HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-09 ARC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
JUNE 9, 2020
(VIRTUAL MEETING)
12:30 P.M.
City of Palm Desert, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 26, 2020
Note: In consideration of the current Coronavirus/COVID-19 Pandemic and pursuant to the
Governor’s Executive Orders, Commissioners may participate via teleconference/Virtual
Meeting.
Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise on the agenda has the following
options for public participation:
Public comment may be received by email or voicemail from the time the agenda is
posted up until one (1) hour prior to the posted time of meeting convening (12:30 p.m.).
Emails received will be printed and distributed for the record prior to the meeting. If the
sender so request they will be read into the record at the meeting not to exceed (3)
minutes in length.
Email: planning@cityofpalmdesert.org
Voicemails will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Commissioners at or near the
time they are received. If the sender so requests, they may also be saved and played at
the appropriate point in the live meeting not to exceed three (3) minutes in length.
Voicemail: 760-776-6409
Because the Brown Act does not allow the Architectural Review Commission to take
action on items not on the Agenda, members may briefly respond or instead refer the
matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Architectural Review
Commission meeting.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA June 9, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Agendas\2020\200609ag.doc Page 2 of 3
V. CASES:
A. Final Drawings
1. CASE NO: MISC 19-0030
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: WOOD INVESTMENTS COMPANIES,
2950 Airway Avenue, Unit A-9, Costa Mesa CA 92626
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Façade update to
existing Palms to Pines Shopping Center.
LOCATION: 72-655 Highway 111
ZONE: P.C.-(3) SP
2. CASE NO: MISC 20-0014
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: DAZ DESIGN BUILD INC. Attn:
Alberto Daza, 77-570 Springfield Lane #7, Palm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to
approve a front yard setback exception to construct an attached
patio cover/carport within the front yard.
LOCATION: 42-741 Jacqueline Circle
ZONE: R-1
B. Preliminary Plans
1. CASE NO: CUP 19-0002
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: AT&T Smartlink, Attn: Chris
Doheny, 2033 San Elijo Avenue #600, Cardiff, CA 92007
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to
approve a new 65’ monopalm to include power generator, utility
cabinets and 12 panel antennas.
LOCATION: 78-0005 Country Club Drive
ZONE: P.C.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA June 9, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Agendas\2020\200609ag.doc Page 3 of 3
C. Miscellaneous Items
None
VI. COMMENTS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Declaration of Posting
I, Janine Judy, Management Specialist I for the Department of Community Development of the City of Palm Desert, do hereby declare that the foregoing
agenda for the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION meeting of Tuesday, June 9, 2020 was posted on the bulletin board by the outside entry to
the Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, on Friday, June 5, 2020.
Date: June 5, 2020 Janine Judy
Recording Secretary
CITY OF PALM DESERT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 26, 2020
(VIRTUAL MEETING)
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date
Present Absent Present Absent
Chris Van Vliet, Chair X 6 1
Karel Lambell, Vice Chair X 6 1
Allan Levin X 7
Michael McAuliffe X 6 1
Jim McIntosh X 6 1
Jim Schmid X 6 1
John Vuksic X 5 2
Also Present
Ryan Stendell, Director Community Development
Eric Ceja, Principal Planner
Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
Russell Grance, Director Building & Safety
Janine Judy, Recording Secretary
Cancelled meeting: 12/24/19, 3/10/20, 3/24/20, 4/14/20
III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 12, 2020
Action:
Commissioner Lambell moved to approve the May 12, 2020 meeting minutes.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with
Lambell, Levin, McIntosh Schmid, Van Vliet and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe
absent.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 2 of 9
V. CASES:
A. Final Drawings:
1. CASE NO: MISC 20-0011
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: SEAN AND KIM SMITH, 47-817 Sun
Corral Trail, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve
a new side-entry carport 16’ from curb.
LOCATION: 47-817 Sun Corral Trail
ZONE: R-1, 10,000
Mr. Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner, reminded the Commission a request
for a new side-entry carport 16’ from curb came before them on May 12,
2020. He presented the revised elevations to show the existing canopy
structure, the existing bench on the east elevation, and the windows on the
carport that were reduced in height. The design and scale of the proposed
carport is compatible with the existing home and will not impact the existing
on-site circulation. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with a
condition to preserve as much existing landscaping as possible.
The Commission was concerned with the existing landscape and felt that
since this was such a sensitive issue a landscape plan should be required.
Mr. Swartz said before the applicant receives a final on the building, a
complete landscape plan and palette will have to be submitted. He also
said the applicant must preserve as much landscape as possible, as well
as adding additional mature landscaping. Commissioner McIntosh said this
is critical because it is so close to the street.
Chair Van Vliet asked where the roof drainage channel was located. Mr.
Swartz said staff will work this out with the designer and he will make sure
there are no scuppers on the outside.
ACTION:
Commissioner Lambell moved to approve subject to: 1) submittal of a roof plan
showing locations of roof drains; and 2) submittal of a landscape plan prior to
removal of existing landscape material. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Levin and carried by a 6-0-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, McIntosh, Schmid, Van
Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and McAuliffe absent.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 3 of 9
Commissioner McIntosh recused himself from the following item and remained in the
Zoom virtual meeting.
2. CASE NO: MISC 20-0012
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: GREGORY AND JENNIFER SPATES, 73-
695 O’Keefe Way, Palm Desert, CA 92211
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a height
exception to construct a 17’-0” single family residence.
LOCATION: 77-730 Mountain View
ZONE: RE
Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, reminded the Commission that this
request for a height exception came before them on May 12, 2020. The
Commission had some comments about breaking up the design of the roof
line, adding some articulation to the eastern wall of the kitchen, recessing
the garage doors, introducing additional color, and revising the site plan.
He said the applicant redesigned the roof line by breaking up the main
gable into multiple adjoining hipped roofs, the exterior color palette has
remained the same from the first submittal, and the large wall expanse
along the eastern elevation has been reduced slightly by the new roof
shape and is obscured by the wall enclosing the rear yard. Lastly, the
garage doors have been recessed with the use of double-framed walls.
Additionally, the applicant has revised the wall placement to conform with
the fence and wall ordinance by increasing the setback, adding pilasters
and additional landscaping. Staff is recommending approval of the home
and granting the exception as proposed.
MR. GABRIEL RIOS, designer, stated that the color was originally pure
white and is now more of an off white color.
Commissioner Vuksic and the designer discussed the location of the
gables. MR. RIOS stated the only gables will be on the north elevation.
ACTION:
Chair Van Vliet moved to approve with comments. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with Lambell, Levin, Schmid,
Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES, McIntosh abstaining and McAuliffe absent.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 4 of 9
3. CASE NO: MISC 19-0030
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: WOOD INVESTMENTS COMPANIES,
2950 Airway Avenue, Unit A-9, Costa Mesa CA 92626
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Façade update to
existing Palms to Pines Shopping Center.
LOCATION: 72-655 Highway 111
ZONE: P.C.-(3) SP
Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, presented a request to modify
the façade of the existing Palms to Pines shopping center located
between Highway 111 and El Paseo. The proposal also includes
landscaping modifications which will remove all existing turf along
the property’s Highway 111 and El Paseo frontages and replace it
with desert native plant species. The façade modification will focus
on the multi-tenant building located towards the central, southern
portion of the site. The building is currently anchored by Smart and
Final and several independent restaurants. The existing architecture
is characterized by Spanish inspired sloped terra-cotta roofs, tan
stucco, and a long horizontal form with multiple breaks in the building
mass. Changes to the building include repainting the entire exterior,
addition of a cornice to the parapet, expansion of the tenant’s fascia
band to allow for larger wall signage, and expansion of the main entry
façade for Smart and Final. Staff is supportive of the overall changes
and recommends the Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
approve the proposed building modifications. As a part of the motion
for approval, staff recommends the ARC work with staff to revise the
landscape plan to provide shade trees throughout the parking area
and to replace trees which have been damaged or removed over the
years.
Chair Van Vliet was concerned with the reflective white paint and
wanted to know if it was an accent color or the main body of the
building. Mr. Melloni said it appears on the plans as being on the
main body and used on the bulk of the building. Chair Van Vliet was
concerned that it was very bright and very hot and suggested they
restudy that.
Chair Van Vliet asked how tall the fascia height was for the signage.
MR. MATTHEW BUSH, applicant, said the sign application will be
submitted after receiving approval for the design review. Typically in
other shopping centers they have channel letters but in this case it is
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 5 of 9
designed for the letters to go directly onto the stucco. Commissioner
Levin pointed out that the fascia was 3’. Commissioner Lambell was
concerned with the end detail of the 3’ fascia relative to the roof edge
and suggested they restudy that.
Commissioner Levin said the highest point is 26’-3” on the north
elevation and asked what the existing height was. Mr. Melloni said
they are not expanding it or making it any taller. They are just adding
the cornice trim detail. The only real addition is the main entry.
Commissioner Levin asked if everything was ADA compliant and
pointed out the existing ramps on the exterior walkways. Mr. Melloni
said the applicant can weigh in on that but said that will be handled
at the building permit stage.
Commissioner McIntosh believes that the Commission has never
approved high reflective white (HRW) and it is not compatible with
desert colors. He feels it wouldn’t be acceptable to have a building
this size with a majority of it painted HRW. Overall, the new frontage
ties in with a lot of the existing architectural forms especially for the
anchor tenant, Smart and Final. He is concerned with the comment
made about the extended fascia underneath the tiled roofs and thinks
this isn’t in character with the rest of the building and is out of
proportion. This should require a little more study, as well as a
section through it and how it terminates at the end.
Commissioner Levin asked if this center has a sign program and Mr.
Melloni said he wasn’t aware if there is and if so, it would be really
outdated. This center was originally developed in the 80s and there
isn’t one they currently refer to. Staff just defers to the sign ordinance
as it generally stands.
Commissioner Levin asked if the proposed fascia signs were
illuminated and Mr. Melloni said he would have to defer to the
applicant on that. He thinks this will be handled more directly through
the sign program where they will address the colors, allowed heights
along the signage band, identify lighting standards, font styles, and
sign locations. He also said the renderings are an approximation of
where the signs will be placed.
Commissioner Vuksic was intrigued by the fascia and said it was so
deliberate and looks interesting in this particular case. This does
need to be looked at a little more closely to make sure that it is
properly proportioned and detailed at the end to pull this off. He said
the northeast elevation where it is hanging over concerns him. He
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 6 of 9
suggested they restudy the columns on that elevation because it
looks like it hasn’t been thought out completely. All the proportions
need to look good relative to the angled roof edge. Mr. Melloni felt
the fascia band would look weird if it terminated or if the column was
moved over and suggested they re-exam it specifically at this corner.
Commissioner Vuksic agreed that they all need to be looked at to
have a possibility of this working.
MS. OLGA CANTRELL, architect, said because they are working on
an existing building they are trying not to add a lot of weight to it. In
areas where they think it looks aesthetically okay not to return the
fascia they are trying not to return it. However, in specific locations
they will start looking at the areas where there isn’t a column at the
corner.
Commissioner McIntosh referred to the northeast elevation with the
long cantilever that looked odd and wondered how they are going to
make that height transition in such a way that will work because it
looks like the fascia is coming into the side of that column. There are
issues that need to be resolved for this to work.
Commissioner Vuksic was concerned with the architects comment
that this will return in some areas and not return in others. He and
the applicants discussed the possibility to put a column at the end.
MR. BUSH said their concern is that they are taking an old building
and changing the structural elements of it. He is always hesitate to
open up a can of worms like that if they don’t have to. Commissioner
Vuksic and MR. BUSH continued to discuss different options
regarding the columns; having two (2) columns at the end or cutting
the roof back so the beam or the fascia band ends at the column.
Chair Van Vliet suggested this be continued to allow the applicants
to re-study the fascia and bring it back so the Commission can get a
clear picture of what is happening there. MR. BUSH asked if they
could just add the column to the end of the fascia on the northeast
elevation to avoid a continuance. Commissioner Lambell said they
need to look at this in the total scope of the project so it doesn’t end
up having two (2) columns right next to each other.
Chair Van Vliet called for a motion. Commissioner Lambell made the
motion and Commissioner Vuksic made the second. Chair Van Vliet
asked for further comments. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with the
comment about the two columns that are a common element in
architecture and the relationship of those columns are very important
and needs to be restudied. He said after making that fascia so huge
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 7 of 9
it brings a lot more attention to that area. They continued to review
and discuss the area where the two roofs tie together and how the
one is tucked underneath the second one. Chair Van Vliet called for
a vote.
ACTION:
Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case No. MISC 19-0030 subject to: 1)
restudy color scheme; 2) study end detail of fascia relative to roof edge; 3) add
additional trees to parking lot; 4) re-design end treatment of colonnade
at northeast portion of the building; 5) provide cross-section details of the
proposed colonnade, including details showing the design where the roofline
changes. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Vuksic and carried by a 6-0-1,
with Lambell, Levin, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES and
McAuliffe absent.
B. Preliminary Plans
Commissioner Levin recused himself from the following item and remained in the Zoom
virtual meeting.
1. CASE NO: PP 19-0006
APPLICANT AND ADDRESS: KOLA OLATUNBOSUN, 73-360 Catalina
Way, Palm Desert, CA 92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration to approve
a design for a new single-story residential duplex.
LOCATION: 73-721 San Nicholas Way
ZONE: R-2
Mr. Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner, reminded the Commission a request
to construct a 3,452-square-foot single-story residential duplex on a vacant
lot at 73-271 San Nicholas Way came before the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) on October 22, 2019. At that meeting, the ARC raised
design comments on the roof form, compatibility of the contemporary style
carport with the traditional character of the main home, code issues with
the floor plan and general articulation. The applicant has re-designed the
roof by adding additional gables stacked upon the primary roof form, which
has added to the total height of the structure. The contemporary flat roofed
carports have been replaced with shed roof carports, which mimic the
pitches used on the main home. The bedrooms, which did not meet building
code egress requirements, have been removed from the floor plan. This
falls within most of the development standards with the exception of the
carport which would be applying for a 16’ side-entry carport exemption
allowed by the code. He said given the resubmittal, his recommendation
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 8 of 9
would be to continue this to provide some clear direction to the applicant
with what the ARC would like to see in terms of the roof form and moving
this towards a more traditional roof style, as well as direction on the floor
plan, street facing façade, carport structures and front yard landscaping.
Chair Van Vliet said he spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was
going on here and didn’t understand the drawings as they were very
complex, very difficult to understand and confusing. He had an issue with
the height and liked the earlier elevations better. He also had problems
figuring out what was going on with the whole roof system and feels the
drawings needed more work.
MR. JERRY JONES, designer, explained that they originally had a gabled
roof but the Commission suggested adding more architectural features on
the roof instead of having a straight gable. They went back and added little
shingles (sic) on the side elevation and broke up the roof to give it some
character with different overlays on the roof. The carport had a flat roof and
they revised that to a shed roof to conform to the main roof. MR. KOLA
OLATUNBOSUN, applicant, said the bedrooms were removed due to the
egress issues which then created extra space for the living room. MR.
