the reasons stated in this paragraph, and for AT&T’s proposed site at this location, AT&T made a determination that “co-locating” on SBA’s tower is not feasible, economically or otherwise. AT&T has successfully negotiated and secured a lease with Circle K Stores Inc for AT&T’s installation of its tower and equipment within the leased premises subject to the CUP conditions and City of Palm Desert’s approved CUP. Is it fair to a business within the City’s boundaries to not benefit from an agreement entered into with AT&T so that SBA can benefit? If the City denies AT&T’s CUP, AT&T will have to terminate its agreement with Circle K. In conclusion, and for the reasons stated above, AT&T respectfully requests that the Commission recommend approval of the CUP. Regards, Andrew Dye, ESQ. Busch Law Firm PLLC 1724 Port Ashley Pl Newport Beach, CA 92660 (425) 406-7861 EXHIBIT A (SBA TOWER ANTENNA IDENTIFICATION) Clearwire panel antenna Clearwire DAP Head Extremely outdated antenna (only 1 port) Nextel EXHIBIT B (SBA’s Letter dated June 30, 2020 from Markella Markouizos)        -XQH  (ULF&HMD3ULQFLSDO3ODQQHU &LW\RI3DOP'HVHUW )UHG:DULQJ'U 3DOP'HVHUW&$   5( &83&RXQWU\&OXE'ULYH    'HDU0U&HMD  ,DPWKHVLWHPDUNHWLQJPDQDJHUIRUWKHH[LVWLQJ6%$FHOOWRZHUORFDWHGDW&RXQWU\&OXE'ULYHLQ3DOP 'HVHUW&DOLIRUQLD,DPUHVSRQVLEOHIRU6%$¶VHIIRUWVWROHDVHWKLVWRZHUDQGRWKHUVLQ&DOLIRUQLD,XQGHUVWDQG WKDW\RXKDYHDVNHGIRUDQ\LQIRUPDWLRQHVWDEOLVKLQJWKDWWKLVWRZHUVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDEDQGRQHG LQFOXGLQJDOOHIIRUWVWROHDVHWKHWRZHUWRRWKHUXVHUV  6%$DFTXLUHGWKLVVLWHIURP6SULQW1H[WHODQGKDVFRQWLQXRXVO\RSHUDWHGLWDQGVRXJKWWHQDQWVIRULWIURPRXU DFTXLVLWLRQWKURXJKWRWKHSUHVHQW2XUODVWWHQDQWKDGDOHDVHWKDWH[SLUHGRQ1RYHPEHU  (DFKFDOHQGDUTXDUWHULWLVRXUSUDFWLFHWRVHQGRXWDPDUNHWLQJOLVWRIDYDLODEOHVLWHVIRUWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD WRPXOWLSOHFDUULHUVPRVWUHFHQWO\LQFOXGLQJ9HUL]RQDQG$7 7,QWKLVOLVWHDFKVLWHLVGHVFULEHGE\LWV DGGUHVVODWLWXGHORQJLWXGHKHLJKWDQGRWKHUSDUWLFXODUV7KHWRZHUDWLVVXHKHUHKDVEHHQLQFOXGHGRQWKLVOLVW HDFKRIWKHODVWVHYHUDOTXDUWHUV  ,QDGGLWLRQVLQFHHDUO\0DUFKZHKDYHDFWLYHO\VRXJKWWROHDVHWKHWRZHUWR$7 7LQSDUWLFXODUDVDQ DOWHUQDWLYHWRWKHQHZWRZHULWLVSURSRVLQJDFURVVWKHVWUHHWDW&RXQWU\&OXE'ULYH2Q0DUFK, FDOOHG&KULV'RKHQ\RI6PDUWOLQNZKLFKLV$7 7¶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¶VOHDVLQJHIIRUWVLQ3DOP'HVHUW2Q-XQH 0U0RUVHDQG,GLVFXVVHGWKHSRVVLELOLW\RI$7 7ORFDWLQJRQRXUWRZHU:HUHPDLQZLOOLQJWR GLVFXVVWHUPVRIDOHDVHZLWK$7 7IRUWKLVWRZHU  9HU\WUXO\\RXUV  0DUNHOOD0DUNRXL]RV 6LWH0DUNHWLQJ0DQDJHU&DOLIRUQLD EXHIBIT C (SBA’s CUP) EXHIBIT D (AT&T’s PHOTO SIMULATIONS) ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking northwest from Washington StreetProposed View 1 proposed monopalm proposed live palms ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southwest from Washington StreetProposed View 2 proposed monopalm relocated existing live palms beyond proposed equipment enclosure proposed landscaping proposed live palms ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast from Country Club DriveProposed View 3 proposed monopalm proposed equipment enclosure proposed live palms ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast from parking lotProposed View 4 relocated existing live palms proposed equipment enclosure proposed shrubs EXHIBIT E (AT&T PROPAGATION MAPS) Page 1 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage Before site CSL02434 Page 2 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage After site CSL02434 at 56 Ft Page 3 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage After site CSL02434 at 56 Ft (SBA Location) Page 4 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved.AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage standalone site CSL02434 at 56 Ft 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 at 56 Ft (SBA Location) 3300 Irvine Ave, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 p (949) 861-2201 f (949) 468-0931 smartlinkgroup.com August 13, 2020 City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73510 Fred Waring Dr Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Request for Continuance – CASE No. CUP 19-0002 Site: AT&T CSL02434 – 78005 Country Club Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92211 Planning Commission: On behalf of AT&T and CASE No. CUP 19-0002 we would humbly like to request that the Planning Commission approve an additional continuance of our CUP review until the next scheduled hearing. We are gathering additional material addressing all comments provided by the commission in