Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 12-82 TV DISHES/ANTENNAS 1983 ORDINANCE NO. 338 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 25.56.301 PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF HOME SATELLITE RECEIVERS AND AMENDING SECTION 25.56.300 A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 i •i WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of May, and 26th day of May, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing, to consider adding Section 25.56.301 providing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers and amending Section 25.56.300. WHEREAS, the Palm Desert Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 851, has recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined the project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemption; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve Case No. ZOA 12-82: 1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general plan. ' I 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare, than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the considerations of the council in this case. 2. That is does hereby approve a zoning ordinance text amendment, as provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A", to amend Chapter 25 by establishing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers. 3. The city clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in.the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage of adoption of this ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 9th day of June, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: i AYES: JACKSON, KELLY, PULUQI, SNYDER, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE A<0MEO S. PLTLUQIP Mayor ATTEST: >L SHEILA R. GI AN, City erk City of Palm Desert, Calif is /pa Y j ORDINANCE NO. 338 EXHIBIT "A" Section 25.56.300 The height of a structure (amended) Section 25.56.301 Home satellite receivers (added) AMENDED: 25.56.300 The height of a structure. It shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, flagpoles, monuments, scenery lofts, radio and television aerials and antennas except home satellite receivers, commercial transmission towers, fire towers and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by the the structure may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or not more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. Utility poles and towers shall not,be subject to the height limits prescribed in any district regulations. ADDED: 25.56.301 Home satellite receivers - A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter must conform to the following standards depending on location. A. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Appropriate association approval is required. The receiver is not to be visible from adjacent properties or a public street. B. OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop �in a required front setback, or any other required setback except a rear setback with no portion of receiver located within 5 feet of a property line. —' Height from existing or finish adjacent grade, whichever is less, shall not exceed 14 feet if within 20' of a property line or 18' otherwise. C. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS - Architectural commission approval for design and screening is required if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent property. The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are the location, type (solid or mesh), color and screening. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 19, 1983 2:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS L CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kryder III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Excused Absent: Commissioner Downs Staff Present: Ray Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Phil Joy Linda Russell Barry McClellan IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 5, 1983 Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to. approve the minutes as submitted; carried unanimously 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reviewed the actions of the council for the meeting of April 14, 1983. 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. A. Case No. DP 06-81 - ALEX ADAMEK - Approval of a one year extension of time for a development plan for a 62 unit condominium project on the south side of Hovley Lane, 500 feet west of Portola Avenue. Rec: Approve as presented. Moved by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve consent calendar item; carried unanimously 4-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Case No. ZOA 1�-82 - INITIATED BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Consideration of standards for the installation of home satellite receivers (television dish antennas). Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and stated that this was continued from a previous meeting because of concerns the commission had. Those concerns were addressed in the restrictions as part of the amendment. Mr. Joy presented some pictures of different sizes of dish antennas and introduced Mr. Dennis Stroul, to give a presentation. -1- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 19, 1983 Chairman Wood opened the public hearing. MR. DENNIS STROUL, installer for Bowman's TV, stated that they were striving to help the city in establishing regulations. He pointed out that 5' diameter dish antennas were possible in the near future and 3' would also be available. As far as the height limitations, he stated that a lot could be done to help reasonably regulate these antennas. For instance, they could be set to blend in with the structure or matched. He also indicated his concerns with the possible hazards involved (i.e. high winds). He concluded with a film showing types of dish antennas and ways they could be hidden from view. Chairman Wood asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case; there being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kryder asked Mr. Stroul if the dish receivers could be set below ground level. Mr. Stroul explained that there was an illumination problem; some dishes could not be set below ground level. Commissioner Kryder felt that perhaps the screen (mesh) antennas would be less visible and more effective during high winds than the solid type. Chairman Wood reopened the public hearing in order to allow further public testimony. MR. KEN BARRIER, Bermuda Dunes, felt that the commission was being misled to believe the smaller sizes of dish antennas would be effective. He explained that one of the reasons for the large size of the dish is because they must have a southern exposure; a 450 tilt is a must in the desert area. He felt that because of this it would present a problem with the proposed restrictions. He further explained that a 10' to 12' diameter dish was also a necessity and a satellite dish could not be placed on a 2.7 degree longitude angle. In regard to the wind load, he stated that every dish has an engineers specification as to what they can withstand. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing. , Commissioner Crites asked if the antennas needed southern exposure, could the utilization be limited to some purchasers who have homes facing the wrong direction. Mr. Diaz responded that if they could not meet the restrictions (i.e. receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback) then staff and/or architectural commission would attempt to make it as compatible as possible; but they could not deny anyone from installing these antennas. Commissioner Kryder was concerned with allowing the receivers to be placed on the roof in commercial and industrial areas feeling that a conditional use permit should be required. Mr. Diaz stated that the proposed ordinance treats those separately and they would have to go through the architectural commission. Chairman Wood asked staff if neighbors objected to these receivers, could they appeal to the council. Mr. Diaz responded affirmative. Commissioner Kryder felt that if there were groups of neighbors wanting to purchase a receiver together, they should be allowed; also allowing the transmitters to connect from house to house. Mr. Diaz stated that this would require a franchise through the city which would be a long involved process. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 851, recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 12-82; carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. ZOA 04-83 - INITIATED BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Consideration of a modification of minimum condominium floor areas and parking requirements. -2- City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 19, 1983, continued from March 15, 1983 CASE NO: ZOA 10-82 PROPOSED AMENDMENT:Provision of standards for the installation of home satellite antennas. INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert L DISCUSSION: This amendment was continued from the March 15, 1983, meeting and staff was instructed to report back to the commission with answers to questions raised during that meeting. Among the concerns of the commission was whether or not the city may impose restrictions or prohibit the installation of a dish antenna. The city attorney determined that a city cannot prohibit the dish antenna but can reasonably regulate their installation. There was also the concern that the requirement that "the antenna not be visible from a public street" was too much of a restriction. Staff suggests that this section be revised to further state "or that the dish only be placed to the rear of the main structure". Staff also suggests in all cases the antennas be subject to the architectural review process with the requirement that any antenna over fourteen feet in height automatically requires architectural commission review. /pa City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission _ DATE: March 15, 1983 CASE NO: ZOA 12-82 PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provision of standards for the installation of home sattelite receivers (television dish antennas). INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert I. DISCUSSION: In 1979 the Federal Communications Commission abolished mandatory licensing requirements for home satellite receivers opening the way for the installation of these receivers for home television use. These receivers are approximately ten to sixteen feet in width and stand up to sixteen feet in height. The receiver can either be solid fiberglass or an aluminum wire mesh. While each of the two types can be painted, the fiberglass receiver tends to get a little better