JONES said the way they revised the roof was expensive and would prefer
the straight gable as previously submitted.
Commissioner McIntosh said the challenge here is putting this duplex into
an existing neighborhood and what he’s seeing is something that looks very
complex and expensive and not really in context with the neighborhood. He
told the applicants they could probably find a solution between the straight
gable and this complex design. He said even the carport structures look
rather commercial in nature. For this to fit in with the neighborhood, instead
of standing out, he suggested a roof design that wasn’t so drastic but not
just having a straight gable. MR. JONES explained that they could delete
the taller gable that overlays the lower gable in the front of the north
elevation and go back to a complete gable on that end. Commissioner
McIntosh and the applicants continued to discuss the design changes.
Commissioner McIntosh stated that the way it is designed now it feels very
foreign to the neighborhood and is very complicated.
Commissioner McIntosh and the applicants reviewed and discussed the
shade structures. Commissioner McIntosh suggested integrating the shade
structures into the architecture instead of having prefabricated type shade
structures as they look very commercial. He suggested they step back and
consider making it all part of the same design.
Commissioner McIntosh asked where the air conditioning mechanicals
were located. MR. JONES indicated they were in the rear corners of the
lot. Commissioner McIntosh suggested they include that on the re-design
as it will help drive their design.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES May 25, 2020
G:\Planning\Janine Judy\ARC\1Minutes\2020\200526min.docx Page 9 of 9
Commissioner Vuksic said a lot of times in a superior building, the roof has
something to do with what is happening below, but this design doesn’t
reflect what is happening below. He said this kind of looks like a church
because they have this extremely powerful symmetry that is not needed.
He said the first design solution was too simple and this one is too
complicated and they need to find something in between. MR. JONES said
they will probably get rid of the higher gable to start with and integrate the
carport into the design of the main structure. Commissioner Vuksic was a
little concerned that they were creating a list of list of things from this
meeting and said this really needs to be looked at with a keen design eye
so that it’s an attractive composition of forms.
ACTION:
Commissioner Vuksic moved to continue Case No. PP 19-0006 subject to: 1)
revise design of the roof; 2) consider revising the design of the primary façade; 3)
consider incorporating the covered parking into the main structure; and 4) show
the location and details of all utilities and mechanical equipment on plans. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by a 5-0-1-1 vote, with
Lambell, McIntosh, Schmid, Van Vliet, and Vuksic voting YES, Levin abstaining
and McAuliffe absent.
C. Miscellaneous Items:
None
VI. COMMENTS
Discussion on Palms to Pines III and reopening City Hall.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Levin moved to adjourn the Architectural Review Commission meeting at
2:40 p.m.
ERIC CEJA
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SECRETARY
JANINE JUDY
RECORDING SECRETARY
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission
From: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
Date: June 9, 2020
Subject: MISC 19-0030 – Façade Modification – Palms to Pines Center
72- 655 Highway 111 to 72-695 Highway 111
Project Summary
The project is a request to modify the façade of the existing Palms to Pines shopping
center located between Highway 111 and El Paseo. The proposal also includes
landscaping modifications which will remove all existing turf along the property’s Highway
111 and El Paseo frontages and replace it with desert native plant species.
This item previously appeared before the ARC on May 26, 2020. The item was continued
to allow the applicant to redesign the colonnade treatment at the north-east corner of the
building and demonstrate how fascia will be designed where the roofline changes to
accommodate grade changes. The new submittal addresses these comments by adding
a decorative fascia treatment at certain colonnade ends where the column is offset.
Zoning Ordinance Summary
ARC approval is required for all commercial façade modifications per Palm Desert
Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 25.68.020 (A). Findings for ARC decisions are listed
under PDMC Section 25.68.040 – Findings of the ARC.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is supportive of the overall changes and recommends the ARC approve the proposed
building modifications and direct the applicant to add shade trees throughout the parking lot.
Attachment: Project Plans
III I��w w
long
I �4�
���mom
r
�Nunn ■ ■ ■ ■ '..
�IIII CIAgo
�■ - - ��
'-
Muni
w
INN
A:LmA
(E) CLAY ROOF TILE
i
I
(N
Pl
Tc
W
S'
(h
PI
TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION
(OPEN END WALKWAY)
SIGNAGE_
11-71 0701 in-ri IMAI COAhAIAIn
(E) GLU—LAM BEAM TO
REMAIN,WOOD STAIN FIN
(N) WOOD FAUX
WOOD CORBEL,
STAIN FINISH
(N) BULKHEAD, PLASTER FINISH
TO MATCH EXISTING
TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION
(OPEN END WALKWAY)
TYPICAL SECTION 1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Commission
From: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
Date: June 9, 2020
Subject: MISC 20-0014 – 42-741 Jacqueline Circle
Front Yard Setback Exception
Project Summary
The project is a request for a front yard setback exception to construct an attached
patio cover/carport within the front yard of a single-family residence. The carport
will extend up to 6’ into the required 20' setback.
The property is an irregular-shaped 6,543-square-foot lot developed with a 1,500-
square-foot home. The home is characterized by pueblo-style architecture. The
façade will be modified to feature more contemporary elements to better match the
character of the patio cover/carport. The existing front yard landscaping will remain
in place and no expansions to the existing driveway are proposed.
Zoning Ordinance Summary
Section 25.40.020 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code establishes allowed setback
encroachments for residential properties. Per Section 25.40.020 (E), an irregularly
shaped, under-sized property may be eligible for a 20% reduction of the front and
side yard setback based on approval by the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC). This approval is based on the dimensions and shape of the lot and finding
that the allowed encroachment will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation
Approve a 20% encroachment for the carport (4’ into 20’ setback) as allowed by
the code.
Attachment: Project Plans
N,
1 +
1 I
EXISTING
1
RESIDENCE
I
I
ti
® r " SETBACK
STING RESIDLENCE
j 1
NEW
COVER PATIO
LINE OF OVERHANG
I
I
I
1
I
I
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
(1S89'49' 13"! A! 1
?j
NEW
CLOVER PATIO
NEW
COVER
ENTRANCE
4
k
LINE OF OVERHANG
t
4 1
j I
}I I
I
LAIR S
Site notes
REFERENCE NOTE: ON PLAN TYPICAL
EXISTING 200 AMP MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL
EXISTING GAS METER
3> EXISTING DRIVIEWAY TO REMAIN
4) EXIs-nNG DOOR GATE
EXISTING LOW WALL C M U
F rH
I
Urldargwund SeTvice Alert
rtoar
—s11- TALL FREE
1-8 0
�- L7-0
MO WORKING GAYS BEFORE YOU UIG
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS:
If any ERR ORS. MSG REPANCIES or OMISSIONS appear in the dravuings,
sppecfflcatlolps or vfhercontracl docurnents, the GENERAL CONTRACTOR
shall notify the designor iR wrlhRq of such error or orrAssion-
In the event that tea GENEtRAL CONTRACTOR [ails to glYe Such notice
1- before construction and�or fabrication of the work, THE GENE RAkL CON -
4r`_Tf1R LVII I EJF HF-1 0 RF.SPONSIAL F !rs_tfr++ rnc..l#. nF snv ar {tjg.
Abbretion
AL
AIR CONpIT*NlNG
F.G.
FINISH GRADE
RAG
RETURN AIR GRILLE
AJ)J
ADJACENT
RGL.
FINISH GI-AVNG
ROW
REDWOOD
ALT
ALTERNATE
FIN
FINISH
REC
RECESSED
ALUM
ALUMINUM
F-L.
FLOOR LINE
REF
REFRIGERATOR
ARCH
ARCHITECTURAL
FLOR
FLOURESCIENX
REMF
REINFORCING
FTO
FOOTING
R€Q'D
REQUIRED
BO
f3QARD
ELK
BLOCK
GA.
GAUGE
SC
SOLID CORE
Bh1
13EAM
GSM
GALVANIZED SHEET METAL BD
SMOKE DETECTOR
SOT
BOTTOM
GYP
GY13SIlM
SH
SHELF
B.U.
SU1LT UP
SHTG
SHEATHING
HOR
MEANER
Sh(YLT
SKYLIGHT
CAB
CABINET
HLV
BEAT. LAMP. VENT
SP
SPLASH PAID
C£R
CERAMIC
HVAG
HEATING, VENTILATING.
SO
SQUARE
CH
CEILING HEIGHT
AIR CONDITIONING
MC
MEDICINE CABINET
DLG
CEILING
HOOD
HARDWOOD
MTL
METAL
CLR
CLEAR
HOWD
HARDWOOD
MIN
MINIMUM
COMB
COMBUSTION
HORii
14ORIZONTAL
11118C
MISCELLANEOUS
COMP
COMPACTED
HC
FIOLLCPW GORE
GONG
CONCRETE
H8
3105E 618E
T
THE
CONT
CONTINUOUS
HO
HOLD DOWN
TIC
TRASH COMPACTOR
C.W
COLD WATER
T&G
TONO UE AND GROOVE
C.T
CERAMIC TILE
INSUL
INSULAT10N
TV
TELEVISION
TYP,
TYPICAL
DIA
DIAMETER
JH
.IOISrFIQNGER
TAPL-
TGPOFPLATE
DIM
GIMENSION
T,D.P,
TOP OF PARAPET
DM
OrSHtWASHER
LAM
LAMINATED
TAW.
TOP OF WALL
D8L
DOUBLE
LAV
LAVATORY
DVYG
DRAWING
LIN
LINEAR
WASH
WASHER
DRY
DRYER
LT
LIGHT
WIR
WASTE RECYCLER
LUM
LUMINOUS
WC
WATER CLOSET
EA
EACFI
wo
Wool)
ES
EAC14 SIDE
ME
MACHINE 9DL T
WH
WATER HEATED
E-W.
EACI4 WAY
MAX
MAXIMUM
WP
V07ERPRQQF
EXT
EKTERIQR
WT
WEIGHT
pe
PAPER PACKET)
wy
WITH
PLYWD
PLYWOOD
PT
PRESSURE TREATED
Symbols
110 I ROOM NUMBER SEE PLANS ANO ROOM FWISH SCHEDULE
1, 3 1 DOOR NUMEER SEE V00k FINISH SCHEDULE
EXTERIOR AN INTERIOR GLAZED AREAS WITH fIXE13 GLAZING
AND+OR SLIDER 000RS-3EE GLAZING SCHEDULE
4 TYPICAL PLAN NOTES
—dEtAII. NO-
3ECTION REFEIRE1N10E
SHEET NO.
'DETAIL NO.
9Y),e DETAIL REFERENCE
.A-:_
SHEET NO.
General notes
I. ALL WORK SHALL $E DONE W ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD PLANS Of THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT AND THE STANIDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC U ORKS CONSTRUCTION,
LATEST EQ1 i ON, AND TIME CITY OF PALM DESERT STANDARD PLANS,
2, IT SMALL 9E THE RESPONSI81LITY OF THE DEVELOPE R.OWN ER OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLY
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR THE NECESSARY
PERMITS ANO TO 13E RESPONSIFiLE FOR SATISFACTORY COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CURRENT
ENViRONMEN7AL REGULATI0NS DUR{NG THE LIFE Of CONSTRUCTEON ACTNITIES FOR THIS
PROJECT. ADDITIONAL STUDIES AN110R PERMfTS MAY 2E REOUJRED.
3, IT SHALL 8E THE R E SPONSI 9 1 LITY OF THE DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR TO APPLY TO THE
FOR ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHIN THE STATE RIGHT OF WAY.
B- THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY
ONLY, THE CONTRACTOR SMALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXJSTING UTILITES
BEFORE COMENCING WORK NE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSBILE FOR ANY AND ALL
DAMAGES W141CH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE
ANY AND ALL UTILITIES.
CONSTRUCTION HOURS:
OCTOBER SST TO APR1L 30TH; MONDAY - FRIOAY 7.00 AM TO S,30 PM
SATURDAY 83 00 AEA TO 5:00 PM
SUNDAY NOT ALLOWED
Govemm ant Code FlolIdays NOT ALLOWED
MAY IST TO 9 E PTEM BER 0TH. MONJDAY - FRIDAY 6:00 AM TO 7,00 PAN
SATURDAY B-00 AM TO 5-00 PM
UNDAY NOT ALLOWED
Government Cade Holidays NOT ALLOWED
VYORK SHALL BE PROHIBITED ANY TIME ON SUNDAYS OR ON FEDERAL HOLIDAYS. THE CITY Of
LA OUINTA RESERVES TH€ RiGHP TO APPLY FURTHER TIJME RESTRICTIONS AS NEEDED TO
WORK CICCURRING ON ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS DURING FAG TRAFFIC VOLUME HRS
Vicinity Map
MERLE C-RiVE
t ESUE AVENN I
.i,kr'QUELINE DR EILF -
Gr
` HERYL AVE
Lri
23
SITE
a �
a
0
r_j
FREE] WARING DRIVE
DESIGN BUILD Inc.
A Daz Arch Studio
Alberto Data
Design Development. Planning. Construction Management
77570 Springfield Ln, Sultie L. Palm Oesert, Ca. 92211
Tel, 160,895.4331 E; info@dazdasignbuild.com
[ Consultants I
STRUCTURAL AL DESIGNER:
RA STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
REZA A5GHARPOUR, PE
77570 SPIRINGFIJELD LANE SUITE D
PALM DESERT. CA 92211
T : 760.360.9990
F: 760-39CI-9902
E:RE7AqRA5T_RIJCTURAL.00M
Sheet Index
T1 TITLE SHEET, SHEET INDEX, CONSUI-TANTS,@t#ILDING SUMMARY. SITE PLAN
G1 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE RESIDENTIAL.
MANQATORY MEASURES UST SHEET I
GZ 2019CALIFORNIA GREEN 611JIL1 LNG STANDARDS CODE RESIDENTIAL
MANDATORY M1EASURES LIST SHEET 2
Al EXISTINGIPROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
A2 EXISTINQ PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION
A3 SECTIONS PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
GIN GENERAL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS
GD GENERAL DETAILS AND NOTES
S-1 FOUNDATION and FRAMING PLAN
SO-1 FOUNDATION DETAILS
$13-2 FRAMING DETAILS
project data
Logan Description:
APN: 624-141-021
M.S. 4019.11 SECTION 15 T- SS.. R.G E.S.B.M.
C OUNTRY CLUB VILLAGE UN Fr 'I
LOT+PARCEL. LOT 77
Building Data:
OCCUPANCY =GENERAL ZONING, ' R-3 SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VE
STORIES: 1
SPRINKLERED- NO
Area tabulation:
RES10ENCE AREA: AREA
EXISTING 1LIVADLE AREA-
1,192 SQ.FT.
EXISTING TWO CAR GAiZAGE
415 SQ.FT,
PROPOSED COVER PATIOS
1.046 SQ.FT-
Code Description:
2019 CALIFORNIA ADMJNISTRATrVE CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA SUILUING CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
2019 CALIFQRNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2019 CALIFORNtA ENERGY CODE
2019 CALIFORWA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
2019 CALIPORWA FIRE CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE
2019 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE
ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY W1 THE 201R CALIFORNIA BUILDING. PLUMBING.
