Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-04 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 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 4, 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: 824 9595 0087 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 July 7, 2020. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: 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. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER VIII. NEW BUSINESS None AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 4, 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: By Minute Motion, continue Case No. CUP 19-0002 to the meeting of August 18, 2020. Action: XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS XIV. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 30th day of July 2020. CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2020 – 6:00 P.M. ZOOM VIRUTAL MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lindsay Holt called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: 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 Commissioner Joseph Pradetto led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION For the upcoming City Council meeting, Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell reported that the Council would be considering awarding a contract for the CV Link project, within the City of Palm Desert jurisdiction for $5.5 million to Granite Construction. The portion for CV Link would start at the Bump and Grind and end at the eastern boundary of Hovley Lane East (east of Cook Street). Commissioner Nancy DeLuna commented that she drove down San Pablo Avenue, and complimented the City and everybody that worked on the project, which will connect to CV Link. It is an excellent addition to Palm Desert. PRELIMINARY 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). PRELIMINARY 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 PRELIMINARY 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. PRELIMINARY 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. PRELIMINARY 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. PRELIMINARY 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. PRELIMINARY 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 terms 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. PRELIMINARY 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. PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 10 B. PARKS & RECREATION None XIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS Vice-Chair Greenwood asked if there would be Planning Commission type conferences or meetings available to the Commission. He understood there might not be any due to COVID-19. Mr. Stendell replied yes, noting that some organizations are doing online conferences. He assumed conferences such as the annual League of California Cities are going to be digital, and some organizations might offer them free. Vice-Chair Greenwood remarked that it is a good opportunity and positive if it is digital, and everyone could attend. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Holt adjourned the meeting at 7:14 p.m. LINDSAY HOLT, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY MONICA O’REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: RYAN STENDELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: CHRISTINA CANALES, ENGINEERING ASSISTANT Date: July 20, 2020 Subject: PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. 20-0001 The above-referenced parcel map waiver has been reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department and found to be technically correct. Please schedule for Planning Commission action as soon as possible. PMW 20 -0001: Applicant/Owner Stephen Zimmer 49651 Canyon View Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ---------------------------------------- CHRISTINA CANALES ENGINEERING ASSISTANT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MEMORANDUM To: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission From: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Date: August 4, 2020 Subject: CUP 19-0002 – AT&T 65-Foot Wireless Telecommunication Facility at 78- 0005 Country Club Drive This project is a request by Smartlink LLC. (Applicant) on behalf of AT&T, to construct a new 65-foot-tall wireless telecommunication designed as a faux date palm at 78-0005 Country Club Drive. 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. The concerns primarily focused on encouraging the Applicant to explore further collocation on an existing, vacant tower located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Other comments raised by the Commission were design-focused and included: • The mismatch of the faux palm design and species of live and new palms on the project site. • The height of the live palms the applicant is proposing to use for screening. The applicant has formally requested a continuance until the meeting of August 18, 2020, to allow additional time to respond to the comments raised during the July 7, meeting. Staff recommends the Commission grant the continuance. Attachments: 1. Application Continuance request dated July 29, 2020 3300 Irvine Ave, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 p (949) 861-2201 f (949) 468-0931 smartlinkgroup.com July 29, 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 like to request that the Planning Commission approve the continuance of our CUP review until the next scheduled hearing tentatively scheduled for Tuesday August 18th. We are addressing all comments provided by the commission in the July 7th hearing along with responding to the letter provided by SBA representative John Henning. 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