the July 7th hearing, along with responding to the letter and statements from SBA representative John Henning. We want to include one additional document in relation to our project specifically, along with the updated drawings, photo simulations, propagation maps and the letter from AT&T’s attorney. Most importantly, we have an individual from the local community that is willing to speak on our projects behalf but is not available for the hearing scheduled August 18th. We would like to have their voice heard specifically providing feedback to the commission supporting our project. In order to provide a complete and thorough response we would like the additional time to do that. Should you have any questions, please contact me at my information below. Sincerely, Chris Doheny Smartlink LLC 3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 300, Irvine, California 92660 chris.doheny@smartlinkgroup.com 619-994-8528 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: July 30, 2020 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 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 at 56 Ft Page 5 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage After site CSL02434 at 56 Ft (SBA Location) Page 6 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage standalone site CSL02434 at 56 Ft Page 7 © 2008 AT&T Knowledge Ventures. All rights reserved. AT&T is a registered trademark of AT&T Knowledge Ventures. LTE Coverage standalone site CSL02434 at 56 Ft (SBA Location) 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. ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking northwest from Washington StreetProposed View 1 proposed monopalm proposed live palms ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southwest from Washington StreetProposed View 2 proposed monopalm relocated existing live palms beyond proposed equipment enclosure proposed landscaping proposed live palms ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast from Country Club DriveProposed View 3 proposed monopalm proposed equipment enclosure proposed live palms ©2020 Google Maps 78005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert CA 92211 CSL02434 Circle K Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Location Existing Looking southeast from parking lotProposed View 4 relocated existing live palms proposed equipment enclosure proposed shrubs 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660TEL: (949) 387-1265FAX: (949) 387-12751452 EDINGER AVE.TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 927804430 E. MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE DANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92807T-1VICINITY MAPGENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTESAPPROVALSLEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THESE DOCUMENTS &AUTHORIZE THE SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBEDHEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDINGDEPARTMENT & MAY IMPOSE CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS.DISCIPLINE:SIGNATURE:DATE:AT&T RF ENGINEER:AT&T OPERATIONS:SITE ACQUISITION:CONSTRUCTION MANAGER:PROPERTY OWNER:ZONING VENDOR:PROJECT MANAGER:SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & EXISTING DIMENSIONS & CONDITIONS ONTHE JOB SITE & SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANYDISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME.GENERAL NOTESTHE FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VISITTHE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT INANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE; NO SANITARY SEWERSERVICE, POTABLE WATER, OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REQUIRED AND NO COMMERCIALSIGNAGE IS PROPOSED.Your world. DeliveredLOCAL MAPPROJECT TEAMCODE COMPLIANCESITE INFORMATIONDRAWING INDEX1452 EDINGER AVE. 3RD FLOORTUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92780Your world. DeliveredDRIVING DIRECTIONS1.2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE2.2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODEADOPTED 2017 NEC3.2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE4.2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE5.2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE6.2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE7.COUNTY COASTAL ZONE LAND USEORDINANCE-TITLE 238.COUNTY FIRE CODE ORDINANCE - TITLE 169.COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE - TITLE 2210.COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTIONORDINANCE - TITLE 19ALL WORKS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCALGOVERNING AUTHORITIES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMITWORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES.COMPANY:SMARTLINK, LLCADDRESS:3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300CITY,STATE,ZIP:NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660CONTACT:ALEXIS DUNLAPPHONE:(949) 838-7313EMAIL:alexis.dunlap@smartlinkllc.comNAME:CIRCLE K STORES INC.ADDRESS:1100 SITUS COURT, SUITE #100CITY,STATE,ZIP:RALEIGH, NC 27606CONTACT:MARK KESTNBAUM (REAL STATE MANAGER)PHONE:(919) 774-6700, ext. 6059EMAIL:mkestnba@circlek.comLATITUDE:33°45'25.57" (33.757102)NLONGITUDE:116°18'12.59" (-116.303497)WLAT./LONG. TYPE:NAD 83GROUND ELEVATION:112.9' A.M.S.L.APN #:632-070-052 (PARENT PARCEL) & 632-070-023AREA OF CONSTRUCTION:660 SQ FT.ZONING / JURISDICTION:CITY OF PALM DESERTCURRENT ZONING:PC - PLANNED COMMERCIALPROPOSED USE:UNMANNED TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITYHANDICAP REQUIREMENTS:FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMANHABITATION. HANDICAPPED ACCESS NOT REQUIREDABOVE GROUND LEVEL:-SITE NUMBER: CSL02434SITE NAME: CIRCLE KFA NUMBER: 13024049USID NUMBER: 22655378005 COUNTRY CLUB DR.PALM DESERT, CA 92211RIVERSIDE COUNTYSI5&COMPANY:AT&TADDRESS:1452 EDINGER AVE.CITY,STATE,ZIP:TUSTIN, CA. 92780CONTACT:SANDEEP MANGATPHONE:-EMAIL:sm2840@aTT.COM···············SI5&COMPANY:BECHTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.ADDRESS:16808 ARMSTRONG AVENUE SUITE 225CITY,STATE,ZIP:IRVINE, CA 92606CONTACT:RON VANDERWALPHONE: (714) 343-0931EMAIL: rvanderw@bechtel.comPROJECT DESCRIPTIONOUTDOOR EQUIPMENTATT PROJECT MANAGERAPPLICANTCOMPANY:AT&TADDRESS:3073 ADAMSCITY,STATE,ZIP:RIVERSIDE, CA 20504CONTACT:BOB STURTEVANTPHONE:(714) 473-7268EMAIL:rs1458@att.comCOMPANY:AT&TADDRESS:3073 ADAMSCITY,STATE,ZIP:RIVERSIDE, CA 20504CONTACT:BOB STURTEVANTPHONE:(714) 473-7268EMAIL:rs1458@att.comCOMPANY:SMARTLINK, LLCADDRESS:3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300CITY,STATE,ZIP:NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660CONTACT:ALEXIS DUNLAPPHONE:(949) 838-7313EMAIL:alexis.dunlap@smartlinkllc.comCOMPANY:SMARTLINK, LLCADDRESS:3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300CITY,STATE,ZIP:NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660CONTACT:ALEXIS DUNLAPPHONE:(949) 838-7313EMAIL:alexis.dunlap@smartlinkllc.comCOMPANY:CASA INDUSTRIES, INC.ADDRESS:4430 E. MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE DCITY,STATE,ZIP:ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92807CONTACT:JULIUS SANTIAGOPHONE:(714) 553-8899EMAIL:JSANTIAGO@CASAIND.COMOCCUPANCY:UTYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:V-B (UNMANNED TELECOM)AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER:NO 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660TEL: (949) 387-1265FAX: (949) 387-12751452 EDINGER AVE.TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 927804430 E. MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE DANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92807A-12SITE PLAN10'20'40'1"=20'-0"SCALE:1ENLARGED SITE PLAN1/8"=1'-0"SCALE:℄WA S H I N G T O N S T SECTOR 'A'90°SECTOR 'B'190°SECTOR 'C'350°SECTOR 'C'350°SECTOR 'A'90°SECTOR 'B'190° 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660TEL: (949) 387-1265FAX: (949) 387-12751452 EDINGER AVE.TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 927804430 E. MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE DANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92807A-23ANTENNA AND RRU SCHEDULE2ANTENNA PLAN3/8"=1'-0"SCALE:1LEASE AREA PLAN1/2"=1'-0"SCALE:·· BC BC 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660TEL: (949) 387-1265FAX: (949) 387-12751452 EDINGER AVE.TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 927804430 E. MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE DANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92807A-3EAST ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0"SCALE:SOUTH ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0"SCALE:···· BC BC 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660TEL: (949) 387-1265FAX: (949) 387-12751452 EDINGER AVE.TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 927804430 E. MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE DANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92807A-4WEST ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0"SCALE:NORTH ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0"SCALE:····