MIECHANIGAL,2019 ELECTRICAL. AND 2019 ENERGY CODES AND ALL OTHER LOCAL
CODES AND ORDINANCES" ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY
OF LA PALM DESERT BUILDING CODE"
PROJECT.
COVER PATIOS
Liverani RESIDENCE
APN# 24-141-0 1
4 741 Jacqueline Circle,Palrrl Desert, Ca. 92260
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
T1 ESE L EALYIHE9 kRE V 114STRLINIENT OF 807ME AW REMA HI THE PROPERTY DF ILAZ DHIGN WJIL131ML TWT ftkE NOT TO RE R>:PROLh3CED OR
Al TFwW IN ANYWAa NUM nW-CLOSEDOH A99K Wr. r;i ANY t111Ru PAWY VMHWI t1jP Er3Kfr-29 1* A'ARrF?4 PFIN MUN 11"OW0F11UFgWW9 W
46 SIDE IREVISION' DATE: NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER: PLOT €]ATE' DRAWN BY:
REST EM. 2020-03 02.20.20 DAZ
SHEET TITLE: SHEET NO:
vrep ances or ornlsslorls and the cost of reaIIfyirig Ille .51me.
o-
I
1 IA
A PROPQSED FRONT ELEVATION
'R
E
< A2 EMS T1 N 0 FRONIF I-EEIVATI0N
A
JL_� A3
I rr
LINE OF ROOF OVERHANG
LIVE Of SEIBACK
I
I
I, I
� I
I
si-r
I I
r.0
IP
3G0r-1 0r.
A(zI
PROPOSES] LEFT ELEVATI It
4 ' 7
I
. I
DESIGN BUILD Inc.
A Daz Arch Studio
Alberto Daza
Design Development. Pianning. Construction Management
77570 Springfield Ln, Sulte I r Palter Desert, Ca_ 92211
Tol, 760,895,4331 E; info@dazdesignbuild.com
Wall Types
EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS 2X WOOD STUDS @ 16"O.C, W! STUCCO
TO REMAkN
NEW 8" DIAMET€R STEEL COLUMN
PROJECT-.
COVER PATIOS
Liveralni RESIDENCE
API # 24-141-0 1
4 741 Jacqueline Dirole,Palrn Desert, Ca. 92260
INMUMENTS OF SERVICE
MEM DRAYld W ARE A klMUMERT dF MUM AND REMAW TkE PROPF.RTT OF N.I DEWM all LD WC. 7HEY ARE MQT TO BE REPRODUCO OR
-{LFEFw i4 AMT wAV NOR i=t-OM ON A11tGwD TO-MrhMlo Pp-M 11Mvij1Tw. EwAMS CF YmffFEN M NISS Yi OF 0AZ OES10N HU110 INC
ISSUE IREVISION:
DATE;
NUMBER.
.l
f .
PROJECT NUMBER:
PLOT DATE:
DRAWN BY:
iRESREM.2020-03
0 ,20.20
GAZ
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO:
FLOOR PLAN,
SCALE- 114"=V-0"
All
TOP OF PARAPET
EXISTING TOP OF CEILING
H
I _„ EXIST!iv G T 0 SLb. E E!_Ev
E
E ISTING TOP OF PARAPET — — —
�Nk BOTTOM OF BEAM
E 1STI"6 TOP OF CEILING
—
— -
A AGE
r
STIQA NG T.a. $[ An
S
IN1 BOTT13M OF BEAM
EXISTING T.O. SLAB EL
(N) BpTTOM OF BEAM
ING '
h
�
r-
0 D 0
r
0
w
EX IST NG TOP QF PARAPET
CT 0
EXISTING T.O. SLAB ELEV.
nB _EXISTING FRONT -ELEVATION-
1 110
,p9II�uL
----
I I� II
I' II II
II al II
I' II II
I I
li II
it
—----EXISTNG SLMREn EtANK
1141r 0„
EXISMG TOP OF PARAPET �_14w
EXISTING T.Q_SLAB ELEV. -
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION A A
114"=l r-fyrr
I-AISTINU Tor OF PARAPET
NI�DM OF BEAM
EXISTING TOP OF CEILING
AT GARAGE
EXISTING T.O. SLAB ELEV.
PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION 2
D E
EXISTING TOP OF PARAPET �
N) BOSOM of BEAD+
EXISTING TOP OF CE1LIN
AT GARAGE
4H
LL EXISTING T,O- SLAR ELEV
I
PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION-
1/4"=14.011
DESIGN BUILD Inc.
Daz Arch Studio
Alberto Daza
Design Development. Planning. Construction Management
77570 Spnngfleld Ln, Suite L. Palm Desert, Ca. 9 211
Tel; 760,8135,4331 E. info@dazdesignbuild.com
Elevations/sectionsnotes
t REFERENCE NOTE ON PLAN TYPICAL
THREE COAT EXTERIOR PORLANb CEMENT PLASTER.
CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PER 2016 IRC SECTtON R703,5,R703A.1,
R703.6.2, R703.6.2, R703.2.1,R703.5.3, R703.6.4.
R703.6 EXTER10R PLASTER. INSTALLATION OF THESE MATERIALS SHALL BE IN
COMPt1ANCE 1N1TH ASTM C 926 AND ASTI44 C 1063 AND THE PROVISION5 OF
THIS CODE, R703.6.2 PLASTER. PLASTERING WITH PORTLAND CEMENT PLASTER
SMALL NOT BE LES5 THAN THREE COATS WHE14 APPLIED OVER METAL LAT14 OR
NALLpNOT BE LESS THAN TWOCOATSWHEN APPrI-IIjEI) OjV�ER MASONR Y,
J5
CONCRETE, PRE55URE-PRESERVATIVE TREATE13 ■X�I1�lD OR DECAY -RESISTIVE
W00t) AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION R317.1 DR GYPSUM BACKING. IF THE PLASTER
SURFACE IS COMPLETELY COVERED BY VENEER OR OTHER FACING MATERIAL
OR IS COMPLETELY rCONCEALEI), PI ASTER APPLICATIONS HEED BE ONLY TWO
COAT$ PROVI(IED THE T0TAL THICKNESS IS AS SET FORTH IN TABLE R702.1 j1
(nM" MINIMUM WHEN MEASURED FROM FRONT OF LATH, PAASONRY OR
CONCRETE - %" MINIMUM WHEN MEASURED FROM BACK OF LATHE EXCLUSIVE
OF RIBS!) ON WOOD -FRAME CONSTRUCTION WITH AN ON -GRADE FLOOR SLAB
SYSTEM, EXTERIOR PLASTER SHALL BE APPLIED TO COVER, BUT NOT EXTEND
t3El-O 1_ATIi, PAPER AND SCREED. HgRdCOAT STUCCO OVER LATHE MIST I9E
3 COATS AND FULL 718" THE PROPORTION OF AGGREGATE TO CEMENTITIOUS
MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN TABLE R7a2.1 j3),
EXTERIOR STIJCCO COLOR EQUAL -TO BF SELECTED BY OWNER
5693 M (ARROWROOT) FROM FRA EE, SMOOTH FINISH
BUILT UP ROOFING
OAF S B5 ROOF UL ER 1306-093 OR EQUAL OVER 1.5" 1NSUJ-,ATION BD,
SPECIFICATION NO. AAA-4-3 � d PLY CLASS "A" R00171NG
WITH GRAVEL SALAST AND 10 YEAR BOND (OR APPROVED EQUAL)
2X6 WOOD STUDS @ 16' D.C. W1 R,21 INSULATION
G.1. WEEP SCREED, SHALL BE PLACED MIN, OF iV"
ABOVE THE EARTH OR 2" ASOVIE PAVED AREAS (R703.6 21)
6X BEAM -SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
I> 2 x FASCIA
2 x @ 24" O.C. SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
I> EMSTING ALL EXTERIOR LIG14TS TO BE TO REMAIN
STEEL BEAWSEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
6" DIAMETER STEEL COLUMN -SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
EXISTING LOW WALL
PROJECT-
COVER PATIOS
Liverani RESIDENCE
API # 6 4-14'1-0 1
4 741 Jacqueline Qrcle,Palm Desert, a- 92260
INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
TKEW ORAYIWn ARE Ul kYMUMENT dF SERAC39 ANO REMI,IM nNE PROPERTY dF O!d DEPIGH 91148 UIC. THEY ARE 1@7 TO RE REPRODUCED OR
iXwi3OAlaiWmDT4ApirtkoWPom"*�:I; 6yr-
RKfUCU771% owRrrfN�mmmA�1FOAIPemNnumPwr
�ALL+TEREPIII+MyW�T'iykURiW
14+7�f1G WSION,
[ ATE,
� UMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER,
PLOT DAZE,
BRAWN BY:
RESREM.2020-03
02L20.20
CIAZ
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO:
SECTION/ELEVATIONS
A21
SCALP-- 1A W-Q'
7 �EE TOP OF PARAPET_
HIV) BOTTOM OF BEAM
— (E) 70P OF PLATE
(T,O, SI SAS_) — —
�APPROVED PAD')
nD �
(P (E:) TOP OF PARAPET
(N) BOTTOM OF BEAM -
(E) TOP OF PLATE
4 4
9
SECTION-
a
1/4" =1P_0P*
(E) 10P OF PARAPET
(N) BOTTOM OF BEAM
(E) TOP OF PLATE
t
fi
a
9
ic
C.0. SLAB.}
(APPROVED PAD'
I � I
SEC
_ (7.G. SLAB.) — —
co- Is (APPROVED PAD')
ROOF PLAN -
SCALE .114"=1'_0"
SEC
T10N_
114" =,1 -I}"
n
T10N_
114"= 1 P-0 P. C
DESIGN BUILD Inc.
A Daz Arch Studio
Alberto Daza
Design Development. Planning. Construction Management
77570 SpringNeld L.n, Suite L, Palm Desert, Ca. 9 211
Tel: 760.895,4331 E. info@ciazidosignbuild.com
Elevations/sections notes
t REFERENCE NOTE ON FLAN TYPICAL
TWEE COAT WERIOR PORLAN13 CEMENT PLASTER.
CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL PER 2016 IRC SECTION R7O3,6,R703A.1,
Ft7016.2, R703.6.2, R70312 1,R701&3. Ft703.6.4,
R703-6 E?ITE R10R PLASTER, INSTALLATION OF THFSE MATErRIAILS SHALL RE IN
C OM PLtAN CE WITH ASTM C 926 AND A C 1063 AND THE PROVISIONS OF
THIS CODE, R703.6.2 PLASTER. PLASTERING WITH PORTLAND CEMlENT PLASTER
SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THREE COATS WHEN APPLIED OVER METAL LATH OR
SHALL NOT RE LESS THAN TWO COATS WHEN APPLIED OVER MASONRY,
CONCRETE, PRES5UR>E-PRESERVATIVE TREATED WOOD OR DECAY -RESISTIVE
WOOD AS SPECIFIIED IN SECTION R317.1 0R GYPSUM SACKING, IF THE PLASTER
SURFACE IS COMPLETELY COVERED BY VENEER QR OTHER FAT: NG MATEWAL
OR IS COMPLETELY CONCEALED, PLASTER APPLICATIONS NEED BE ONLY TWO
COATS PROVIIIED THE TOTAL TFHI. KNE IS A5 SET FORTH IN TABLE R702.1 (1)
(Wa-MIKIMUM WHEN MEASURE13 FROM FRONT OF LATH. MASONRY OR
CONCRE fE - %" MINIMUM WHEN MEASURED FROM BACK OF LATHE E CLUSWE
OF RIBSI) ON # WOOD -FRAME CONSTRUCTEON WITH AN ON -GRADE FLOOR SLAB
SYSTEM, EXTERIOR PLASTER SHALL BE APPLIED TO COVER, BUT NOT EXTEND
BELOW LATH, PAPER AND SCREED. HARDC OAT STUCCO OVER LATHE Mt)ST 6E
3 GOATS AND FALL 718" THE PROPORTION OF AGGREGATE TO CEMENITITIOUS
MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN TABLE R702.1 (3),
r:XTERIOR STUCCO COLOR EQUAL -TO 0E SELF CTE0 BY O NIE<R.
5593 M (ARROWROOT) FROM FRAZEEE. SMOOTH FINISH
I> BUILT UP ROOFING
OAF $BS ROOF UL ER 1306-023 OR EQUAL OVER 1,5" 1NSUI.ATIQN BD.
SPECIFICATION NO. AAA -4-314 PLY CLASS "A" ROOFING
WITH GRAVEL SALAST AND 10 YEAR BOND (OR APPROVED EQUAL)
2 6 WOOD STUDS @ IV D.C. Wf R-21 INSULATION
G.1. WEEP SCREED, SHALL BE PLACED MiNF OF 4"
ABOVE. THE EARTH OR 2" A8OVE PAVED AREAS (R703.6.2,1)
GX BEAM -SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
2 x FASCIA
2 x 1& 24" O.C. SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS
EXISTING ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTS TO BE TO REMAIN
I> STEEL BEAM -SEE STRUCTURAL FLANS
$" 0IAMFTER STEEL COLVION-6EE STRUCTURAL PLANS
Roof plan notes
�REFERIENCE NOTE ON PLAN TYPICAL
BUILT UP ROOFING
GAF SBS ROOF UL ER 130"93 OVER 1,5" INSULATION IUD.
SPECIFICATION NO. AAA-4-3 14 PLY CLAS5 "A" R00FING
WITH GRAVr:L E3AL.A5T AND 10 YEAR 8f)ND (OR APPROVlza EOVAI`)
PROVIDE 112" PLYWOOD BACKING ON ALL VERTICAL. SURFACES AT
PARAPET WALL ABOVIE ROOF SHEA7HJNG TO RECEWE RQ0F1NG
MATERiAL5 TO BE VERIFIED,SEE STRUCTURAL DETAILS
TOP OF ROOF ON THIS PLAN FOR GENERAL INFORMATION TO BE VERIFIED
WITH STRUCTURAL DRAtiAIINGS_ STRUCTURAL DETAILS AND DRIAVVjNGS
WILL SUPEREEOE THESE INFORMATION
ALL FLAT ROOF AREAS TO RECEIVE TAPPERED RIG10 1NSULATIONI TO
PROVIDE MIN 114" PER FOOT SLOPE. ROOFING TO BE INSTALLED ON THE
TOP OF RIC31D IN UE ATION PER MANUFACTURER'S 3PECIFICATIDNS,
S TOP ELEVATIONS (TS TOW) ARE GIVEN FROM THE FINISH FLOOR AT T14AT
ROOM LOCATION TYPICAL
Roof Legend
T.0_13 xTOP OF PARAPET T_O,OH.--TQPOFCHIMNEY
T.O.R.-TOP OF RIDGE T.O,S.£TOP OF SHEATHING
TA_W =TCP OF WALL
COVER PATIOS
Liverani RESIDENCE
API # 6 4-141-0 1
4 741 Jacqueline Circle,Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
1NSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
MERE DRAWUM AHE LK k45TRUMENT DF SEIMU AN6 REMAIN PRE PROPEn" DF ILAZ OESMN sLIOLD L01C. 714EY ARE NM TO RE REPRODUCE] OR
ALTEnpiwA4yy+AYNgRMLMORAS&WjepitAHYPtumFAVYiM4UTTKkwftS� uV'NmmNpEMIftuft4FuxPeMNNUI4AINC
#SSUE PREVISION:
DATE,
NUMBER.