reception. The receivers can be installed on the ground or on a rooftop with proper engineering. In the past few months the city has received inquiries from dealers requesting building permits for receivers on top of their stores and guidelines for residential installation. Present city standards permit antennas to be forty-three feet in height in single-family residential zones and sixty feet in height in planned commercial zones. The matter was brought before the planning commission on August 17, 1982. The commission felt that "because of the appearance, these dishes should fall under some special regulations" and instructed staff to study the matter. The matter was also brought before the design review board on August 24, 1982. Although it was the concensus of the board that an ordinance could be prepared indicating that if a satellite dish antenna is used, that it not be visible from surrounding properties unless there is consent from the surrounding property owner, it was decided this matter should be continued to the next meeting in order that the matter be studied further. During a one month period, staff received literature and talked to dealers about the specifics of the receivers. The dealers pointed out that there must be an unobstructed path from the receiver towards the sky. The receivers must be generally tilted at a 459 angle and face towards a south-southwest direction. The dealers also mentioned that different receivers differ in quality. These differences affect the ability of the receiver to receive signals during a windy day due to shaking,motions, the ability of the receiver to resist warping due to direct sunlight and the associated heat; along with the basic quality of the transmission to the television set. Since the idea of dish-type receivers for home use is relatively new, new designs are constantly being developed. There is a possibility that the receivers may be reduced to a diameter of five feet in the future. There are basically three different areas where the receivers can be installed. The areas and a discussion of standards are as follows: 1. Planned Unit Developments: These are country club and condominium type developments that usually provide entry only through security gates and have an architectural board to review all exterior modifications. In this instance of a receiver being installed in this type of development, as long as the receiver is not visible from adjacent properties to the planned unit development, association approval is all that is needed for a building permit since the residents will be the only people to see the receiver _ 1 _ CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 1. Planned Unit Developments (Continued): or be impacted by the installation. In previous cases such as at Ironwood Country Club in Palm Desert and Thunderbird Country Club in Rancho Mirage, the association required the receiver to - be sunk in the ground, with a minimum distance of three feet between the ground and the receiver, along with the planting of oleanders to hide the dish from adjacent fairways and residences. The cost of hiding the receiver at Thunderbird was $8,500 while the cost of the receiver itself was $25,000. 2. Other Residential Areas: This would primarily pertain to residential properties that are adjacent to a public street. The primary concern is to completely hide the receiver from view of the street as best as possible. This is for both aesthetic and security reasons. The visible presence of a receiver may be an invitation to a burglar that expensive equipment is inside the house. It may also be an eyesore to residents of the neighborhood. This in effect prohibits the receivers from visible roof tops, front yards and side yards. The only question then would be whether any additional standards should apply such as making the receiver not visible from adjacent properties, or taking the architectural commission's recommendation that it can be visible from adjacent properties, but only with their consent. This would be an unfair burden on the homeowner who wishes to install the receiver and may place the city in the middle of a neighborhood dispute. The screening may be appropriate in planned unit developments due to small private yard space and the ;nappropriateness of setback requirements. But where there are 8,000 and 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes there is sufficient space to impose normal setback requirements for the receiver similar to those for a detached accessory structure. Additional requirements would be that the receiver not be erected in a required yard except a rear yard with no portion of the dish to be within five feet of a property line with a height limit of fourteen feet which is the same as for an accessory structure when within 210' of a property line or eighteen feet otherwise. This would necessitate the sixteen foot tall receivers to be sunk in the ground two feet when a portion of the receiver is within twenty feet of a property line. 3. Commercial and Industrial: This section would deal with all properties in commercial and industrial zones. The concerns are the impacts of the appearance of the receiver along commercial corridors. Three stores in Palm Desert that sell televison sets have contacted the city concerning placement of receivers for their stores. Two of the stores are requesting their receivers be placed on top of their stores while the third store is requesting that their receiver be placed on a trailer in the rear of the store so that it may be taken out for demonstrations in homes. There are three concerns with having the receivers located on top of the stores. The first is the safety aspect. It is possible to get a building permit for installation on rooftops as long as positive engineering calculations are given. The second concern is visibility of.the receiver. Under code definitions this would be considered an advertising device. This leads to the third concern of aesthetics. - 2 - CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 3. Commercial and Industrial (Continued) In the case of solar collectors and evaporative coolers, instead of trying to hide the unit completely, we make it more compatible in appearance with its surroundings. This is accomplished by painting to match the exterior of the building (evaporative coolers) and partial screening (of underside of solar panels). The receiver placed on a trailer would be classified as outside storage and as such must be screened from public view according to codr-; however, a requirement that it not be visible from a public street would be more appropriate. The need for a television dealer to have a receiver appears to be a necessity for them to sell more advanced electronics. But the decision on placement and compatibility should be taken on a case by case basis and be reviewed by the architectural commission. The existing section pertaining to "antennas" is as follows: 25.56.300. The height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, flag poles, monuments, scenery lofts, radio and television aerials and antennas, commercial transmission towers, fire towers and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by the structure may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or no more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. Utility poles and towers shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in any district regulations. (Ord. 98 §1(part), 1975: Exhibit A 525.32- 7.09). The proposed revisions would add specific standards for satellite receivers by adding the following new section: A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter must conform to the following standards depending on location. 1. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Appropriate association approval is required. The receiver is not to be visible from adjacent properties or a public street. 2. OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback, or any other required setback except a rear setback with no portion of the receiver located within five feet of a property line. Height from existing or finished adjacent grade whichever is less, shall not exceed fourteen feet if within twenty feet of a property line or eighteen feet otherwise. - 3 - i CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 3. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS: Architectural commission approval for design and screening is required if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent property. The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are the location, type(solid or mesh), color and screening. II. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The director of environmental services has determined that the proposed amendment is a Class 5, Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , providing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers. "A resolution of the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert recommending that the city council approve an amendment to the municipal code adding Section 25.56.301 providing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers, a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA". IV. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Exhibits Prepared by: Reviewed and approved by: /pa - 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTION 25.56.301 PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF HOME SATELLITE RECEIVERS, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of March, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider adding Section 25.56.301 concerning standards for home satellite receivers. WHEREAS, said section complies with the requirements of the City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined the project to be a Class 20 Categorical Exemption; WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described below: 1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety :.-id general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the city of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhbit "A" to amend Municipal Code, Chapter 25 by establishing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers. PASSED, APPROVED and .5DOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1.5ffi day of k4arclii, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /pa 7 � PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 25.56.300 The height of a structure (amended) Section 25.56.301 Home satellite receivers (added) AMENDED: 25.56.300 The height of a structure. It shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, flagpoles, monuments, scenery lofts, radio and television—aerials and antennas except home satellite receivers, commercial transmission towers, fire towers and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by the the structure may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or not more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. Utility poles and towers shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in any district regulations. ADDED: 25.56.301 Home satellite receivers - A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter must conform to the following standards depending on location. A. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Appropriate association approval is required. The receiver is not to be visible from adjacent properties or a public street. B. OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback, or any other required setback except a rear setback with no portion of receiver located within 5 feet of a property line. Height from existing or finish adjacent grade, whichever is less, shall not exceed 14 feet if within 20' of a property line or 18' otherwise. C. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS - Architectural commission approval for design and screening is required if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent property. The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are the location, type (solid or mesh), color and screening. May 23, 1983 I I Messrs. Ramon Diaz and Phillip Joy Planning Department City of Palm Desert MAY 2 6 1983 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF FALM DESERT Gentlemen: I write this letter in behalf of myself and Mr. Gene Bowman's satellite t.v. company, who are concerned about possible misinformations connected with the obvious new and expansive nature of satellite television. It appears to us that you in particular and the commission in general have especially critical decisions to make regarding satellite antenna installations. I say critical because other cities are very likely to consider and follow your lead. I would therefore like to introduce myself and my background and then proceed to offer .some comments regarding these satellite television installations. I have been a degreed Electrical Engineer for 22 years, specializing in microwave communications systems. 20 of these years have been associated with the California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Ca. , and most of this time has been spent as Technical Group Supervisor of the Antenna and Microwave Development Group. Our efforts include outfitting and operating the very large (85 through 210 foot diameter) space tracking antennas of the NASA-sponsored Deep Space Network. These very large antennas are located in Australia, Spain and California, in the high desert, north of Barstow. Through these facilities flows all of the United States planetary exploration microwave signals from spacecraft such as the Mariners, Vikings and more recently the Voyagers, broadcasting from Jupiter and Saturn. In other dimensions I have served several commercial companies as a specialized consultant on antenna related questions. These companies include Sylvania, a division of General Telephone, TRW, Aerojet General , the Rohr Corporation Antenna Division and others. In short, I feel well qualified and knowledgeable regarding both the space and ground segments of such communications systems including satellite television, focussing, if you will , on the antenna segments. I believe the planning department and commission are well advised to divide the question of satellite television antennas into two categories. The first category includes present day practice in the 4 GIGAHERTZ frequency band utilizing 8 foot to typically 12 foot diameter parabolic reflector ("dish") antennas. The second category includes the expected future practice in the 12 GIGAHERTZ frequency band utilizing, 2 foot to typically 4 foot diameter parabolics. This latter service should be available to the public in 2 or 3 years and is commonly referred to as DBS (Direct Broadcast Service), even though the present day 4 GHZ service utilizing the larger 8-to-12-foot antennas is, in all respect, also "direct." I 1 Messrs. Ramon Diaz and Phillip Joy Page Two May 23, 1983 i The present day service provides roughly 100 channels to the user, by way of several Earth satellites. We expect this service to continue for a great many years into the future, based on the incredible monetary investment already in orbit. More of these 4 GHz satellites are planned, and a probable saturation point is roughly 300 channels of Video information. Thus, the 8 to 12 foot ground antenna technology associated with present day 4 GHz band reception will not be replaced, but rather supplemented with the 2 to 4 foot, 12 GHz band DBS systems of the future. Both will be very popular for many many years. Each of the 12 GHz DBS satellites may provide only 3 channels of information. This is so because of spacecraft power limitations; the 12 GHz spacecraft will broadcast 200 watts per channel , thus "enabling" the smaller 2-to-4-foot "collector" antennas on the ground. By way of comparison, the 4 GHz spacecraft are each sized for 24 channels of about 5 watts broadcast per channel , requiring the larger 8-to-12-foot ground antennas for "collection". By dividing attention into the two categories, I believe the public and civic interests are best served. Issues of public safety rest with the 8 to 12 foot class technology. The 2 to 4 foot class technology, in my opinion, is clearly not a problem. These small devices, a few years from now, will likely be found lodging behind chimneys and in other unobstrusive places. I therefore conclude we need only examine some fairly simple factors associated with the 8 to 12 foot antennas. The key to public safety with such devices ultimately rests with reputable mechanical engineering of the mount and mount attachment to the dish proper. The mount is that device which finally "absorbs" the wind torques, or twisting/breaking factors. A "building" permit, requiring submission of the manufacturers licensed engineered calculations showing safety factorss in either 80-or 100-MPH winds is not an unreasonable city-imposed requirement. Any manufacturer incapable of providing such calculations is therefore (through their distributors) denied permission to install . A further step is reasonable. A city inspector should assure the installation was performed according to manufacturers written installation instructions. Both of these functions -permit and inspection -are presently common practice in municipalities and futhermore "absorbable" within existing civic service departments. The user is no more inconvenienced than if they were installing a new roof, swimming pool , etc. The city, I would expect, would therefore limit or eliminate its possible liabilities in the same fashion as is now done for other permit/inspection "building" activities. The installers will gravitate, naturally, to those reputable manufacturers who have "done their homework" regarding basic professional engineering, safety, and "considered" installation procedures. Messrs. Ramon Diaz and Phillip Joy Page Three May 23, 1983 Much confusion and misinformation exists on solid versus perforated materials used to form such antennas. Simplified calculations suggest perforated materials yield better safety in high winds. The facts are these: A solid 12 foot antenna of usual shape (wind directly face-on) develops about 5000 lb of thrust while a perforated 12 foot antenna develops about half that amount. A solid 8 foot unit develops about 2000 lb of thrust; again, if perforated, about half that amount. To conclude immediately that the perforated materials are therefore superior is indeed a mistake. For the wind to be directly face-on is a question of wind direction statistics; wind side-on a perforated product yields torques very similar to a solid product. Further, other factors such as pointing the antennas ' directional response pattern (similar to binocular or telescope "field of view") usually dominates the mount design as stability of pointing is critical at a level of only 0.5 to 1 .0 angular degree. Lever arm distances, usually 1-3 feet whether solid or perforated finally determine the torques which must be resisted by the mount. The point is, each manufacturer, in turn, must design their unique product, to a city required wind survival specification, with stability and other factors also considered. It seems highly ill advised for a municipality to attempt to "second guess" or detail specify such designs; it is highly advised to require permit and inspection of any such large object whether an antenna or other device, independant of detailed type of manufacture. Truly, the manufacturers "know best their unique products, but they should be required to provide evidence of licensed engineering calculation and considered installation instructions. Inevitably, the question of how to handle units in the "no mans ' land" j between the 2-4 foot and 8-12 foot classes will arise, since technology always improves with time and the possibility of a 6 foot unit performing as well as yesterday 's or today's 8 foot unit is likely. One must therefore draw a firm line, above which permit/inspection is required on a public safety/liability basis, but below which those issues "suddenly vanish". Of course, there is no distinct line -wind pressure and torque increases continuously and steadily with size. But, pressed to uniquely specify such a line, I would suggest 6 foot diamter as reasonable . At this size, with a 100 MPH wind face-on, a solid parabolic antenna develops just over 1000 lb of thrust, implying that only modest or no professional attention to mount and mount attachment is needed. Below this value, such devices pose little or no threat to public safety as they approach a "snow saucer" childs toy, (about 2 foot diameter). D" and Messrs RamonDiaz Phillip p Joy Page Four May 23, 1983 I am pleased to have had this opportunity of your attention. As an individual who is enthusiastic about a better future (potentially) available through Earth satellite services, but one who is also concerned with the orderly and safe application of appropriate technology, I trust you will be able to sort out possible conflicting or nonapplicable "information" from the few important basics in debate here, and properly execute your civic functions. If any of the above requires further clarity, I would be willing to attempt to answer your possible questions, to the best of my ability. Sincerely yours, DAa A/4,� Dan A. Bathker Technical Group Supervisor Antenna and Microwave Development Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 