PROJECT NUMBER:
PLOT DATE:
DRAWN BY:
RESIREM. 2020-03
O .20-20
P 13AZ
SHEET TITLE:
SHEET NO:
SECTIONS/ROOF PLAN
A3
SCALE 1wa1'aI1
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
PREPARED BY: Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: Consideration of a recommendation to the Planning Commission for
approval of Conditional Use Permit 19-0002 to construct a 65-foot tall
monopalm wireless telecommunication facility and a 288-square-foot
equipment enclosure at 78-0005 Country Club Drive.
Recommendation
By Minute Motion, approve a recommendation to the Planning Commission (PC) for
the approval of preliminary design and site layout for the proposed wireless
telecommunication facility (WTF).
Background
A. Property Description
The project site is a 1.56-acre property, consisting of two (2) individual parcels, located
at the southwest corner of Washington Street (Washington) and Country Club Drive
(Country Club). The property is developed with a gas station, convenience store and
carwash. The existing structures are designed with mission/pueblo style architecture.
Access to the site is available on both street frontages via a private street, which
provides reciprocal access with the neighboring shopping center to the south.
The project site is within Zone E of the Bermuda Dunes Airport Compatibility Plan due
to its proximity to the Bermuda Dunes Airport approximately one mile to the east.
B. Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation:
Zone: District Commercial Center (PC-2)/Freeway Commercial Overlay
Zone (FCOZ)
General Plan: Industrial
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: P.C.-2, FCOZ / Commercial Center
South: P.C.-2, FCOZ / Commercial Center
East: City Boundary-County of Riverside / Commercial Center
West: P.C.-2, FCOZ / Life Storage – personal storage facility
June 7, 2020 – Staff Report
Case No. CUP 19-0002 – AT&T
Page 2 of 3
Project Description
The project applicant, AT&T-Smartlink, is requesting approval to construct a 65-foot tall
wireless telecommunications tower camouflaged as a palm tree at the corner of
Washington and Country Club. The tower will feature twelve (12) panel antennas, and
thirty-six (36) remote radio units (RRUs) mounted at a height of 56-feet and screened by
faux palm fronds. The tower will be placed within an existing landscape planter adjacent
to the carwash building. The applicant proposes to relocate existing palms within this
planter as a means to screen the monopalm.
This item previously appeared before the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) in
February 2020. The item was continued to allow the applicant to redesign the landscape
plan to provide additional palms along the site to screen the tower from adjacent streets,
and explore an alternative site at an existing vacant tower north of this proposed property.
The applicant has provided additional landscaping and a letter citing why the alternative
site is not viable.
Support equipment for the tower, consisting of multiple electrical cabinets and a backup
diesel generator, will be ground-mounted and placed within an 18-foot by 16-foot
enclosure. The walls of the enclosure will be 8-feet in height and finished with a white
smooth stucco to match the adjacent buildings. The enclosure is located adjacent to a
trash enclosure along Washington. Electrical and utility conduit between the enclosure
and tower will be trenched under an existing private drive. The facility will be unmanned
and operate 24 hours a day. The total lease area is approximately 660 square-feet.
Analysis
The Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) establishes development and design standards
for WTFs under Section 25.34.130. These standards are intended to minimize the visual
impact of towers by establishing maximum height, minimum separation distances
between towers, stealth design guidelines, and screening requirements for antenna and
equipment. The PDMC encourages stealth WTF designs and requires ARC approval to
ensure the facility blends in with the existing natural environment per PDMC Section
25.34.130 (O). The facility conforms PDMC requirements as follows:
*Separation standards may be waived by the commission for stealth design per PDMC 25.34.130 (O) (2)
STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROJECT CONFORMS
Height 65’-0” maximum 65’-0” Yes
Separation between towers 1,000’ minimum 908’ No*
Separation from residential 300’ minimum 500’ Yes
Front Setback - 72’-0” Yes
Rear Setback - 55’-0” Yes
Interior Side Setback - 36’-0” Yes
Street Side Setback - N/A N/A
June 7, 2020 – Staff Report
Case No. CUP 19-0002 – AT&T
Page 3 of 3
The proposed WTF conforms with height and setback requirements, but will require an
exception for separation distance from an existing tower located 908’ northwest at 77-988
Country Club. The applicant has provided plots showing a significant gap in cell signal
coverage in this vicinity and requiring a new facility. The applicant has also explored
alternative locations within this coverage gap, however due to lack of property owner
agreement and other zoning restrictions, these alternative locations have proven
infeasible.
The PDMC allows exceptions from separation requirements for towers designed as a
stealth installation. The proposed tower is designed to appear as a palm tree, and is
clustered with live palms to blend in with the surrounding area.
Overall, staff supports the proposed tower design. Staff recommends the ARC
recommend approval of the tower design to PC as presented.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEW CITY MANAGER
N/A
Robert W. Hargreaves
City Attorney
Eric Ceja
Principal Planner
N/A
Janet Moore
Director of Finance
N/A
Lauri Aylaian
City Manager
APPLICANT: AT&T - Smartlink
2033 San Elijo Avenue, Suite #600
Cardiff, CA 92007
ATTACHMENT: 1. Exhibits
Chris Doheny
T`
e� Wireless Development Specialist
3300 Irvine Ave, Ste 300
s m a r t l i n k Newport Beach, cellular
92550
�� 619.994.8528 cellular
Do, Ft � o chris.doheny@srnartiinkllc.com
AT&T Project Number; CSL02434
AT&T Project Name: Circle K
City of Palm Desert
Project Information and Justification
AT&T Mobility (AT&T) is requesting approval for the construction and operation of an unmanned wireless
telecommunications facility (cell site), and presents the following project information for your
consideration in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code section 25.34.130:
Project Location
Address: 78005 Country Club Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92211
APN: 632-070-052
Zoning: PC -Planned Commercial
Project Description
AT&T proposes to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 65 Ft. tail
faux "monopalm." tree. The antennas will be disguised within the branches of the palm tree which will
blend nicely with the many other trees in the near vicinity. The associated equipment cabinets will be inside
lease space and an 8 Ft high CMU wall, for security and placed in an unobtrusive section of the property.
AT&T will work with the City and the community to install a state-of-the-art stealth faux tree which will
provide a benefit to the residents and visitors of the City of Palm Desert.
AT&T is submitting an application for consideration of top height of the proposed Monopalm to be 65
Ft. Top of proposed antennas .is 60 Ft., with 5 feet of additional palm coverage.
Monopalm Design
The new 65 FT. Monopalm design is proposed to be in compliance with wireless code 25.34.130
Communication Towers and Antenna regulations; to minimize adverse visual impacts, to include additional
landscape screening and foliage socks colored to blend with palm fronds. The new Monopalm will include
80 Fronds total. Monopalm fronds to extend from 18 inches minimum up to 46 inches beyond the antennas.
We reduced the antenna array from 4 antennas per sector to 3 antennas per sector to provide for the
additional frond coverage. Monopalm Faux tree bark, textured and colored to snatch live palm tree.
Project Objectives
There are several reasons why a wireless carrier requires the installation of cell site within a specified area
to close a "significant gap in coverage:"
■ The radio signal must be of sufficient strength to achieve consistent, sustainable, and reliable
service to customers at a level sisfcient for outdoor, in -vehicle, and in -building penetration with
good voice quality (Threshold,-76db).
• When nearby other sites become overloaded, and more enhanced voice and data services are used
(4G and other high-speed data services) signal contracts and a gap is created. With heavy use it is
intensified due to the unique properties of digital radio transmissions.
In this specific case, this location was selected because AT&T's radio -frequency engineers (RF) have
identified a significant gap in coverage in the vicinity of I-10 and Washington St, in the City of Palm
Desert and the surrounding community as demonstrated on the submitted radio -signal propagation maps.
Findings/Burden of Proof
The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape.
AT&T is proposing a mono -palm design for this project which is a stealth design. The
requested height of the mono -palm design is the minimum height needed in order to fill
the significant gap in coverage for this project. The height restriction for the wireless
facilities is 65'. AT&T uses the most advanced technology and design when constructing
the mono -palm so as to blend the facility with the surrounding community and landscaping
and thereby minimizing the visual impact of the site.
The proposed location has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and
pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use.
The access to this site is immediately off Country Club Dr and Washington St. There are
adequate access routes directly to the proposed facility. All the roadways and access ways
within the facility are in compliance with local, state and federal regulations concerning
width and pavement.
The proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties.
The project will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties as it is a
stealth design that will blend naturally with the subject property and is far away from the
residential areas within the ring. The project will provide a public benefit of better wireless
telecommunications and data services to the surrounding neighborhoods and community.
The proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare.
The new wireless telecommunications facility is in high demand to the residents and
visitors of the County of Riverside. Wireless communications are vastly used in this area
and the need for this site was established entirely from increased usage of AT&T services
in the vicinity of the requested project.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location
In compliance with wireless code 25.34.130, communications towers may be approved within the zone
district of Planned Commercial (PC). AT&T proposed facility is located within a Planned Commercial zone
included in the guidelines as preferred.
Site Selection
Customer demand drives the need for new cell sites. Data relating to incomplete and dropped calls is
gathered, drive -tests are conducted, and scientific modeling using sophisticated software is evaluated. Once
the area requiring a new site is identified, a target ring on a map is provided to a real estate professional to
begin a search for a suitable location.
During an initial reconnaissance, properties for consideration for the installation of a cell site must be
located in the general vicinity of the ring, with an appropriate zoning designation, and appear to have
enough space to accommodate an antenna structure and the supporting radio equipment. The size of this
space will vary depending on the objective of the site. The owners of each prospective location are notified
to assess their interest in partnering with AT&T.
Four key elements are considered in the selection process:
• Leasing: The property must have an owner who is willing to enter into a long-term lease agreement
under very specific terms and conditions.
Zoning: It must be suitably zoned in accordance with local land -use codes to allow for a successful
permitting process.
Construction: Construction constraints and costs must be reasonable from a business perspective,
and the proposed project must be capable of being constructed in accordance with local building
codes and safety standards.
RF: It must be strategically located to be able to achieve the RF engineer's objective to close the
significant gap with antennas at a height to clear nearby obstructions.
Alternative Site Analysis
Other sites considered and approached by Smartlink leasing specialist include the list below and the reasons
they were either rejected or unavailable for this project's facilities.
Palm Plaza Club Center properties, Country Club Dr., we attempted to contact via phone call and a proposal
letter, copy included, without success or any expression of interest. The plaza was sold to the new owners
August 10, 2018 about the time we were trying to reach them.
American Tower Monopalm located on Palm Plaza property. Monopalm's are not suitable for Colocation.
While other trees like a monopine or monoeucalyptus are, these designs do not blend well with the local
topography and the city will not accept that design.
SBA Monopalm located on Palm Plaza property. Monopalm's are not suitable for Colocation. While other
trees like a monopine or monoeucalyptus are, this design does not blend well with the local topography and
the city will not accept that design. We have also addressed why the SBA Monopalm is not suitable to
Colocation in the attached letter from AT&T counsel.
SSCA Storage Facility, 40050 Harris Lane. Several attempts were made to contact the ownership at this
property without initial response. We eventually did receive a response after we were already moving
forward with plans on the current project.
Van Buren Self Storage, 39700 Garand Ln. Several attempts were made to contact the ownership of this
property without response.
Additional properties and land owners we also made attempts to contact without response or interest
include, 39750 Garand Ln commercial property, CVWD property (626-410-027), FountainHead Indio
(748-380-023), Majid Family Ltd, 78205 Country Club Dr.
I have included an overview of our search ring and property lots below to demonstrate the limited space we
are working with. We were also limited to the outer edges of the search ring to the west and south due to
residential zoning. It is not unusual within a small, dense primarily commercial search ring, that we only
get a few responses to work with. Space is limited within the search ring individual properties that would
enable this type of project and meet the codes for development, setbacks and separation.
AT&T made every effort to meet all setbacks, separation and height guidelines according to 24.34.130
Communications Tower and Antenna Regulations.
We modified our original proposal from 75 Ft to 65 Ft to meet ALUC guidelines. We changed our antennas
array from 12 antennas, 4 antennas per sector to 9 antennas, 3 antennas per sector to improve the design
and stealth screening of the facility.
The separation between the existing American Tower facility and the proposed AT&T facility is 1025 Feet
meeting the existing separation requirement. The approximate distance between the American Tower
facility and the old SBA/Sprint facility, terminated for service in 2018, is less than 200 Feet. Again,
Monopalm facilities do not provide for colocation in regards to height requirement and RF requirements to
service all technologies.
We improved the overall screening of the facility by adding additional palms and shrubbery around the
Monopalm and equipment enclosure. The equipment enclosure was raised from 6 Ft to 8 Ft to ensure
screening of all equipment.
The Benefits to the Community
Approximately 90-percent of American adults subscribe to cell phone service. People of all ages rely
increasingly on their cell phones to talk, text, send media, and search the Internet for both personal and
business reasons. More and more, they are doing these things in their homes, therefore, becoming reliant
on adequate service within residential neighborhoods. In fact, 50-percent of people relocating are not
signing up for landline service at their new location and are using their cell phone as their primary
communication method.
The installation and operation of the proposed facility will offer improved:
• Communications for local, state, and federal emergency services providers, such as police, fire,
paramedics, and other first -responders.
• Personal safety and security for community members in an emergency, or when there is an urgent
need to reach family members or friends. Safety is the primary reason parents provide cell phones
to their children. Currently 25% of all preteens, ages 9 to 12, and 75% of all teens, aged 13 to 19,
have cell phones.
• Capability of local businesses to better serve their customers.
• Opportunity for a city or county to attract businesses to their community for greater economic
development.
• Enhanced 911 Services (E911) — The FCC mandates that all cell sites have location capability.
Effective site geometry within the overall network is needed to achieve accurate location
information for mobile users through triangulation with active cell sites. (Over half of all 911 calls
are made using mobile phones.)
Safety — RF is Radio
The FCC regulates RF emissions to ensure public safety. Standards have been set based on peer -reviewed
scientific studies and recommendations from a variety of oversight organizations, including the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Although the purview of the public safety of RF emissions by the FCC was established by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, these standards remain under constant scrutiny. All AT&T cell sites
operate well below these standards, and the typical urban cell site operates hundreds or even thousands of
times below the FCC's limits for safe exposure.
AT&T Company Information
AT&T is one of the fastest growing nationwide service providers offering all digital voice, messaging and
high-speed data services to nearly 30 million customers in the United States.
AT&T is a "telephone corporation", licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
operate in the 1950.2-1964.8, 1965.2-1969.8 MHz and 1870.2-1884.8-1889.8 MHz frequencies, and a state -
regulated Public Utility subject to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC has
established that the term "telephone corporation" can be extended to wireless carriers, even though they
transmit signals without the use of telephone lines.
AT&T will operate this facility in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the
FCC, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the CPUC, as governed by the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, and other applicable laws.
The enclosed information is presented for your consideration.
location and design. Please contact me at 619-994-8528
questions or requests for additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
GlWi y Pof-l"
Chris Doheny, Smartlin.k, LLC
Authorized Agent for AT&T
Project Representative
Chris Doheny
Smartlink, LLC
19401 Von Karman Ave, Ste 400
Irvine, CA 92612
6.19-994-8528 cellular
chris.doheiiyZ smartlinkllc. com
AT&T Contact
Gunjan Malik, Project Manager
1452 Edinger Ave. 3`d Floor
Tustin, CA 92780-6246
Gm827w@att.com
562-650-5681
AT&T requests approval of the proposed
or chris.dohenyC;smarlinkllc.com for any
AT&T Project Site in
Properties researched for interest marked with X
Mb
BUSCH 1 A\A' f H.NIPI.1.0
VIA Certified US Mail Delivery
May 22, 2020
Architectural Review Commission
City of Palm Desert
c/o Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
City of Palm Desert, California
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: CUP 19-0002 — 78005 Country Club Drive (AT&T Smartlink 1 Chris Doheny)
Honorable Commissioners:
This law firm is counsel for AT&T in connection with the above referenced CUP
1.9-0002 ("CUP") for AT&T's proposed installation and operation of a communications
tower and associated equipment to be located at 78005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert,
CA 92211. This Letter is in response to SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC ("SBA") objection
letter dated February 25, 2020 ("SBA Letter") submitted to the Architectural Review
Commission by John A. Henning, Jr.
As you are fully aware, AT&T is currently in the process of obtaining approval
from the City of Palm Desert's Architectural Review Commission ("Commission") for its
CUP. The SBA Letter states several reasons as to why the Commission should deny
AT&T's CUP, two (2) of which AT&T will address in this Letter, subject to and
expressly reserving AT&T's right to provide additional comments and responses to all or
a portion of SBA's Letter.
1. SBA states in the SBA Letter that "A CUP is Not Warranted Because The
Project is Not Needed: The Same Coverage Can Be Achieved by Co -Locating
on the Nearby SBA Tower."
SBA's Letter states that there is a 55-foot tall SBA tower located just 908 feet
from AT&T's proposed site, and that such tower is designed to "co -locate" multiple
carriers' telecommunications equipment. Additionally, SBA's Letter further states that its
tower is presently vacant and has "plenty" of room to accommodate AT&T's equipment
on the tower and on the ground. SBA's tower is vacant and has been vacant as of
September 30, 2018 with no tenants and no further use by any other party. SBA's Letter
requests a denial of the CUP by the Commission because AT&T's proposed site does not
meet the 1000 foot separation distance between commercial towers as required by PDMC
sec. 25.34.130.F.3, and that there is no justification for granting an exception or waiver of
such rule. AT&T objects to SBA's request for denial of AT&T's CUP by the
Commission because SBA's tower is not compliant and does not legally conform with
the City of Palm Desert's ordinance. PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L "Abandonment" states that:
"In the event the use of any commercial communication tower has been discontinued for
a period of 180 consecutive days, the tower shall be deemed to have been abandoned.
Upon such abandonment, the owner/operator of the tower shall have an additional 180
days within which to: (1) reactivate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to another
owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower; or (2) dismantle and remove the
tower. At the earlier of 181 days from the date of abandonment without reactivation or
upon completion of dismantling and removal, any variance approval for the tower shall
automatically expire."
SBA's tower has been vacant since September 30, 2018 with no continued use for
180 consecutive days from such date, and without any reactivation during the subsequent
180 days following the expiration of the initial 180 days, and therefore SBA's tower is
deemed abandoned and the tower is required to be dismantled and removed pursuant to
PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L. Furthermore, because SBA did not reactivate the use of the
tower or dismantled and removed such tower within the time period required in the
ordinance, SBA's variance approval of the tower is automatically expired, therefore
SBA's tower is not a viable candidate for AT&T's site, and should not be considered as
"co -locatable" due to SBA's violation of the City's ordinance. The 1000 foot separation
distance between commercial towers is not applicable to AT&T because there is no
legally viable commercial tower within that separation distance, and none should be
considered because the SBA tower must be removed as required by City's municipal
ordinance PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L "Abandonment", and therefore the Commission is not
required to provide justification or grant an exception to such rule because AT&T's
proposed site complies with the City's 1000 foot separation distance requirement.
SBA's Letter also makes reference to numerous co -location agreements between
SBA and AT&T throughout the United States and in California, but fails to state that the
number of new agreements entered into by the parties in the Southern California market
in recent years has been extremely limited for various reasons, including without
limitation, the terms and conditions of the agreements, and the financial consideration
and cost of doing business with SBA for the initial site built and subsequent
modifications to the site. For the reasons stated in this paragraph, AT&T made a
determination that "co -locating" on SBA's tower is not feasible, economically or
otherwise. AT&T has successfully negotiated and secured a lease with Circle K Stores
Inc for AT&T's installation of its tower and equipment within the leased premises subject
to the CUP conditions and City of Palm Desert's approved CUP.
In conclusion, and for the reasons stated above, AT&T respectfully requests that
the Commission recommend approval of the CUP.
Regards,
Andrew Dye, ESQ.
Busch Law Firm PLLC
1724 Port Ashley PI
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(425)406-7861
EXHIBIT A
(Construction Drawings)
CODE COMPLIANCE
ALL WORKS ANO MATERIALS SHALL BE PERFORMED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WrTH
THE CURRENT EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING CODES AS ADOPTED BY THE LOCAL
GOVERNING AUTH0R[TIE S. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS IS TO 8E CONSTRUED TO PERMIT
WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE FOLLOW NO CODES-
1 . 2019 CAL IFORN[A BUILDING CODE 6, 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2, 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 7, COUNTY COASTAL ZONE LAND USE
AOOFITED 2017 NEC ORDINANCE -TITLE 23
3- 2019 CALIFORNIA F1RE MDE S- COUNTY I=IIRF CODE ORDRNANCE - TITLE 16
4, 2019 CAL IFORN[A MECHANICAL CODE 9. COUNTY LAND USE ORDINANCE -TITLE 22
5. 2019 CAL IFOR IA FLUMDING CODE 10-COUNTY BU11-01NG AND CONSTIRUCTION
ORD] NANCE -TITLE 19
PROJECT TEAR
CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE
COMPANY
SMAKI LINK, LLC
ADDRESS-.
33M IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300
CrrY,STATEZ P-
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92SED
CONTACT,
ALEXIS DUNLAP
PHONE_
(949) 83$7313
EMAIL:
adex1s_dudap@smardradc_=n
SITE ACQUISITION
COMPANY,
SMARTLINK, LLC
ADDRESS:
33DO IRVINE AVENUE, StffTE 300
CITY-STATE,ZIP-
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9266G
CONTACT'
ALEXI5 DUNLAP
PHONE=
(949) 638�-7313
EMAIL:
aleAs.dum1sp s"r00kHc.ccm
ZONING
COMPANY:
SMARTLINK. LLC
ADDRESS:
M IRVINE AVENUE, SLATE 3W
CITY. TATE,ZIP'
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9 %0
CONTACT'
ALE IS DUNLAP
PHONE
(949) 838-7343
EMAIL-
atexis.dunlap a War11[nk9c,oam
ENGINEER
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
COMPANY-
RECHTEL Otu MUNICA1104S, INC.
ADDRESS:
IM ARMSTRONGAVENUE SURTE225
OITY,STATE,71P:
IRVINE. GA 92606
COWACT:
RON VANDEIRWAL
PHONE'
(714) 34 -0931
EMAIL
rvanderw a echtel.mprl
TT PROJECT MANAGER
COMPANY
AT&T
ADDRESS-
3073 ADAM
CITY, TATE,ZIR
RIVERSOE. CA 20504
CONTACT:
BOB STURTEVANT
PHONE:
(714) 473-7268
EMAIL.'
rs1458 ad.com
97 .1 —1 f rr7.; 7 L.
COMPANY:
AT&T
ADDRESS:
3073 ADAMS
GRTY,STATE,ZJP:
RIVERSIDE- CA 205N
CONTACT:
BOB STURTEVANT
PHONE'
(714) 47-17268
EMAIL:
rs1458@attcam
RF ENGINEER
COMPANY,
CASA INDUSTRIES, INC.
COMPANY,
AT&T
ADDRESS:
4-430 E. MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE D
ADDRESS:
1+452 EDINGM AVE.
GITY,STATE,ZIP.
ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92807
CITY, TATE,OP-
TUSTIN. CA. 92780
CONTACT-
JULIUS SANTIAGO
CONTACT`.
SANDEEP MANGAT
PHONE.
(714) 553--8899
PHONE -
EMAIL
J ANTIACO CA AIND.COM
EMAIL
sm28C@a7T.COM
SITE INFORMATION
APPLICANT ! LESSEE
410111111111,
AT&T
Your world. Delivered
1452 EDINGER AVE. 3RU FLOOR
TUSTIIN. CALIFORNIA 92780
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME,
CIRCLE IK STORES ING.
ADDRESS
i IOD SITUS COURT, SUITE #1GO
GTTY,STATErZIP-
RALElGH. NC 27806
CONTACT:
MARK KESTNSALJM (REAL STATE MANAGER)
PHONE:
(919) 7746700, exL 6059
EMAIL:
rnkeMnba ca ardek,00rn
LATITUDE:
33-46'25.' 7" (23.757102N
LQNOrFUOE.
1 IT1912-5W (-116.30497)W
LATJLOAIG- TYPE:
NAD 83
GROUND ELEVATK) N:
112.9 XIVI3.L,
ABOVE GROUIJa LEVEL-
-
APN #k
632-07"52 (PARENT PARCEL.) & 6U-070-023
AREA OF CONSTRtLCTIOAI:
660 SQ FT.
ZONING � JLJMSDIGTI0N-.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CURRENTZONING:
PC- PLANNED COMMERDAL
PROPOSED USE:
UNMANNED TELECO'MMLINICATIONS FACILITY
HANDICAP REQUIREMENTS'.
FPOLITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HLff4L\N
HABfTAT10N. HMIDTOAPPEQ ACCESS NOT REQUIRED
OCCUPANCY:
u
TYPE OF ODNSTRUCTION:
V-8 (UNMANNED TELECOM}
AUTOMATIC RRE S INkKL1ER.
NO
t41=0
z::;6,
Your world. Delivered
SITE NUMBER: CSL02434
SITE NAME: CIRCLE K
FA NUMBER: 13024049
USID NUMBER: 226553
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR.
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
VICINITY TAP LOCAL MAP
.�'tl�at�rtsC Iti'tw�katsl� '� �'
p
Vumpl' kll
E6S cites -mm • � �{-
ib qp
c
1}'104s�.is1t}[r _ I —
/ IF';Wrurp . -nib -F fr-■
.I.Ij lTI€111i
r
16
$+F►Pl{aUk€ r7MII _ Y III ,, k
Ll=a � LLII
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
DIRECTIONS FROM AT&T OFFICE: TURN LEFT DNTO EDINGER AVE, USE THE LEFT 2 LANES TO TURN LEFT ONTO DEL AMO AVE. USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TAKE THE RAMP DNTO CA-55 N STATE RTE 55 N. MERLE
ONTO CA-55 NSTATE RTE 55 N. MERGE ONTO CA-91 E. USE THE FIGHT 2 LANES TO TARE EXIT 65 B FOR CA-60 E1-215 5 TOWARD SAN DIEGOIND10. MERGE ONTO CA-60 E. CONTINUE ONTO CA-60 Ef1-215
S. KEEP LEFT AT THE FORK TO CONTINUE ON GA-60 E. USE ANY LANE TO TAKE THE INTERSTATE 10 S EXIT. MERGE ONTO 1-10 E. TAKE EXIT 137 FOR WASHING70N 5T, USE THE RIGHT 2 LANES TO TURN FIGHT
ONTO WASHINGTON ST. TURN RIGHT. TURN RIGHT. DESTINATION WILL BE ON THE RIGHT IMMEDIATELY AFTER CROSSING COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE.
SEE LS— (PENDING)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
' DIAL TOLL FREE
1-800-227-2600
[sill ' AT LE4ST TVlfl 1hURKING
�1 DAn BEFORE YOU DIG
U[JDERGROLIND SERVICE ALERT [IF WLrrHERN Cb.UFDRHLk
APPROVALS
THE FOLLOWING PARTIES HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCENT THESE DOCUMENTS &
AUTHORIZE THE SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DESCRIBED
HEREIN. ALL DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LOCAL BUILDING
DFPARTMENT & MAY Ill POSE CHANGES OR MODI ICATI0NS-
DISCIPLINE:
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
AT&T RI` ENGINEER -
AT&T OPERATIONS:
SITE ACQUISITION_
C'ONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
PROPERTY OWNER,
._ONING VENDOR.
FRO JECT MANAGER'
GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS
SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANS & EXISTING DIMENSIONS & CONDITION$ ON
THE JOB SITE & SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IN WRITING OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK OR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME.
GENERAL NOTES
THE FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND NOT FOR HUMAN HABITATION. A TECHNICIAN WILL VRSIT
THE SITE AS REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT I
ANY SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OR EFFECT ON DRAINAGE: NO SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE, POTABLE WATER. OR TRASH DISPOSAL IS REOUIREI] AND NO COMMERCIAL
SIGNACE IS PROPOSED -
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OUTDOOR E U I PM ENT
'AT&T' PROPOSES
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN AN UNMANNED WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY. THIS FACILITY WILL CONSIST OF THE FDLLOWINO:
*
INSTALL
1 (P)
65'-0° HIGH MONOPALM.
•
INSTALL
9 (P)
$' PANEL ANTENNAS (3 PER SECTOR),
*
INSTALL
36 (P)
LTE RRUS AT ANTENNA LEVEL (12 PER SECTOR).
•
INSTALL
1 (P)
' 0 MW ANTENNA.
•
INSTALL
4 (P)
DC-9 SURGE SUPPRESSORS (SQUID),
•
INSTALL
1 (P)
DELTA ')NALK UP CABINET" (WUC) WITH PPC. ATS AND CAMLOCK.
•
INSTALL
1 (P)
DC POWER PLANT INSIDE Vti K.
•
INSTALL
2 (P)
FIF RACKS INSIDE W1JC.
•
INSTALL
3 (P)
DC-12 OUTDDOR UNIT.
•
INSTALL
I (P)
20KW 190 CAL, CENERAC DIESEL GENERATOR.
INSTALL
1 (P)
GPS ANTENNA.
*
INSTALL
(P) UTILITY CABINETS.
+
IN TALL
(P) TEL
O H-FRAME,
*
INSTALL
1 (P)
8' CMU WALL SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH.