DAB:nb P.S. My daughter who is in the School of Environmental Design, Department of Urban Planning at Cal Poly - Pomona is especially insterested in your debates and decision(s). Would it be possible to learn of your final disposition? SUMMARY - SATELLITE TELEVISION ANTENNAS • TWO CATEGORIES - LARGER 8-12 FOOT CLASS, SMALLER 2-4 FOOT CLASS. ° ATTENTION REQUIRED ONLY FOR THE LARGER CLASS • CITY PERMIT/INSPECTION MAY BE ADIVSEABLE • EXAMINE MANUFACTURERS CALCULATIONS PROVIDED ° EXAMINE INSTALLERS COMPLIANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS WRITTEN INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS ° ABSORBABLE WITHIN EXISTING CIVIC SERVICES DETAILED TYPE OF MANUFACTURE (E.G. SOLID VS. PERFORATED) NOT AN ISSUE ° FREEDOM OF USERS CHOICE • MANUFACTURERS UNIQUE DESIGNS MUST BE SHOWN SAFE FOR ANYTYPE VIA PERMIT/INSPECTION • SUGGESTED 6 FOOT DIAMETER DIVIDING LINE ° SUGGESTED 100 MILE PER HOUR WIND SURVIVAL S ~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 851 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTION 25.56.301 PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF HOME SATELLITE RECEIVERS, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 x v._ WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of March, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued public hearing on April 19th, 1983, to consider adding Section 25.56.301 concerning standards for home satellite receivers. WHEREAS, said section complies with the requirements of the City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined the project to be a Class 20 Categorical Exemption; WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described below: 1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the city of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhbit "A" to amend Municipal Code, Chapter 25 by establishing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of April, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Crites, Kryder, Richards and Wood NOES: None ABSENT: Downs ABSTAIN: None k RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAM ON A. DIAZ, Secretary /pa PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" .;:: Sectiono.C6.1 eight of a structure (amended) Section . 1 Home satellite receivers (added) AMENDED: 25.56.300 The height of a structure. It shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point ,of the structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, flagpoles, monuments, scenery lofts, radio and television aerials and antennas except home satellite receivers, commercial transmission towers, fire towers and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by the the structure may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or not more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. Utility poles and towers shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in any district regulations. ADDED: 25.56.301 Home satellite receivers - A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter must conform to the following standards depending on location. A. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Appropriate association approval is required. The receiver is not to be visible from adjacent properties or a public street. l B. OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback, or any other required setback except a rear setback with no portion of receiver located within 5 feet of a property line. Height from existing or finish adjacent grade, whichever is less, shall not exceed 14 feet if within 20' of a property line or 18' otherwise. C. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS - Architectural commission approval for design and screening is required if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent property. The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are the location, type (solid or mesh), color and screening. April 22, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for an amendment to the Palm Desert Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.300 to provide standards for the installation of home satellite receivers (television dish antennas). SAID public hearing will be held on May 12, 1983, at 7:00 P.M., in the council chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 29, 1983 /pa City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 19, 1983, continued from March 15, 1983 CASE NO: ZOA 5('82 PROPOSED AMENDMENT:Provision of standards for the installation of home satellite antennas. INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert I. DISCUSSION: This amendment was continued from the March 15, 1983, meeting and staff was instructed to report back to the commission with answers to questions raised during that meeting. Among the concerns of the commission was whether or not the city may impose restrictions or prohibit the installation of a dish antenna. The city attorney determined that a city cannot prohibit the dish antenna but can reasonably regulate their installation. There was also the concern that the requirement that "the antenna not be visible from a public street" was too much of a restriction. Staff suggests that this section be revised to further state "or that the dish only be placed to the rear of the main structure". Staff also suggests in all cases the antennas be subject to the architectural review process with the requirement that any antenna over fourteen feet in height automatically requires architectural commission review. /pa I � i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 15, 1983 2:00 P.M. - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m. by Chairman Wood. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Kryder III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Kryder Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Excused Absent: Commissioner Downs Staff Present: Ray Diaz Stan Sawa Phil Drell Phil Joy IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 28, 1983 Moved by Commissioner Crites,seconded by Commissioner Kryder,to approve the minutes as submitted; carried unanimously 4-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Diaz reported that there were no items before the council at its March 10, 1983, meeting relating to the planning commission. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. ZOA 12-82 - INITIATION BY CITY OF PALM DESERT Creation of provision of standards for the installation of home satellite receivers (Television dish antenna). Mr. Joy delivered the staff report. He stated that the need for the city to adopt some type of regulation was was voiced by the commission in August 1982. After researching the problem it was determined that there were three areas where receivers could be installed; Planned Unit Developments, non- PUD residential areas, as well as commercial and industrial areas. Mr. Joy reviewed the concerns related to each area. Mr. Joy then reviewed the ordinance and recommended that the commission recommend approval to the city council. Commissioner Richards asked if other cities had regulated the aesthetic problems associated with dish antennas. Mr. Joy responded that no other city was found that regulates these antennas; but Rancho Mirage had been considering,regulation. Commissioner Kryder asked if two neighbors could share an antenna. Mr. Joy responded yes but that setbacks would be adhered to in order to avoid future problems. Commissioner Crites stated his concern that the proposal could deny someone the right to install the antenna if their property were situated so that screening the antenna from street view were impossible. Mr. Diaz replied that the intent was to hide the dish antenna when possible but not prohibit them. The effort should be made to screen the list from view. i MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 15, 1983 Commissioner Kryder asked about the overall height of the antenna; he was concerned that 14 feet was too high and that in the R-1 area should have a lower height. Mr. Diaz responded that staff was attempting to set a maximum height limit consistent with present height limitations. Commissioner Crites stated the size of dish was related to the distance from Omaha, Nebraska, which was the central dispensing point of television signals received from satellites. Chairman Wood opened the hearing and asked for testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION; no one wishing to speak, the hearing was closed. Chairman Wood asked for comments by the commission. He stated he was concerned about allowing such antennas without some kind of public hearing or review. Commissioner Richards stated he had problems with some of the restrictions. Commissioner Kryder felt the commission should receive a presentation on the limits of sizes of antennas to determine proper height restrictions. He also stated that more information was needed to make a proper decision. Commissioner Crites stated that he wasn't sure if any ordinance could be written to cover all concerns. Chairman Wood asked if anyone could prohibit the installation of dish antennas. Mr. Diaz replied that the antennas could not be prohibited absolutely. Chairman Wood stated that he did not wish approvals without adjoining property owners being notified. Mr. Diaz responded that to create a hearing process would result in problems, because such antennas couldn't be prohibited but just controlled; and this could result in further frustrations. Commissioner Crites requested that: 1. The secretary receive an opinion from the city attorney if the antennas could be prohibited. 2. Those commissioners desiring further information could request staff for clarification before the next hearing. 3. Staff revise the ordinance to cover aesthetic considerations and criteria. Commissioner Richards asked that the design review board study the matter and the secretary report their findings to the commission. Chairman Wood wanted information why public hearings shouldn't be held. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, to continue this matter to April 19, 1983, with staff to respond to the above items; carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. ZOA 01-83 - INITIATION BY CITY OF PALM DESERT Amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 25.58, concerning off-street parking. Mr. Diaz stated that since the amendment was scheduled for hearing further concerns relating to current industrial and senior citizen housing parking requirements have arisen. He recommended that the hearing be opened and continued to April 5, 1983. -2 y" I - City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 15, 1983 CASE NO: ZOA 12-82 PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provision of standards for the installation of home sattelite receivers (television dish antennas). INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert I. DISCUSSION: In 1979 the Federal Communications Commission abolished mandatory licensing requirements for home satellite receivers opening the way for the installation of these receivers for home television use. These receivers are approximately ten to sixteen feet in width and stand up to sixteen feet in height. The receiver can either be solid fiberglass or an aluminum wire mesh. While each of the two types can be painted, the fiberglass receiver tends to get a little better reception. The receivers can be installed on the ground or on a rooftop with proper engineering. In the past few months the city has received inquiries from dealers requesting building permits for receivers on top of their stores and guidelines for residential installation. Present city standards permit antennas to be forty-three feet in height in single-family residential zones and sixty feet in height in planned commercial zones. The matter was brought before the planning commission on August 17, 1982. The commission felt that "because of the appearance, these dishes should fall under some special regulations" and instructed staff to study the matter. The matter was also brought before the design review board on August 24, 1982. Although it was the concensus of the board that an ordinance could be prepared indicating that if a satellite dish antenna is used, that it not be visible from surrounding properties unless there is consent from the surrounding property owner, it was decided this matter should be continued to the next meeting in order that the matter be studied further. During a one month period, staff received literature and talked to dealers about the specifics of the receivers. The dealers pointed out that there must be an unobstructed path from the receiver towards the sky. The receivers must be generally tilted at a 459 angle and face towards a south-southwest direction. The dealers also mentioned that different receivers differ in quality. These differences affect the ability of the receiver to receive signals during a windy day due to shaking motions, the ability of the receiver to resist warping due to direct sunlight and the associated heat; along with the basic quality of the transmission to the television set. Since the idea of dish-type receivers for home use is relatively new, new designs are constantly being developed. There is a possibility that the receivers may be reduced to a diameter of five feet in the future. There are basically three different areas where the receivers can be installed. The areas and a discussion of standards are as follows: 1. Planned Unit Developments: These are country club and condominium type developments that usually provide entry only through security gatet and have an architectural board to review all exterior modifications. In this instance of a receiver being installed in this type of development, as long as the receiver is not visible from adjacent properties to the planned unit development, association approval is all that is needed for a building permit since the residents will be the only people to see the receiver - 1 - CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 1. Planned Unit Developments (Continued): or be impacted by the installation. In previous cases such as at Ironwood Country Club in Palm Desert and Thunderbird Country Club in Rancho Mirage, the association required the receiver to be sunk in the ground, with a minimum distance of three feet between the ground and the receiver, along with the planting of oleanders to hide the dish from adjacent fairways and residences. The cost of hiding the receiver at Thunderbird was $8,500 while the cost of the receiver itself was $25,000. 2. Other Residential Areas: This would primarily pertain to residential properties that are adjacent to a public street. The primary concern is to completely hide the receiver from view of the street as best as possible. This is for both aesthetic and security reasons. The visible presence of a receiver may be an invitation to a burglar that expensive equipment is inside the house. It may also be an eyesore to residents of the neighborhood. This in effect prohibits the receivers from visible roof tops, front yards and side yards. The only question then would be whether any additional standards should apply such as making the receiver not visible from adjacent properties, or taking the architectural commission's recommendation that it can be visible from adjacent properties, but only with their consent. This would be an unfair burden on the homeowner who wishes to install the receiver and may place the city in the middle of a neighborhood dispute. The screening may be appropriate in planned unit developments due to small private yard space and the inappropriateness of setback requirements. But where there are 8,000 and 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes there is sufficient space to impose normal setback requirements for the receiver similar to those for a detached accessory structure. Additional requirements would be that the receiver not be erected in a required yard except a rear yard with no portion of the dish to be within five feet of a property line with a height limit of fourteen feet which is the same as for an accessory structure when within 210' of a property line or eighteen feet otherwise. This would necessitate the sixteen foot tall receivers to be sunk in the ground two feet when a portion of the receiver is within twenty feet of a property line. 3. Commercial and Industrial: This section would deal with all properties in commercial and industrial zones. The concerns are the impacts of the appearance of the receiver along commercial corridors. Three stores in Palm Desert that sell televison sets have contacted the city concerning placement of receivers for their stores. Two of the stores are requesting their receivers be placed on top of their stores while the third store is requesting that their receiver be placed on a trailer in the rear of the store so that it may be taken out for demonstrations in homes. There are three concerns with having the receivers located on top of the stores. The first is the safety aspect. It is possible to get a building permit for installation on rooftops as long as positive engineering calculations are given. The second concern is visibility of the receiver. Under code definitions this would be considered an advertising device. This leads to the third concern of aesthetics. _ 2 _ CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 3. Commercial and Industrial (Continued) In the case of solar collectors and evaporative coolers, instead of trying to hide the unit completely, we make it more compatible in appearance with its surroundings. This is accomplished by painting to match the exterior of the building (evaporative coolers) and partial screening (of underside of solar panels). The receiver placed on a trailer would be classified as outside storage and as such must be screened from public view according to code; however, a requirement that it not be visible from a public street would be more appropriate. The need for a television dealer to have a receiver appears to be a necessity for them to sell more advanced electronics. But the decision on placement and compatibility should be taken on a case by case basis and be reviewed by the architectural commission. The existing section pertaining to "antennas" is as follows: 25.56.300. The height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, flag poles, monuments, scenery lofts, radio and television aerials and antennas, commercial transmission towers, fire towers and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by the structure may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or no more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. Utility poles and towers shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in any district regulations. (Ord. 98 §l(part), 1975: Exhibit A 525.32- 7.09). The proposed revisions would add specific standards for satellite receivers by adding the following new section: A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter must conform to the following standards depending on location. 1. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Appropriate association approval is required. The receiver is not to be visible from adjacent properties or a public street. 2. OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback, or any other required setback except a rear setback with no portion of the receiver located within five feet of a property line. Height from existing or finished adjacent grade whichever is less, shall not exceed fourteen feet if within twenty feet of a property line or eighteen feet otherwise. - 3 - CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 3. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS: Architectural commission approval for design and screening is required if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent property. The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are the location, type(solid or mesh), color and screening. II. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The director of environmental services has determined that the proposed amendment is a Class 5, Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , providing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers. "A resolution of the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert recommending that the city council approve an amendment to the municipal code adding Section 25.56.301 providing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers, a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA". IV. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Exhibits Prepared by:__ZL Reviewed and approved by: /pa - 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTION 25.56.301 PROVIDING STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF HOME SATELLITE RECEIVERS, A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR PURPOSES OF CEQA. CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 WHEREAS, the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of March, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider adding Section 25.56.301 concerning standards for home satellite receivers. WHEREAS, said section complies with the requirements of the City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No 80-8911, in that the director of environmental services has determined the project to be a Class 20 Categorical Exemption; WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described below: 1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted general plan and affected specific plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the city of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the city council approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment as provided in the attached Exhbit "A" to amend Municipal Code, Chapter 25 by establishing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of March, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /pa PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 25.56.300 The height of a structure (amended) Section 25.56.301 Home satellite receivers (added) AMENDED: 25.56.300 The height of a structure. It shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided, that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured from the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, flagpoles, monuments, scenery lofts, radio and television aerials and antennas except home satellite receivers, commercial transmission towers, fire towers and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than ten percent of the ground area covered by the the structure may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or not more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. Utility poles and towers shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in any district regulations. ADDED: 25.56.301 Home satellite receivers - A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter must conform to the following standards depending on location. A. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Appropriate association approval is required. The receiver is not to be visible from adjacent properties or a public street. B. OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback, or any other required setback except a rear setback with no portion of receiver located within 5 feet of a property line. Height from existing or finish adjacent grade, whichever is less, shall not exceed 14 feet if within 20' of a property line or 18' otherwise. C. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS - Architectural commission approval for design and screening is required if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent property. The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are the location, type (solid or mesh), color and screening. . t 1331 E. St. Gertrude Mj ra l ite Santa Ana, California 0 (� C714J 641-70-7000 �G✓m w l�"iTeni 7-0 94e QOMMeRc.i'xL - bi'SM- ► v 02. :OG-NAJL5 QUiG K A/01:E CO vsR/N6 SoirlF OF 7'f/� Q uESTlo�/S yod w�2 E /NTE.eSSTF� /A I. �o AGG �it/T�/✓�{/r9s OF 7�5/,E 5.9E S"/zE ,41V ,gA172-111WA /S D�i�•e/s�ic/�O - 3• �E� fla2N /GG vrrl ii./A-noh/ . TE Slz� OJT T�/E .q/t/J"Z�N�/p •/S �: f.4ie�Y CoNSr�,v r �/3LTd2 /�! /�1C2,��S/Iv 9 C9�/it1, �720(/ID6t� Tt/r9T T�//= C�NrOU2 /s .4ceOR q-r - /S 77/6 �dc.4� DiSTlYt/GE --0 - lam fir ElE/e R-4770 GOlVi5417- 77fE vS 7,V,,5 4A5lE/z /7-/5 Tc1 i 1 1331 E. St. Gertrude Mira 1 ite Santa Ana, California 92705 [714] 641-707DO0 �11o6/i,U�O 7/!.9-T' 7' VA, ? - - --- :�•eFi4C� /S Caee�T �F �EE!> /GG�9N4FiDh1 P�44T1`52iI >5 7#E- 7-f7GTOK 7f/X}-T /ni�GCES - ' /GovLi> �v2/ram /oo P,4�s o.C/ �6o i��r�✓.4nooc� CU/Tiy f�/V .��� iPi9TJ0 OF � y Gam=TS L ' ---__.- /S� /AI l ' Misr( l D►b1� i 1331 E. St. Gertrude Miralite Santa Ana,California 92705 (714) 64'I -70-7000 - Dill ArVT,CiVit�.4 �t 7fVr F;z5,Fp /S /GGr/!�lir/fIT/.</G/ 7xE 7P'SM t!T is- .V67- GGbKIAO? avB.2 . 7/45- iFPCE .OF 7W45 'DY �/, iK� S/nlC�. XaiSE O� /NGtEASi /T�oveKS i I tel: z 43 V V MR.E,�cJ KF ATZ:Lr4 T-"/q" rt7FPE . l��{ "1� cxEr L�,Llm I mj+TzO->,,O 7TzuYV TRm j=js �;462h1 N.ocsa "Ivj i 1331 E. St. Gertrude Mira 1 ite Santa Ana, California 92705 (71 4) 641-70-7000 I : iv — ---- (��Evv l�_v__ �rv7�rv_n_rA��s_ o v E 2__I�t,�_v_w► I i�� Dk'AZtJ �ighcs . Sys rim ; O� 14 SIGA /I16 . . TO � l �AIAI 7151,r- - /Y1.4/�lc�Ti�GTU�Lc : . �� ,(gyp✓S� ._ i/� 7�15 /S �ld T Co�.s/�Eizp i 3VT IVA IIOT P/zOOVGG . /4_ PiGT(�,eE I � I . I 1331 E. St. Gertrude Mira 1,te Santa Ana,California 92705 / (71 4) 641-70-7000 o t i I I vr*iceES OPF AXIS l ?IZOPEiZLq I LLVVA1U4rED OVE2 (l,L(,Wj%--) PrTjO7J PKOPER Cc )Taufr- r!&v-*:I7oU-T;t. �G66114iA-M-7A7v(0,4P ` �O/V7-66iEveK .4T ZX95'vT Sao vcs i 1331 E. St. Gertrude Mira 1 ite Santa Ana,California 92705 (714) 641-707000 D_CI /i�vES /Ts l> i2i o .41, / rizctly,4/ G i I i i i PUPIL {.. g3fzl� SFp- BPS lT- dV'F�2 { 1331 E. St. Gertrude j Mira 1 ite Santa Ana, California 0 ` 171 41 641-707000 I i Tus — I : �o w �2 (=G�ol sc : IT-: Is ."t-'�-ASI -Fa ! TICI jt<C (2¢�.t✓�IJL '1 E l'A7 i rzr� is -rua SPCM I✓ - ---C�JTS O>`� GZ� IU�-�2 ( ,C'. �TGGt�E2 5►p,L''S IA TiF R I S f! l c, e S �F f ]7!S I— �:— POLO a-R- { yc, f -- ��rL1C. Td �,)L,.f S f�PrTGO U� �Ei2 ` 2, m P AjGLcE:- AS A/47Z�vN 1 331 E. St. Gertrude Mira 1 ite Santa Ana,California 92705 (714) 641-707000 i ------1 Vt)_7t zjt--s 7�i� 7Mu5 ?EQS r�-t-� -rG,�5 c,u i r�GD c oA-vf & I � c�'J ►'►'lip'f-f< . ��� �l�-F-t�,(�. (;U!tti1 P S l I � I T ' I I I 1331 E. St. Gertrude Mira1ite Santa Ana,California 92705 (714) 641-707000 l 1 - -- /U7Z/74(! 1644 - -- f I 1331 E. St. Gertrude Mira I ite Santa Ana, California-700 (714) 641-7000 046 -- «/ Ti7" G €� _wiz Ali 14 war 3 4 O IJIM cn WgB ^ off;rig- m a"� s3 F' $ 9�Y38x�'Sr° G LRR - .s £ �� s LO 1 pIW :lae SsM : Ew e ��E��la � & n _ ae - - - - - - = I• w,ml,,.m+ae T� x�Mw<n ti T KCMsaMM. FUxgIAs+ u^m*tum vx� � sFgMxkro y VMxE^P^ ax AxM ky„ulM�fwmP fMAev Iwnal s f.%Mekts llltM) �� 6Mwre I15<roxl i s 1MeMf roil 11 Mesn 11b1.•t) AWMmIm EM•Mb^^�ACnuU o vmn � tlMmlmlbn Oqi^^ ,,W.d S" � SY^I+'^tM"tlTm�^0 MMIwITUM^B t SpnTWnp ' 9 • M^rWwYTuroE ur � m • StewxEFrt"a1 IMry>aw EkNmin a �, • PVIdeKaxl MxaoY^^ • Singh poxnc^nm.k^ • Oxtl pgWl�nvasl^n 15a$hIY3YA • tgg'Sbwew p^�nvnwnx SWdud pMn.foclu wml �b m suw o x • cu>tlFe^ o •I. PW WP H amx MMwtrwon Aulgmelk Mo1v�WruM I I _ _.._ --_- _ _ - - EE yy esM:_ yL_^Mm� o � a � gPgg oamt qs °9R3 0 L� 3 M G $ � ' a e H 6 �� f e o a �z e i B Y � 3$ �R i N 5 n^ � ` � � 3 � 3 � 3 3 �g�tl a 3 � i D . e s3 � e `"� �s 5'a3 ed �e$ ' �'x F '�3 s: �`S yq 2n" from� $'a S " a £"" -ze Pks $ e��aem�� e3� g� a "s^ 3X�<�' '� � €' '��'�iY s�s'��sm��e ��� 3 'a 8� d S . ^ " � S � ��v ° 3 d � - �°N� n�� � P F� � �b S S's i a u e tl� � � - ��" � N S § f°' - �o e a g m 2 g f g'g C ? � 8 � �i � � e , pg sD� � �� ° s � '"S � sa3 a - -a' �s � � s sm $:F1 i l o y 8 g1� 4� 2 by � T° 5' ' � 5 A 8 � < E�v'''ci a Qn g � �F .$ {�� S gg $ S;� E y � pp e � � n �' = 2Zgg § � _ agmo �_ �3 " $ ��¢� 30 "s A�� � dcn�,F� a s S� � G.¢ Y K, " ty.G �3 i�'� � � ��: �'�'$ 8 <� � � � � = afr� � x � �sg �mmy - sks$m � � g � v�$ ��� �� �~� � �45��5 £ $ mNs� �zoN� g�° � � d � s�� ar � t sa °gess � � sm se�3 : _ e �i��P&fcvw �e�� „rE � - a� m � �'x: .I��lu I I I �o •I• ti •I• a •I• '� I .� � a .j. .'R� mz n I 0 i -i 1{ a � n m � � � a � I � i 'I i •I N T m 0 0 z A I' y I __w+:a� _".:.t�a6wxsutrLJfi_.aw., _ _ -^..,�. .sf. PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 .9 2015 .5 CCp) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF PLA14NING COMMIS � �a03 \��s y v O l a+a I a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of THE DESERT POST, c ro �v L E a newspaper Of LEGAN NOTIC , p general circula— zonal-az OTotl ISbHERE6 G tion, printed and published weekly EN��l1twt q, blahearin0 n+il be�lheltl or sm sslonl�? in the city of Riverside, County . Tannin coi Ider��oo* quest by e of Riverside, and which newspaper CITY404PALrMIDE R M o has been adjudged a newspaper of endm�hlto MetmuRld " CdeMhWt xs:sycaoo general circulation by the ptall tte of,Id toh"d"o`me totr"Ili " r 1 Superior ceive visio ourt of the County of antennos or n Riverside, State of California , eldlo < a, under date of October 5 , 19649 an1te of `rttCit gn 45`-47. r.lck Bg Case number 83658; that the Palm eSe�olfW fie notice, of which the annexed is stee"W,p�s�ore!lnvitediou a printed copy, has been published A)d N heard R I n ,ond I In each regular and entire issue Paalm on n of said newspaper and not in any c"" IUI a supplement thereof on the following dates , to- wit : 03I4 ,1983 I Certify (or declare) under Penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated March 4 , 1983 at Riverside, California , CITY OF PALM DESERT 0 PARACLIPSE OF COACHELLA VALLEY SATELLITE T.V.SYSTEMS—41.301 JAMAICA SANDS—BERMUDA DUNES,CA 92201 — (714)345-6034 or 345.5398 March 10, 1983 City of Palm Desert 1 1983 Mr Phil Joy, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTAL PALM DESERT CA SERVICES CITY OF PAUq OESERT Dear Mr Joys Thank you for ,your letter dated March 7th. , 1983 and enclosure (,Manning Commission Staff Report) concerning installation 'of satellite antennas in ,your city. The report in general is very good but I must take issue with you on comments in PARA I "Discussion" wherein it is stated the "receiver can be either the solid dish or aluminum wire mesh. . .,. . . .the fibreglass receiver tends to get a little better reception" I believe the word "receiver" should be changed to "antenna" throughout as the receiver is a component part of the system located indoors although,,the antenna does "pick-up" the electromagnetic radiation from the satellite concentrating the energy towards the fpca.1 point of the dish antenna. This could prevent confusion should a legal discussion ever ensue. Now as to the matter of whichtype dish produces the best picture there is theoretically 'no difference ; both the fibreglass and the radar-mesh type have the same "gain; described in engineering terms as \"decibels; being in the case of the 12 ft dishes 41.0 Db. , + ,or - 1 Db. Thus the radio-frequency energy delivered by the dish to the amplif- ing and receiving system is exactly the same. In fact if there is a difference it is in favor of the mesh dish as this type is not subject to warping resulting from the desert heat which could affect the parabolic configuration of the solid dish. The mesh dish has a lower wind loading factor by approximately 67% and has withstood 90 mile plus winds in the Santa Rosa Mt. , area where solid dishes have been known to blow down. A statement in PARA 1V concerns the diameter of dishes, vis-a-vis the future. Satellites (technically transponders) radiate a very small amount of energy, in the neighborhood of 5 watts initially, which radiation must cover the ent 're United States, parts of Canada and Mexico. The amount of energy received at ground level varies over the United States and this coverage is known as "the footprint of the satellite.' The central portion of the U .S . receives more energy than the west coast therefore a lkrger dish r and more sensitive