•
INSTALL
3 (P)
SERVICE LIGHTS,
DRAWING
INDEX
:SHEET
1.111
SHEET TITLE
T-1
TITLE SHEET
L —1
SITE SURVEY
LS-2
SURVEY NOTES
A-1
SITE PLAN AND ENLARGED STE PLAN
A-2
LEASEA AREA/ANTENNA PLAN AND
ANTENNARRU SCHEDULE
A-3
ELEVATONS
A-4
ELEVA110NS
L-1
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
AT&T
1452 EDINGER AVE
TU TI , CALIFORNIA 92780
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS
IS PROPRIETARY do CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS R RELATES
TO AT&T WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED
smartlain ;
3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
TE L (949) 387-1265
FAK (949) 387-1275
A430 E. MIRALGMA AVE. ;QUITE D
ANARHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92807
I
5
05/06 20
101% _ZD — DRM GOMM
A
❑ 3 f 3❑ f 2❑
REVISED ZDs
3
02/03 20
PL&NNING COMMENTS
01/14/20
100% ?D — DRM COMMENTS
1
11118119
104 M — DRM COMMENT,
0
10 31 19
100% ZONING DR6MINGS
B
10 18 19
= ZONING DRAWINGS
REV
❑ATI`
DESCRIPTION
NOT TO BE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UN❑ER THE DIRECTION
OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
CSL02434
CIRCLE K
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR.
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
MONOPALM (OUTDOOR)
DRAWN BY: CHECKED B:
RJS
SHEET TITLE:
TITLE SHEET
SHEET NUMBER:
T-1
`Jp
WE�Ck
VICINITY
MAp
T_ S.
Q
Q
n
COUNTRY CLUB
OR A
0
PROJECT
AREA
d�
EMERALD CREST DR
Q
AVE 41
COUNTRY CLUB DR
P.O.C- (PUBLIC ROAD)
W
p I
x W
00
Q0
f'rl
co
cc
S89°44'34"E
34.93' S89'44'34"E 6
LC'1
CD
SEE Su DEfAI PARENT PARCEL
APN: 632-070-023
IC' COMMUNICATIONS 60' PUE
1-'_I EASEMENT 1
PARENT PARCEL
-4' (TIE LINE) APN. 632-070-052-�,,Ei
tv
0' (TIE LINE) '
20' PIPELINE .APN: 632-070-053
EASEMENT'
20' PIPELINE
EASEMENT
1
SURVEY DATE
10/18/2018
BASIS OF BEARING
HEAIRINCE SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON U_5. STATE PLANE
NAD83 COORDINATE SYSTEM CALIFORNIA STATE PLANE COORDINATE
ZONE SIB{, DETERMINED BY CPS OBSERVATIONS.
BENCHMARK
PROJECT ELEVATIONS ESTABLISHED FROM CPS DERIVED ORTHOMETRIC
HEIGHTS BY APPLICATION OF NGS 'GEOID 12B' MODELED SEPARATIONS
TO ELLIPSOID HEIGHTS DETERMINED BY OBSERVATIONS OF THE
'CALVRS' REAL TIME NETWORK. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE
REFERENCED TO N AVD88_
UTILITY NOTES
SURVEYOR DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT ALL UTILITIES ARE SHOWN OR
THEIR LOCATIONS ARE DEFINITE- IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR AND DEVELOPER TO CONTACT BLUE STAKE AND ANY
OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION. REMOVAL, RELOCATION AND/CR REPLACEMENT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
FLOOD ZONE
1 N
A
NORTH
SCALE. r =100'
OVERALL DETAIL
THIS PROJECT APPEARS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN "OTHER AREAS ZONE
X" ACCORDING TO FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
INSURANCE RATE MAP NO. 06055C1620G, 08/25/2008,
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
SURVEYOR HAS NOT PERFORMED A SEARCH OF PUBLIC RECORDS TO
DETERMINE ANY DEFECT IN TITLE ISSUED.
THE BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS PLOTTED FROM RECORD
INFORMATION AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF
THE PROPERTY.
ALL DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE GRID DISTANCES.
LEGEND
NG
NATURAL GROUND
AP
TOP OF ASPHALT
ICV
IRRIGATION CONTROL
VALVE LP
LIGHT POLE
WM
WATER METER
CONC
TOP OF CONCRETE
BLDG
TOP OF BUILDING
FC
FACE OF CURS
D/W
ACCESS DRIVEWAY
®
BOULDER
BUSH
DECIDUOUS TREE
PALM TREE
POSITION OF
GEODETIC COORDINATE
SPOT ELEVATION
SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
MAJOR CONTOUR INTERVAL
-
-
MINOR CONTOUR INTERVAL
POSITION OF GEODETIC COORDINATE
LATITUDE 33`45'25.57" (33.757102) NORTH NAD83}
LONGITUDE 116°18'12.59" (116.303497) WEST (NAD8 `)
GROUND ELEVATION (9 112.5' (NAVDBB)
GRAPHIC SCALE
15: ❑ 7.5 15 30
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 15 fL
PARENT PARCEL
APN; 632-070-023
111.8 111.4
EC 112.3 FC
APB
11A.1 1
-- _ AP PAINT STRIFE 134.3
129.1 (TYP) r LP
BLDG - -
,+ 111FC
125.7
ASPHALT TREE
PARKING LOT 127.0
FF 112.2 j TREE
I
I NOC-00'00"E
BUILDING
16.00'
P.O,g, ��I
PROPOSED AT&T l
- 1 Wx18'LEASE AREA
589°4-4'34"E 713.44' �-
111.E CTIE-LINE} 1TREE
N90`00'00"W
I FC 134.5 1 S.QQ'
129.Q ell, LP 111.7 PROPOSED AT&T
BL❑G: � �
FC 135.9 1 UTILITY ROUTE
111.4 PALM• 1�)CAPE'll
FC �GRA112.0 LANDS
GRAVEL FC THE
JLA�DS6�PEL _
136.2 �p LV, �.
PALM �'� 1 QICV
•1 7F 1RADIUS
E / ®)111.5
TOWER LEASE AREA
FC fl Iy:l:
' L FC 134.2 �!
PIPELINE EAS ENT- PALM
LP
RADIUS POINT OF
PROPOSEDAT&T
TOWER LEASE AREA
11 & POSITION OF
FC -GEODETIC COORDINATE
127.7 •
BLDG
' + 6 C) PIPELINE
EASENI ENT
TRANSFORMER
ON CONCRETE
P,O,T,�
UTILITY EASEMENT,
4' BLOCK WALL
112.8
AP
- - - 1 r- FC
134-8
LP
�<J
TREE
6 \ r
r r
�c N90°00'00"E L J
1 8.00'
L
--- S00`00'00"E
1 6.00'
FC 114.5 '
PARENT PARCEL 111FC TREE ;
APN: 632-070-052
OWM 13' PUEr�
' 0)
� CURB � � FC�
--�TyP) 1
117.6
ZE,E
' 1
r' A
J BLDG FC i
f 11�� r '
BLDG 1 1
i
r,
11D•9 '
FC i
,r
,/ 1 ' 110.i
i
PROPOSED AT&T r� i � FC
1 .5' POWER TRENCH
BUILDING ASPHALT
PARKING LOT
,r
�r
�r
r'
�r
r�
APN: 632-070-053 rr i
- GR S 11 D.o
FC
LAND APE
7' BLOCK WALL
(TRASH ENCLOSURE)
1 D-0.8
FC
MONUMENT SIGN
TELECOM VAULT
55' R/W
I
S�wwwol
S'".�..0041 at&t
1452 EDINGER AVENUE.
3RD FLOOR
TUSTIN, CA 92780
ambit consulting
410 E. SOUTHERN AVE. TEMPE, AZ M282
PH. (480) 659-4072
A & A
I N D U S T R I E 5
10650 REAGAN ST. #482
LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA 90720
2
1 1 /15/ 19
NEW DESIGN (LO)
1
03/14/2GI9
TITLE & DESIGN (❑H)
0
03/07/2019
UPDATE TOWER LOCATION (MW)
A
11/❑7/2018
INITIAL ISSUE (1-0)REV
GATE
DESCRIPTION
IT IS A VIDLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR,
TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
CSL02434
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHEET TITLE
SITE SURVEY
SHEET NUMBER
LS-1
SCHEDULE "D42 NOTE
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE TITLE REPORT ORDER #09208318-920-CN1M-CMS, ISSUED BY COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, DATED OCTOBER 19, 2❑18. ALL EASEMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN SAID TITLE REPORT AFFECTING THE IMMEDIATE AREA SURROUNDING
THE LEASE HAVE BEEN PLOTTED.
LESSOR'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
at&t
1452 EDINGER AVENUE.
3RD FLOOR
TUSTIN, CA 92780
SCHEDULE "B" EXCEPTIONS 1,
4, AND 12 ARE NOT SURVEY MATTERS AND CANNOT BE PLOTTED.
PARCEL A:
SCHEDULE
"B" EXCEPTION 3
IS TERMINATED AND NO LONGER AFFECTS PARCEL.
PARCEL(S) 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 20316, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
QEASEMENT(S)
FOR THE
PURPOSES SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS RESERVED IN A DOCUMENT;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 148 PAGES 15 TO 16, OF PARCEL MAPS.,
-
RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
PURPOSE: PUBLIC UTILITIES
AND PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES
RECORDING DATE:
APRIL 27, 1979
PARCEL B:
RECORDING NO:
85695, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AFFECTS:
A PORTION OF SAID LAND
THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 2 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 20316, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
THE EFFECT OF A QUITCLAIM
DEED TO WASHINGTON CENTER LIMITED
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 148 PAGES 15
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING
MAY 31, 1991
OFFICIAL
TO 16, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
ambit consulting
NO.:
91-181304, OF RECORDS
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2 OF SAID PARCEL MAP SAID POINT
AS SHOWN ON SURVEY
BEING ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 88,00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE AT
410 E. SOUTHERN AVE. TEMPE, AZ 85282
EASEMENT(S)
FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT:
SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 65' 20' 47" WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND
PH. (480) 659-4072
�-�
GRANTED TO:
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT A OF SAID PARCEL MAP THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05' 56'
PURPOSE:
PIPELINES, AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
RECORDING DATE:
MARCH 3, 1988
31" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 9.13 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE
RECORDING N0:
88-56398, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 112.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
AFFECTS:
A PORTION OF SAID LAND
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11' 28' 42" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 22.44 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING
A PORTION OF SAID EASEMENT
HAS BEEN QUITCLAIMED BY DOCUMENT
ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT A SOUTH 19' 07' 02" WEST 121,01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7:0` 52'
RECORDING DATE:
MAY 19, 1998
58" WEST 136,29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89' 33' 34" WEST 69.16 FEET; THENCE NORTH oc, 15, 26" EAST
RECORDING NO,:
98-199772, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
137.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 44' 34" EAST 80.00 FEET TO AN EAST LINE OF PARCEL 5, SAID POINT
AS SHOWN ON SURVEY
EASEMENT(S) FOR THE
PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT:
BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF
30.00 FEET, A RADIAL AT SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 89' 44' 34" EAST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
GRANTED TO:
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90' 00' 00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47,12 FEET;
� � � $ T � � E S
PURPOSE:
EASEMENT, AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
THENCE SOUTH 89* 44' 34" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 A DISTANCE OF 121.0�1
RECORDING DATE:
MARCH 4, 1988
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65" 20' 47" EAST 21,70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING..
RECORDING NO:
88-57896, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AFFECTS:
A PORTION OF SAID LAND
SAID LEGAL IS SHOWN AS LOT 4 OF THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 97-12
A PORTION OF SAID EASEMENT
HAS BEEN QUITCLAIMED BY DOCUMENT
RECORDED JUNE 20, 1997, INSTRUMENT NO. 97-218155, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
10650 REAGAN ST. #482
RECORDING DATE:
MAY 19, 1998
LDS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA 90720
RECORDING N0.:
98-199772, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AS SHOWN ON SURVEY
EASEMENT(S) FOR THE
PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT;
LEASE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GRANTED TO:
GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
DESCRIPTION FOR A 16'x18' AT&T LEASE AREA, BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO.
PURPOSE:
EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
20-316, IN THE. CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP
RECORDING DATE:
JULY 21, '19BB
ON FILE IN BOOK 148 PAGES 15 TO 16, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,
RECORDING NO:
88-203534, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AFFECTS:
A PORTION OF SAID LAND
COMMENCING AT THE APPARENT CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND HARRIS LANE
2
11/15/19
NEW DESIGN (LQ)
AS SHOWN ON SURVEY
AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP FROM WHICH A POINT OF CURVATURE IN THE CENTERLINE OF SAID
8.
EASEMENT(S) FOR THE
PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT;
HARRIS LANE BEARS SOUTH 0015' 26" WEST, 646.63 FEET;
1
03/14/2019
TITLE & DESIGN (DH)
GRANTED TO:
GTE CALIFORNIA INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION
THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID HARRIS LANE, SOUTH 00-15' 26" WEST, 362.82 FEET:
o
03/07/2019
UPDATE TOWER LOCATION (MW)
PURPOSE;
POLE LINES, AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89444' 34" EAST, 713.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF
RECORDING DATE:
DECEMBER 5, 1985
BEGINNING;
A
1 1 f97f2�18
INITIAL ISSUE (LO}
RECORDING NO:
88-354227, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
THENCE NORTH CO'00' CC" EAST, 16.00 FEET;
REV
[SATE
DESCRIPTION
AFFECTS,
A PORTION OF SAID LAND
THENCE NORTH 90`00' 00" EAST, 18.00 FEET;
BLANKET IN NATURE
EASEMENT(S) FOR THE
PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT:
THENCE SOUTH D0°0' " EAST, 16.FET;
GRANTED TO:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
THENCE NORTH 9D°O0' 0000" EAST, 18.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PURPOSE:
EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES., AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
CONTAININC 288 SQUARE FEET (0.007 ACRES) OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
RECORDING DATE:
FEBRUARY 2, 1989
RECORDING NO:
89-34647, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AFFECTS_
A PORTION OF SAID LAND
AS SHOWN ON SURVEY
TOWER LEASE AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION
10,
EASEMENT(S) FOR THE
PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT:
DESCRIPTION FOR A CIRCULAR AT&T LEASE AREA, HAVING A RADIUS OF 11 FEET, BEING A PORTION OF
GRANTED TO,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 20316, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF
PURPOSE:
EITHER OR BOTH POLE LINES, CONDUITS OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES., AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO
CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 148 PAGES 15 TO 16, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF
RECORDING DATE:
MAY 18, 1989
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, CENTER POINT OF SAID CIRCULAR LEASE AREA BEING MORE
RECORDING NO:
89-161731, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS_
AFFECTS:
A PORTION OF SAID LAND
DOES NOT AFFECT PARENT
PARCEL - NOT SHOWN
COMMENCING AT THE APPARENT CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND HARRIS LANE
11.
MATTERS CONTAINED IN
THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENT
AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP FROM WHICH A POINT OF CURVATURE IN THE CENTERLINE OF SAID
ENTITLED:
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS, GRANT OF EASEMENTS. AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
HARRIS LANE BEARS SOUTH 00°15' 26" WEST, 646.63 FEET;
DATED_
JULY 31, 2007
THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID HARRIS LANE, SOUTH 00°15 �6' WEST, 397.80 FEET;
EXECUTED BY,
FOREMOST AIRPORT VEGAS, LTD_, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND MOBILE OIL
THENCE, DEPARTING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89°44' 34" EAST, 54100 FEET TO THE CENTER POINT OF
CQRMOS
CORPORATION, ANEW JERSEY CORPORATION
SAID CIRCULAR TOWER LEASE AREA .
RECORDING DATE:
AUGUST 2, 2QOO
CONTAINING 380 SQUARE FEET {0.009 ACRES} OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
RECORDING NO:
2000-298241, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
REFERENCE IS HEREBY
MADE TO SAID DOCUMENT FOR FULL PARTICULARS.
IT IS A VIOLATION iDF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
NOT PLOTTABLE
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION
13.
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS BUT OMITTING. ANY COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, INCLUDING BUT NOT
ACCESS NOTE
OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR,
TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
LIMITED TO THOSE BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS,
DISABILITY, HANDICAP,
NATIONAL ORIGIN, CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION STATUS, PRIMARY LANGUAGE, ANCESTRY, SOURCE OF
RESERVING NONEXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF USE ACROSS LESSOR'S PROPERTY FOR NECESSARY APPURTENANCES
INCOME, GENDER, GENDER
IDENTITY, GENDER EXPRESSION, MEDICAL CONDITION OR GENETIC INFORMATION, AS SET FORTH
TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A COMMUNICATION FACILITY FOR ITEMS SUCH As, BUT NOT
IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY
LIMITED TO INGRESS, EGRESS, PARKING, VEHICULAR MANEUVERING, EQUIPMENT, AND UTILITIES,
CSL02434
APPLICABLE LAW, A5 SET
FORTH IN THE DOCUMENT
RECORDING DATE:
NOVEMBER 01, 2011
RECORDING NO'
2011-4826C2, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR
NOT PLDTTABLE
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHEET TITLE
SITE SURVEY
SHEET NUMBER
LS-2
' I
I 1
S�CTOR'C
I ,
I � I
+ I I
j
I I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I j t
II I
PROPEF Ff LINE
dr
F_I i I
I � �
I I I
I I I
I I I i I H
FORMER
A
(E) CMU WALL
I I I �� (E� TRAS ENCL05l�RE �+
I I I j I
j ' 1 ENLARGED SITE PLAN _ _ _ _ -_ _ -PROPERTY LINE
I �
I i _
I Z (E) PARKING
AREA ! I,
j I I I i I I _=.' _ (E) GTE VAULT
w
+ f
I 1 I I I I j Y` K xI x -(P) 17"X30" MMP PULL
I I 1 �
BOX (TELCO P.O.C,1
I CD I I I Ij I Ij � 1;Cj BUILGIIJG _ 1_ f
I I '� T—e-T;-- T 1
� I I I I I
I I ; APN; lip y ' . -- -_- { (P) UNDERGROUND 2"A r
1 63-070-052 I - -_-. TELCO CONDUIT TRENCH
I r `-- *� -
(P) LOCATION OF (E) 1 r r (APPROX. 75 )
+ I RELOCATED PALM TREES,
TYP, DF 2
r I (P) 17X30 HANDHOLE
I I j I I f
I
I I I I I I
mo
ICI _ - r Q f �
I If
r
-#�� � -.. (E) EASEMENT
I ,
r 1 r
+ f . E 0RI 'EI Al -41
I
r
' (E) EkSENI -
%9CTOR ' f
� f
190 I _ f
(E) PARKING
I i I ('E) BUILDINn AREA �+ +
I �
I++ I f
I (P) UNDERGROUND POWER
TRENCH (APPROX. 290') ,
I I I + +
-L --- -- - ---- -- -- '�
r
(E) VAULT JVI32. ;� {
(POWER P.O.C.) jJf
I �1
I ,
NDTE:
UTILITY DESIGN IS PROPOSED AND BASED ON THE DESIGN VISIT, FINAL UTILIT-1:
COORDINATION WILL DETERMINE THE POINT OF CONNECTION AND ROUTE,
r
co
f
SECTOR 'A'
0
f =*N-
.'
if iI ._-
If 11 ' I . 77
NOTE:
1. PROPOSED GENERATOR AND EQUIPMDIT CABINETS ARE LESS THAN
8' TALL AND WILL BE SCREENED BY THE PROPOSED CMU WALLS.
I 2- EXISTING DEAD CANOPY TREES TO BE REPLACED BY CONT TOR-
(E) BUILDING
CTR rr!
(E) PALM TREE
TO REMAIN
t
i (E) PARKING AREA
- - - ----_.
REPLACE (E) PARKINSONIA
FLORIDA CANOPY TREE SPOOR
HEALTH CONFIRMED IN FIELD)
24" BOX NATURAL SHAPE, TYP,
(SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) -
(P) LEUCOPHYLLUM
FRUTESCENS TEXAS- RANGER
SHRUH5, TYP. (SEE
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS) j
LEASE AREA PLAN
SECTF 'Aw
(P) LDOATION OF (E) RELDCATEb-
PALM TREES, TYP. OF
} x�
(P) UNDERGI
TELCO COND
(APPRO'X. 1 C
(P) U G CDAX FIBER DC POWER
CONDUIT ROUTE (APPROX. t1D0')
(E) LIGHT PDST,
TYP.
- � ANTENNA LOCATION
(P) 17'X30" MMP PULL
BOX (TELCO P.Q.C.)
(E) PALM TREES TO
BE RELOCATED,
TYP, OF 2
SECTOR B
1900
EXISTING PALM
TYPICAL OF 2
(E) EASEMENT
- r
2
A-3
1f
F.I 1= f 7rI
AT&T
1452 EDINGER AVE-
TU TIN, CALIFORNIA 92780
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS
IS PROPRIETARY do CONFIDENTLAL TO AT&T WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES
TO AT&T WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED
gsmartl'inb
3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
TEL (949) 387-1265
FAXI- (949) 387-1275
A430 E. MIRALGMA AVE. SUITE 1)
ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92807
I
5
05/06 20
100% ZD — DRM COMMENTS
4
03f30/20
REVISED ZDs
3
02/03 20
PL&NNING COMMENTS
01f14/20
100% ?D — DRM COMMENTS
1
11 18 19
104 ZD — DRM COMMENTS
0
10 31 19
100 ZONING DRAWINGS
B
10 18 19
�0% ZONING DRAWINGS
RE'J
DATA
DESCRIPTION
NOT TO BE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
k
CSL02434
CIRCLE K
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR.
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
MONOPALM (OUTDOOR)
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:
RJS a
SHEET TITLE:
SITE PLAN &
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
SHEET NUMBER:
Aml
SITE PLAN
SCALE: N-9 �_:: mEm 2
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
SCALE:1
118 111=I-014
c1 NOTES:
AZIMUTH • NEW ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAINTED T4 MATCH
C2 350' THE PROPOSED MCNOPALM AND WILL INCLUDE FOLIAGE SOCKS.
C3
AZIMUTH MONOPALM FROND COUNTS = 80 TOTAL OF FRONDS, AZIMUTH 350' —
35G' a' _O,r
AZIMUTH
1 9D° B3
AZJ MUTH
19 0°
ANTENNA PLAN
�P) LTE RRUs STACK
MOUNTED BEHIND (P)
ANTENNAS (9 PER SECTOR)
A3
AZIMUTH
90,
(P) DC-9 SURGE
(SQUID), TYP OF 4
A
AZIMUTH
9O°
(P) 8' PANEL ANTENNAS
- (3 PER SECTOR)
Al
AZIMUTH
9 D"
(P) 2'0 MW ANTENNA
PROPOSED ANTENNA AND TRANSMISSION CABLE REQUIREMENTS
Ar- ENNA
TRANSMISSION LINES I'LENCTH FT + —)
SECTOR
PROPOSED
ANTENNA
D
AIR/HEX/8—PORT
SIZE (4'; �'; B')
JUMPER
DC CABLE (A'NG B)
TECHNDLOGI
AZIMUTH
CENTER
ce
Al
LTE
S—PORT PANEL
8'
90
56'—Q"
12'
+ — 70
ANTENNA
A2
LTE
8-PORT PANEL
at
90,
56,-0,
<12'
+ - 70'
ANTENNA
A3
LTE
8—PORT PANEL
8'
90,
56'-0'
<12'
+ — 70'
ANTENNA
Al
LTE
8—PORT PANEL
S'
190'
5 —O"
12
+— 70'
�
ANTENNA
e"+,
A2
LTE
S—PORT PANEL
8'
190'
56,-0,
<12'
+ — 70'
ANTENNA
A3
LTE
8—PORT PANEL
8'
190'
S —O"
12
+— 70'
°3
ANTENNA
Al
LTE
8—PORT PANEL
ap
35CY
56,—O"
12'
+ — 70'
ANTENNA
Ld
"'
A2
LTE
8—PORT PANEL
a'
350'
56'-0'
< 12'
+ — 70'
#
ANTENNA
A3
LTE
8—PORT PANEL
all
35Q'
56,—O"
<12'
+— 70'
ANTENINA
REMOTE RADIO UNITS (RRU'S)
RRU LOCATION
MINIMUM CLEARANCES
SECTOR
RRU UP OR QQWN
RRU COUNT
(DISTANCE FROM ANTENNA)
ABOVE
BELOW
SIDES
Al
UP
3
<12'
18"
8'
B9
t3
A2
UP
3
<1 Z'
13"
8"
5'
A3
UP
3
0 2'
o
Bl
UP
3
<1z
18"
8"
8'
LLJ
fn
B2
UP
3
<1 Z'
18
8•
Bp"
-
m
B3
UP
l
18"
8'
B9
C1
UP
3
<12'
18"
8'
8,
w
C2
UP
3
<12'
18"
s"
B'
C3
UP
3
<127
18"
8"
8'
SCALE:
2 I
I
(P) LEUCOPHYLLUM
FRUTESOENS TEXAS RANGER
SHRUBS, TYP, (SEE
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS)
EQUIPMENT LEASE AREA SF
ANTENNA. LEASE AREA SF
TOTAL LEASE AREA
88
81
669 SF
18'-p"
(P) 'AT&T' LEASE AREA
`{ k
k
(P) H-FRAME y
{
(P) 8' HIGH GMU WALL ENCLOSURE
W1 SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH PAINTED
TO MATCH (E) BUILDIN
(P) SPECTRUM
ESTELL CABINET 1,
I
(P) 30`X36" HOFFMAN BOX
(P) AG PANEL CABINET
(P) SERVICE LIGHT, TYP,
y/F I
(P) AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH
(P) GPS ANTENNA
l
.. I
(P) 6C-12- OUTDOOR
UNITS, TYP. OF 3
(P) (6) 6!'0 CONDUIT STUB
UPS FOR COAX/FIBER
(P) DELTA "WALK UP CABINET"
(WUc)
AT&T1
1452 EDIN ER AVE.
TU TIN, CALIFORNIA 92780
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS
IS PROPRIETARY do CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES
TO AT&T WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED
s artl'ink
3304 IRVINE AVENUE, SUWE 300
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92860
TEL- (949) 387-1265
FA. ; (949) 387-1275
4430 E. MIRALGN4A AVE. SUITE 0
ANAHElM. CA Li FO R N I A 92607
5
05/01320
1012% ZD — DRM GGMM
4
❑ 3 f 3❑ f 2❑
REVISED ZDs
3
02/03 20
PL&NOTING COMMENTS
01/14/20
100% ?D — DRM COMMENTS
1
11 18 18
104 ZD — DRM COMMENTS
0
1031 19
104 7DNING DRAWINGS
B
10 18 19
= ZONING DRAWINGS
REV
DATE
PESDRIFTION
NOT TO BE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
CSL02434
CIRCLE K
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR.
PALL DESERT, CA 92211
MONOPALM (OUTDOOR)
DRAWN BY, CHECKED BY:
RJS a
5HEET TITLE:
LEASE AREA/ANTENNA PLAN
AND ANTENNA/ RRU SCHEDULE
SHEET NUMBER:
A=2
ANTENNA AND RRU SCHEDULE
SCALE:
LEASE AREA PLAN 11 11+=1F_ 11
0 W-O" AGL
(P) LTE RRUs STACK
MOUNTED BEHIND (P)
ANTENNAS (9 PER SECTOR)
(P) DE-9 SURGE SUPPRES50P
(SQUID), TYP OF 4
ok)TOP OF (P) 'AT&V ANTENNAS
�~ � . � — � :�� r x (P) S PANEL ANTENNAS
(3 PER SECTOR
RAD CENTER OF (PI 'AT&T' ANTE L I� I � {'
i
CD
rn
(P) 210 MW ANTENNA
31
I "i4 4J l f'J 75d
(R) 65' HIGH MONOPALM
(E) PALM TREE
TO REMAIN
I FINISH GRADE
0'-Q" AG
NOTES:
* NEW ANTENNAS AND A550CIATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH
THE PROPOSED MONOPALM AND WILL INCLUDE FOLIAGE SIOOKS.
• MONOPALM FROND COUNTS = SD TOTAL OF FRONDS.
(P) 40FT TALL
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
PALM TREES, TYP. OF 2
6" 'ell
I I
(P) LOCATION OF Y
(E) RELOCATED PALM -_
TREES, TYP. OF 2
(P) S' HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE
W SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH PAINTED
TO MATCH (E) BUILDING
(E) LIGHT POST, = __
TYP.
(P) ELECTRICAL METER
(P) LEUCOPHYLLUM
FRUTESCENS TARS RANGER
SHRUBS, TYP. (SEE
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS)
(P) GPS ANTEI--!H
f
AGL
RAD CUTER OF P AT&V
56'-0" AOL
(P) 40FT TALL
WASHINGTONIA FIUFERA
PALM TREES, TYP. OF 2
�P) LOCATION OF
(E) RELOCATED PALM
TREES. TYP. OF 2 �..
J• I Y 'S''S I
(P) 65' HIGH MONOP
FINISH GRADE
9 O'-0" AG
NOTES:
+ NEW ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAINTED TD MATCH
THE PROPOSED MONOPALM AND WILL INCLUDE FOLIAGE SOCKS.
■ MONOPALM FROND COUNTS = 8D TOTAL [F FRONDS.