amplifiers is needed in this area. I PARACLIPSE OF COACHELLA VALLEY SATELLITE T.V.SYSTEMS —41-301 JAMAICA SANDS — BERMUDA DUNES,CA 92201 — (714)345-6034 or 345-5398 The second consideration is the beam width of the dish, the larger the dish the narrower the "beam width'$ As more and more satellites are placed in polar. orbit dishes with the capability to discriminate between satellites will become a factor otherwise interference from adjacent satellites might cause difficulty. Thus unless the radiated power of the satellites is increased, or there is a change to a much higher radio frequency than presently used, dish size is not likely to be reduced:, Some engineers might say that in the case of F.M. (frequency modulation) the stronger of two signals will "take over" and that would prevent the interference problem. Such is the case if the signals have an appreciable difference in power but the energy from these satellites located some 22,300 miles out in spacedoes not have ,that characteristic. In 1983 the satellite population is scheduled to increase from the present 13 to more than 18; small dish owners may soon have a problem. The writer served as,a microwave installation engineer for the International Telephone,, & Telegraph System for 15 years. As a Commander in the U.S . Navy I served ten years as an Electronics Officer specializing in Aviation radar installations and comm- unications and prior to WWII I was a field engineer for R .C .A. Camden N .J. I accomplished post-graduate work at M .I .T . Boston, Mass and am therefore qualified to make the aforemention comments and or criticism. So I respectfully request that the suggestions noted above be carefully considered and that certain statements be modified or deleted from your;'paper. Due to a prior engagement it is with regret that I cannot attend the planning commision's meeting on March 15th. ,t I Sincerely yours KMB Kenneth M Barbier P.S . Engineering Specifications covering r-f gain and wind- loading factors of our Para- clipse antenna are made an enclosure hereto. 1'I. rA"ai it, r �s :. r a,• yak" .)fe}utR k.i ,.I1a. t,xp f .r t 1.. + . t�� F sfltt^ a w [:_fyAST a1 s •. y rrr�� , t �� e •tf �M h� ad. 'PM' '�:ay� h. r f f� '* f�,T+�f r111 44S a}t^S' L'x�i a''.� �' f�. ry V r '� .a 17N _ pa r " - k. ,u I .. it t l rS ray q F may. sr -r. Paradigm 7. Manufacturing Inc: 6911 Eastside Road Redding,Califomia 96001 1916I244.9300 NOVEMBER 1, 1982 TO : ALL DEALERS SUBJECT: TEST RESULTS THE PARACLIPSE HIGH-PERFORMANCE SATELLITE TV ANTENNA WAS TESTED RECENTLY BY TAYLOR HOWARD , THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RESULTS OF THE MID-BAND TEST: BEAM WIDTH : 1 .28 DEGREES APERTURE EFFICIENCY : 70% DB GAIN : 42 ,3 DB PRIMARY SIDE LOBE : 2 , 3 DEGREES DOWN 16 DB EQIVALENT TO A 13 ,7-FOOT ANTENNA WITH 55% APERTURE EFFICIENCY . THE PARACLIPSE WAS ALSO TESTED AT PTL SATELLITE HEADQUARTERS ON STATE-OF-THE-ART EQUIPMENT. THE RESULTS OF THAT TEST: CARRIER-TO-NOISE RATIO : 52 DB ?F:. S . •Y Dw1 FEA � Z 6NEET MO„ 1 "_or. .. ENGINEERING Ay .. � ..�. .. , :�•,�:��"... ..Z".:" .. � ";'. �.�' .� .� .� . ...,.tI1OJECT IIO..�T:Y 1. �.. 41 N. i `oa�OFESS/pry! IU A N T T . No. zi 7 f/' uaa�uo su�e� (u►�To�,�, c+R ) Fpf CAUL �d 40 fo � ... L BAN (3 SaGK�iy go- 95 �nil-e � $p-85 �►. � lti wiwo foac,I, urtnc� 5'0" -2-(l 10' • ;7(NQ 1,5 :•'1NL�N. I�(�d; (lNIFf�1 �!?11.t7D�i � _ I - .. ' To cLkit-.-K SiI,TS J ;jAu� al�YS.. A2 iSN.N C4AY5 uEar aan� Izr-rag� V mrwiuw n dr► :AuO ; S'�Y sn►a�.� oR CLnY61( &�Up NAB GFG ro �nup� 44M oR c-�avi5L '1` ..:�_�-toµ .. M t7B1'WMIUATIOW :�NAU. et ' Nha� 9�( T1tE . �tETcu,�T� �ucTa��•. I ..• --� ... ..- .I.naV l JI'4f'�i•.W �1�'Z w .�MEIT MG.��• OF ENGINEERING � � - (per 'F0ElAltEn� ...... ....-. ... x TH 6wr A.' ( f pip W►�o r?�?�ca.1� AE�AlAIE?(�.L., . ; ..: • , . .I ' GE'JtL � I�a� Euwo I nuuk I"IfIG �Q 4 MOM A �t� :•G�AJi � 2 mow �,I r. wrni r x�mim Wwo 1's wr . ._..; ynf%. fzK'omm�uos . 11�+cr srai� eaz ct��ui� , • ?.. GQI'fIGJrL . .Q� 'f101.J. r5 • AG1i:r � •• . � __ ' .Fare �PA�f►�e . C ro,c• ,51„I�. a�1 . _ .f .^ . . . ,i.->;_.- I ;. : . ' A tic r- x.14 4x,&3� DIP. inr� �r6t �� vartt ca,fcna�,uc. w . Nte. •- 5'x•'1r}�} 1 45k , . . .i$� Ibf�Y�cl.?f3 •l .1m3, d _ 5012 7" I 51b I ham $011 ` .: F� r 116w ((�/�)M� - 6Wort , �A- �.3trt5go�`i54IF I r we• ' A�AY� LV�IJtcT7►_0o�`_��•11 1_1[k__ C17,t�'._11 _ _ _.,L_�,�� __ - . YY+ D,ppA�TS�a� . .+•' A171•�— 'T,+M 4cl ._ 1w _ .. SHIRT ND._�L._op i .. ENGINEERING qp1 -••_- I .- --� •'=i _ }.,.'_; .� , mow ��INgJECT NO. I i �1 �1.cn b• I . . .. , i ��5�0 d �•l -� d - d �� 5 �i,r . Ils , ... . .._.. .. ... . . _� ��� r•�UfT�a ram' f Of fA114�4 ; c I City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 15, 1983 CASE NO: ZOA 12-82 PROPOSED AMENDMENT: Provision of standards for the installation of home sattelite receivers (television dish antennas). INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert I. DISCUSSION: In 1979 the Federal Communications Commission abolished mandatory licensing requirements for home satellite receivers opening the way for the installation of these receivers for home television use. These receivers are approximately ten to sixteen feet in width and stand up to sixteen feet in height. The receiver can either be solid fiberglass or an aluminum wire mesh. While each of the two types can be painted, the fiberglass receiver tends to get a little better reception. The receivers can be installed on the ground or on a rooftop with proper engineering. In the past few months the city has received inquiries from dealers requesting building permits for receivers on top of their stores and guidelines for residential installation. Present city standards permit antennas to be forty-three feet in height in single-family residential zones and sixty feet in height in planned commercial zones. The matter was brought before the planning commission on August 17, 1982. The commission felt that "because of the appearance, these dishes should fall under some special regulations" and instructed staff to study the matter. The matter was also brought before the design review board on August 24, 1982. Although it was the consensus of the board that an ordinance could be prepared indicating that if a satellite dish antenna is used, that it not be visible from surrounding properties unless there is consent from the surrounding property owner, it was decided this matter should be continued to the next meeting in order that the matter be studied further During a one month period, staff received literature and talked to dealers about the specifics of the receivers. The dealers pointed out that there must be an unobstructed path from the receiver towards the sky. The receivers must be generally tilted at a 450 angle and face towards a south-southwest direction. The dealers also mentioned that different receivers differ in quality. These differences affect the ability of the receiver to receive signals during a windy day due to shaking motions, the ability of the receiver to resist warping due to direct sunlight and the asscfciated heat; along with the basic quality of the transmission tc the television set. Since the idea of dish-type receivers for home use is relatively new, new designs are constantly being developed. There is a possibility that the receivers may be reduced to a diameter of five feet in the future. There are basically three different areas where the receivers can be installed. The areas and a discussion of standards are as follows: 1. Planned Unit Developments: These are country club and condominium type developments that usually provide entry only through security gates and have an architectural board to review all exterior modifications. In this instance of a receiver being installed in this type of development, as long as the receiver is not visible from adjacent properties to the planned unit development, association approval is all that is needed for a building permit since the residents will be the only people to see the receiver - 1 - CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 1. Planned Unit Developments (Continued): or be impacted by the installation. In previous cases such as at Ironwood Country Club in Palm Desert and Thunderbird Country Club in Rancho Mirage, the association required the receiver to be sunk in the ground, with a minimum distance of three feet between the ground and the receiver, along with the planting of oleanders to hide the dish from adjacent fairways and residences. The cost of hiding the receiver at Thunderbird was $8,500 while the cost of the receiver itself was $25,000. 2. Other Residential Areas: This would primarily pertain to residential properties that are adjacent to a public street. The primary concern is to completely hide the receiver from view of the street as best as possible. This is for both aesthetic and security reasons. The visible presence of a receiver may be an invitation to a burglar that expensive equipment is inside the house. It may also be an eyesore to residents of the neighborhood. This in effect prohibits the receivers from visible roof tops, front yards and side yards. The only question then would be whether any additional standards should apply such as making the receiver not visible from adjacent properties, or taking the architectural commission's recommendation that it can be visible from adjacent properties, but only with their consent. This would be an unfair burden on the homeowner who wishes to install the receiver and may place the city in the middle of a neighborhood dispute. The screening may be appropriate in planned unit developments due to small private yard space and the inappropriateness of setback requirements. But where there are 8,000 and 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes there is sufficient space to impose normal setback requirements for the receiver similar to those for a detached accessory structure. Additional requirements would be that the receiver not be erected in a required yard except a rear yard with no portion of the dish to be within five feet of a property line with a height limit of fourteen feet which is the same as for an accessory structure when within 210' of a property line or eighteen feet otherwise. This would necessitate the sixteen foot tall receivers to be sunk in the ground two feet when a portion of the receiver is within twenty feet of a property line. 3. Commercial and Industrial: This section would deal with all properties in commercial and industrial zones. The concerns are the impacts of the appearance of the receiver along commercial corridors. Three stores in Palm Desert that sell televison sets have contacted the city concerning placement of receivers for their stores. Two of the stores are requesting their receivers be placed on top of their stores while the third store is requesting that their receiver be placed on a trailer in the rear of the store so that it may be taken out for demonstrations in homes. There are three concerns with having the receivers located on top of the stores. The first is the safety aspect. It is possible to get a building permit for installation on rooftops as long as positive engineering calculations are given. The second concern is visibility of the receiver. Under code definitions this would be considered an advertising device. This leads to the third concern of aesthetics. - 2 - CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 159 1983 3. Commercial and Industrial (Continued) In the case of solar collectors and evaporative coolers, instead of trying to hide the unit completely, we make it more compatible in appearance with its surroundings. This is accomplished by painting to match the exterior of the building (evaporative coolers) and partial screening (of underside of solar panels). The receiver placed on a trailer would be classified as outside storage and as such must be screened from public view according to code; however, a requirement that it not be visible from a public street would be more appropriate. The need for a television dealer to have a receiver appears to be a necessity-br them to sell more advanced electronics. But the decision on placement and compatibility should be taken on a case by case basis and be reviewed by the architectural commission. The existing section pertaining to "antennas" is as follows: 25.56.300. The height of a structure shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the structure directly above; provided that a roof shall be measured to the highest point of the roof. The height of a fence or a wall used as a fence shall be measured _ from the higher finished grade adjoining the fence or wall. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, flag poles, monuments, scenery lofts, radio and television aerials and antennas, commercial transmission towers, fire towers and similar structures and necessary mechanical appurtenances covering not more than ten percent of the ground area covered _by the structure may be erected to a height of not more than sixty-five feet or no more than twenty-five feet above the height limit prescribed by the regulations for the district in which the site is located, whichever is less. Utility poles and towers shall not be subject to the height limits prescribed in any district regulations. (Ord. 98 SI(part), 1975: Exhibit A 525.32- 7.09). The proposed revisions would add specific standards for satellite receivers by adding the following new section: A satellite receiving dish of five feet or more in diameter must conform to the following standards depending on location. I. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Appropriate association approval is required. The receiver is not to be visible from adjacent properties or a public street. 2. OLHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS: The receiver shall not be visible from the street or be placed on a rooftop in a required front setback, or any other /required setback except a rear setback with no portion of the receiver located within five feet of a property line. Height from existing or finished adjacent grade whichever is less, shall not exceed fourteen feet if within twenty feet of a property line or eighteen feet otherwise. - 3 - CASE NO. ZOA 12-82 MARCH 15, 1983 3. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS: Architectural commission approval for design and screening is required if receiver is visible from a public street or adjacent property. The characteristics of the receiver to be evaluated are the location, type(solid or mesh), color and screening. U. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: The director of environmental services has determined that the proposed amendment is a Class 5, Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , providing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers. "A resolution of the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert recommending that the city council approve an amendment to the municipal code adding Section 25.56.301 providing standards for the installation of home satellite receivers, a Class 5 Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA". IV. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Exhibits Prepared by: Reviewed and approved by: /pa - 4 - ��� } ;ram? ' '! '�. ��" - • r ♦L ( ` . I �.\ � _ • '� Al 1{ L \. f .�T: . 77 - •�,-•r-r-x.^ w N r j 4 �'._ �,1 _: 1,� �•r'r""K � t7�i'� .E-�11c. �y w.. _ a PARACLIPSE OF COACHELLA VALLEY SATELLITE T.V.SYSTEMS—41.301 JAMAICA SANDS— BERMUDA DUNES,CA 92201 —(714)345.6034 or 345-5398 March 10, 1983 C1 y' o£ Palm Desert ?.qR 1 1983 Mr Ma Joy, Assistant Planner ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PALM D$MERT CA CITY OF PALM DESERT; Dear Mr 1 Thank you your letter dated March 7th. r 1983 and enclosure anning Commission Staff Report) concerning installatioXinf, atellite antennas in your city. The report eral is very good but I must take issue with you on co `" is in PARA I "Discussion" wherein it is stated the ° 'ver can be either the solid dish or aluminum wire me . . . .the fibreglass receiver tends to gdt a little bette eption" I believe the word ceiver" should be changed to "antenna" throughout as the rec ver is a component part of the system located indoors althou' the antenna does "pick-up" the electromagnetic radiat from the satellite concentrating the energy towards the point of the dish antenna. This could prevent confu `` should a legal discussion ever ensue. Now as to the matter of whi L a dish produces the best picture there is theoretical7v differences both the fibreglass and the radar-mesh have the same "gain; described in engineering terms as . decibels; being in the case of the 12 ft dishes 41.0 Db. , or - 1 Db. Thus the radio-frequency energy delivered by dish to the amplif- ing and receiving system is exactly same. In fact if there is a difference it is in favor of the dish as this type is not subject to warping resulting fro desert heat which could affect the parabolic configu n of the solid dish. The mesh dish has a lower wind loading fact approximately 67% and has withstood 90 mile plus winds in the to Rosa Mt. v area where solid dishes have been known to blow dpn. A statement in PARA 1V concerns the diameter of dis vis-a-vis the future. Satellites (technically transponders) radiate a very small amount of energy, in the neighborhood of 5 watts initially, which radiation must cover the ent're United S.tates-, parts of Canada and Mexico. The amount of energy received at ground level varies over the United States and this coverage is known as "the footprint of . the satellite: The central portion of the U .S .. receives more energy than the west coast therefore a lArger dish and more sensitive amplifiers is needed in this area. PARACLIPSE OF COACHELLA VALLEY SATEU ITET.V.SYSTEMS-41-301 JAMAICA SANDS- BERMUDA DUNES.CA 92201 -(714)345.6034 Or345.5398 The second consideration is the beam width of the disht the lager the dish the narrower the "beam width. As more and more satellites are placed in polar orbit dishes with the capa� lity to discriminate between satellites will become a facto otherwise interference from adjacent satellites might cause °' 'fficulty. Thus unless the radiated power of the satell" s is increased, or there is a change to a much higher .radio fa " uency than presently usedg dish size is not likely to be reduc Some engi ee s might say that in the case of F.M. (frequency modulation) the stronger of two signals will "take over" and that wouldkente interference problem. Such is the case if the signn appreciable difference in power but the energy fromellites located some 229300 miles out in spacedoes nat characteristic. In 1983 the satellite population ed to increase from the present 13 to more than 181 smal ' w ' sh owners may soon have a problem. The writer served as microwave installation engineer for the International Telepho- & Telegraph System for 15 years. As a Commander in the II.S. ' I served ten years as an Electronics Officer specializing in . cation radar installations and comm- unications and prior to I was a field engineer for R.C .A. Camden N.J. I accomplished . st-graduate work at M.I.T . Boston, Mass and am therefore qua d to make the aforemention comments and or criticism. So I res lly request that the suggestions noted above be carefully co i ed and that certain statements be modified or deleted from �o aper. Due to a prior engagement it is wh regret that I cannot attend the planning commision's meeting o arch 15th. �. Si7i ;` ly yours KMB Kenneth M er P.S. Engineering Specifications covering r-f gain and wind- loading factors of our Para- clipse antenna are made an enclosure hereto. 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAU FORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 March 7, 1983 Mr.Gene Bowman Bowman's Satellite Television 68-484 Highway 111 Cathedral City, CA Dear Mr. Bowman: The enclosed report will be presented to the planning commission March 15, 1983. We are sending the report to you for comment. Your comment will be forwarded to the planning commission and you are invited to attend the public hearing which will begin at 2:00 p.m. I will be happy to discuss any part of the report with you anytime before the hearing should you have any questions. Sincerely, Phil Joy Assistant Planner PJ/pa enclosure 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 March 7, 1983 Mr. Ken Barbier 41-301 Jamaica Sands Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Dear Mr. Barbier: The enclosed report will be presented to the planning commission March 15, 1983. We are sending the report to you for comment. Your comments will be forwarded to the planning commission and you are invited to attend the public hearing which will begin at 2:00 p.m. I will be happy to discuss any part of the report with you anytime before the hearing should you have any questions. Sincerely,, Phil Joy Assistant Planner PJ/pa enclosure 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE I ZOA i9-82 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for an amendment to the Municipal Code, Chapter 25.56.300 to provide standards for the installation of home satellite receivers (television dish antennas). SAID public hearing will be held on March 15, 1983, 2:00 p.m. in the council chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. I RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post March 4, 1983