(P) LTE RRUs STACK
MOUNTED BEHIND (P)
ANTENNAS (9 PER SECTOR)
(P) DC-9 SURGE SUPPRESSOR
(SQUID), TYP OF 4-
(P) 8' PANEL ANTENNAS
(3 PER SECTOR)
(P) 240 MW ANTENNA
)Ito 4, 1
5Y IY
J � J
r
(P) 40FT TALL
�I,�f� ��; � I f, , , WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
- PALM TREES, TYP. OF 2
`�,�� �I�-���'�I��JyI/; +�•jjI � �(I 'jyI �� y��,�y,+ � �I-��� � +�jjl n
4 J�DJM i 1414 � 1l FF .�iil� ��•� I .l5-. .�. � 5'�N` IIIY � .�=A .'I
(P) S' HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE
W SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH PAINTED
TO MATCH (E) BUILDING
(E) PALM TREE
TO REMAIN
r
�IIr
I I f .•
Fnl nr5t+ 141TrLIRIf
SHRUBS, TYP. (SEE
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS)
AT&T
1452 EDIN ER AVE.
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 9 780
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS
IS PROPRIETARY & CONFIDENTIAL TO AT&T WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DI50L03URE OTHER THAN AS FT RELATES
TO AT&T WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED
smartl*lnk
3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300
EWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
TEL- (949) 387-1265
FAX: (949) 387-1 75
4430 E- MIRALOMA AVE- 50ITE D
ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 92807
5
05/06/20
1007 ZD - DRM {,`(]HfAOATl .
4
03/30/20
REVISED Ms
3
02/03/20
PLANNING COMMENTS
01114120
100% ZD - DRM COMMe%IT
i
11 lsi19
1003 ZO - DRM COMMENTS
0
10 31 19
100% ZONING DRAWINGS
B
10 18 19
90% ZONING DRAWINGS
REV
DAM
DESCRIPTION
NOT TO BE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTIDN
OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
CSL02434
CIRCLE K
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR.
PALL DESERT, CA 92211
MONOPALM (OUTDOOR)
DRAWN BY: CHECKED B:
RJs is
SHEET TITLE:
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NUMBER:
A=3
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE:
31y'.Y"=1{-0YI
2 EAST ELEVATION
VI �V
SCALE:
/16"-1t-0111
(P) 40FT TALLER
WASHINGTONIA FIUFERA.
PALM TREES, TYP. OF 2
do
" x
Y
4
_,
(P) GPS ANTENNA
(P) 8' HIGH CMU WALL ENCLOSURE
W1 SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH PAINTED
TO MATCH (E) BUILDINC.
(P) ELECTRICAL METER
(P) LEIJCOPHYLLl1M
FRUTESCENS TAXS RANGER
SHRUBS, TYP. (SEE
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS)
(P) LTE RRU5 STACK
MOUNTED BEHIND (P)
ANTENNAS (9 PER SECTOR)
(P} S' PANEL ANTENNAS `;
(3 PER SECTOR -.
NOTES: NOTES-
■ NEW ANTENNAS AND A550CIATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH + NEW ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAII--.ITED TO M.rtTCH
THE PROPOSED MONDPALM AND WILL INCLUDE FOLIAGE SOCKS. THE PROPOSED MONOPALM AND WILL INCLUDE FOLIAGE SDCS.
■ MONOPALM FROND COUNTS = SO TOTAL OF FRONDS. MONOPALM FRDND COUNTS = 80 TOTAL OF FRONDS.
(P) LTE RRUs STACK
(P) DC-9 SURGE SUPPRESSOR
(SQUID), TYP OF 4 MOUNTED BEHIND (P) (P) DC-9 SURGE SUPPRESSOR
ANTENNAS (9 PER SECTOR) 1� (SQUID), TYP OF 4
I I IVIYVI L*I -
�
gm�
TOP OF (P) 'AT&T" PK%IEL ANTEN� 0 60' -0" AGL
. - z // I- z
' LAD CENTER OF LP} 'AT&T' PANEL ANTEN A5'I' .
@ 56'-D" AGL
A rr
AlCD -25r-
(P) '0 MW ANTENNA
lP) 65' HIGH MOND ALM `y -
(P) LOCATION GF (E) RELOCATED i I
PALM TREES, T) P. OF 2
-
�`rn� .
` IpT
17... KA
rl.rr 4k4
v - 4�
NA k6
_ !I ;1-
(F) LIGHT POST,
TYP.
(E) PALM TREE
TO REMAIN
I
(E) BUILDING
5
FINISH GRAD
a 0'-0" AGL
AT&T
1452 EDIN ER AVE.
TUSTIN, GALIFORNIA9 780
TK INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS 5E7 OF DRAWINGS
IS RROPRIETARY & OONFIDUMAL TO AT&T WIRELESS
ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN AS IT RELATES
TO AT&T WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED
0 smartliank
TOP DF MONOPALMf 3300 IRVINE AVENUE, SUITE 300
0 B5'-0a AGL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
TEL'' ( 9) 387-1 65
FAX' (949) 387-1 75
TOP OF P AT&T PANEL ANTENNAS
4 BO'-G" AGL
-.- _..: o
(P) 8' PANEL ANTENNAS RAD CENTERP� OF AT&T' PANEL A�ENNAS, }
(3 PER SECTOP) , x r +, w� .P 56'-Qm AGL
(P) 40FT TALL71)
-'
WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA
PALM TREES, TYP._ OF 2 (P) MW .ANTENNA
4430 E, MIRALOMA AVE. SUITE D
ANAHEI . CALIFORNIA 9 807
(P) 6 ' HIGH MONOPALM
_ _f23. N
_-. -
" I
rt Ir — I Ji- 1�14x
5 05/06f2C 100 Zd — DRM COMMEHI
i fir , a 4 03 34 2D REVISED ZDs
I
ok 3 02/03120 PLANNING COMMENTS
2 1 01 f 14/2D 140 ZO — ORM COMMENTS
I 11 1a 11d 1009 ZD — ORM COMMErM.
(P) LOCATION OF (E) RELOCATED 0 10 31 19 140 ZONING DRAWINGS
L # .11J. - _ = PALMTREES, TYP. OF 2 ii
g 101819 soyoNINc aRAwlNcs
(E) PALM TREETO REMAIN _ _� - - - REVDATE DESCRIPTION
(E) LIGHT POST,
TYP.
IT TO BE USED
- - FOR CONSTRUCTION
- IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
1 UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION
D _ OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
- TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
y.
FINISH GRADE L02434
..0 0'-Om AGL CIRCLE
7800 COUNTRY CLUB DR.
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
MONOPALM (OUTDOOR)
DRAWN BY: CHECKED 13Y:
RJS JS
SHEET TITLE:
ELEVATIONS
SHEET NUMBER:
A=4
NORTH ELEVATION
r%r J1 LE: 2 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE:
311
6"— I, -on
I
AT&T
qll�1452
�
REPLACE EXISTING PARKINSONIA
~'..
EDIN ER AVE.
TU TIN, CALWORNIA 9 780
FLORIDA (POOR HEALTH
CONFIRM
NATURALESHAPE" B0
Oft
J
THE INFDRWAT10N CONTAINED IN THIS SL7 OF DRAWINGS
'Iflfil~1.E55
IS FROPRIETA{ ` & CONf1DENTLAL TO AT&f
NL
..'
ANY USE rr AT'ES
DLSsHfPROHIBITED
LEASE AREA PLAN
TO A Ts iSTRICTLY
I%
(E) PARKING AREA
� 5 }
7
.. %
�-
!
s� tl ki
in
JI
J''
I
(E)
SUILDIIar
444 j
Y I ,
3300 IR ENE AVENUE. SUITE 300
1
REPLACE EXISTING PARKINSONIA
- _---
�
F
NEWPORT BEACH, A 92660
FLORIDA (PDOR HEALTH
, 1
�
TEL: (949) 87-1285
CONFIRM IN FIELD) 24" BOX
� 11
�
FAX: � ) 387-1 7
NATURAL SHAPE
-
I
{
I
(E) PALM TREE TO REMAIN
1
(N) NEWLQC.TION 4F
TRANSPLANTED PALM
(P) UNDERGROUND , f
POWERELCO TRENCH
' (APPROX. f4-0`)
�
•,
TREES. TYP, OF 2 _
-���
.�
-T
#
EN
���-- �RSOION OFTANPLANTDPALMEKJILDIN
I
TREES, TYPICAL OF 2
996 FIOtEER BLVO #l:f
SO
T
Y x
SANTA FE -V>-;tNGS CALIFORNIA 991167D
,r -
'
(P) U COAX FIBER/DC
ROUTE
PROPERTY LINE''
(E)
TRAM&r0RW
�l::
�
.DOWER CONDUIT
.. (APPROX t10 )
#
- -
— - - - -
.: I
1
(E) CMLJ WALL
(F) LIGHT PAST, T'fP,
#
I(E)
TRASH ENCLOSURE
�s f
de
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
PRIFERTY LINt�r7
I
ANTENNA LOCATION
I
� �
(E) EXISTING PALMS (2j,
� /
C
1131 D
100% ZONING DRAWINGS
1l
10/1 01'a
947E ZONING DRAWINGS
,
I
� ,,
TO BE M GVED TO
_
(E) GTE VAULT
(TELCO P,G.C,)
FRONT OF PLANTER
# 1
1 109 � 1 a
9 20MNG oRAIIfRIGS
IIIEV
CAR
I %wmoft
ui
ELI
(E) BUILDINE;
' ' ~}4
5,
-# '
1 I
(P) UNDERGROUND.
i L
L-iI
APN:
-07Q-052
- .T T i:_,
I
TELCO TRENCH
(APPROX. 40') �
a I
(E) PARKING
Ren vul a-lr
c 1
AREA
�
(P) 17{30 HANDHOLElz
—(P)
UNDERGROUND
r
C -
Yj
CL
POWER/TELCO TRENCH
(APPRfjf
X
s,t
i_
finI
ga {, aue 1, 9 77
�� �3P
�1'i�;
PLANTING I TE
��� 7r
I'#I /J�yJ{-#� SIZE
/
- -
r PLACE ANY ROCK MULr-�4 D - T�4 T I4A5 E3EEN
IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,
f
{
TREES
DI tl1R ED DLrz TO O $T1�XTION.
UNLESS THEY ARE ,f4CT1NG UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
ROCK MULCH TO M.4T +-4 E>(IST[W-Sr
TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.
' PAf� IN 0NIA
FIELD VICE IF'1rt 1EXi48T1NG TO REMAIN, PROTECT
{
FLORIDA PALO vERDE
"
IN PLACE EXCEPT .A I� NOTE
�-
PRO RLINE
TY
-- -- --�-- �_
_
OANOfm TREE
`�
NOTEp
L02 434
�
_- �
PR0P0ED IRRIG ATION 51'!5TEi"1 FOR NEUJ PLANTING ;HALL
WA HINGTO IA
FIELD VIERIFY EXISTIW-S -- TO REMAIN, PROTECT M,4TCH E I°6TI _% ON SITE. ALL PLANTINCs .AR= -A TO
CIRCLE K
F_ PIL_[F;FRA PALM
IN PLACE
RECEIVE LOW VOLUME kG�-I EFFIGIENGr 9PR r
BUS5LEfR6, OR DRIP E111TTER AND SHALL FOLLO.Ll LOCAL
78005 COUNTRY CLUB DR.
(E) DRIVEWAY
I I TI G WA 44ITw1 xTONI
T
I=4ELD VERIFY TO �E 2 TO ICE RJ`LOO ,TED
AGE C r nUlr_I=LINE . CALCULATION FOR WATER
EarICIENGY HALL BE N ORFO'RATED INITO CGfNr3TRU TI01�1
DESERT, 21'�
1
�T
I LFIE-RA PALM
5FE NOTE6 ON RELOC TEID .46 6HOLLN
DOCUMENT PHA6E.
MONOPALM (OUTDOOR
1
-
i
I
PLAN
DESIGN STATEMENT
WA 1NCsT0N I A F I L I E ERA
CALIFORNIA FAN 35' - 01 2 t-lA7C_HI`NG
PALM B.T.H. BROU N 7RUN< HEIGHT
THE�E� LANDSCAPE I ANE}�T'E1*1fialhl OF THE
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY;
1
ADJA ENT DE5IGN TO THIS FACILITY_ TH 15 CONTEXT 15
�11d11't
Rr�ICt
co
Cx
5TRONIN Ta 4E AREA .4ND WILL a 4I=LP TO SL ID T
I
t
I
1 LEI C;oFH'T .LLI Tl F:fRUTF
TEXAS RANGER
TEN / 57 C3 L_ 24 4'-o" - _ LouJ
TOWrmR INTO TIDE 1;AF3RIC 0r- THE L.AND CAPE.
(E) PARKING
SHEET TME-
(E)BUILDING
AREA J
PRELIMINARY
PLANT I C4 NOTES
� '
LANDSCAPE PLAN
REPLACE AN'r ROCK MULCH i D.G-
THAT HAS BEEN
SHEET NUMHEfR:
i .I;..
I O IF '�IHI
:)1f2TIJRtBE0 DUE TO CON TRUCTION.
FROG< rIULG�4 TO 1"1,4TGW EXI6TIt _
Lml
TE'LP�1T l� P���
2
PEA IT LANDSCAPE PLAN
LE:
l
F
- -o
a�� 29 401
JOHN A. HENNINGr JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAw
e5N- Sc. coeee.Yem_u
Los ANuw'LLs, CATI) ORNu go1¢8
D e: CY-R1 ey Rap
E-M r,an.sospi ,ILe,,g... pb"
June 8, 2020
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Architectural Review Commission
City of Pero Desert
c/o Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner
City of Palm Dam, California
93510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA M60
Re: C1JP19-0002- 98005 ComW Club Drive (AT&T Smsrtllnk/Ctnis Dohend
Honorable Commissioners
1 represent SBA 2012 TC Assets, LLC, which owns and operates a cell lower on properly
within Palm Desert, just 908 feet northwest of the site where this cell tower project is proposed.
The Commission considered this application at as February 25,2020, meeting. Commission
members gave detailed feedback to line applicant and then continued the than indefinitely to
allow Ne applicant to address Nis feedback. In Ne words ea sreaf Ne statfrepurt far Nis
meeting) The item was continued wallow the aooliant di redesian the awl ecme ohm m provide
site at
paims
stun Note the site m north
of the Tower fro provempt strrets end explore an eltemafve
site at an existne vacant mover noM of this proposed pmperrv."
My client still opposes the new cell lower and asks that your Commission recommend the
denial of the request or, at a mhdmum, continue the hearing unfil the issues raised in this letter
can be considered.
1. The Applicant Has honored the Commission's Request to Explore an
Alternative Site at the Existine Vacant SBA Tower.
There is an existing 65-f t tall SHA lower loatedjust 908 fcet GOm the new site, at
T7T 988 Country Club Drive and within the city limits of the City of Palm Desert Like many
SBA towers, the Country Club Drive tower is designed to allow multiple carriers to "co locate"
their telecommunications equipment on the same tower. Co -location allows multiple carriers to
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page 2
share the same tower, thereby minimizing the need for multiple lowers with overlapping
coverage and the resulting aesthetic and other impacts.
The City's Communication Tower and Antenna Regulations strongly encourage co -
location onexisting mwersasthepreferred abstractive to construction of new towers. Among
Me stated purposes of the Regulations is to "momote and encourage shared use/collocation of
existing and new commercial communication towers as a pdmary option other than construction
of additional s nstle-use towers." (PDMC sec. 25.34.I30.A.5.) Elsewhere, the Regulations
address co -location specifically:
G. Collocation.
1. Proposed commercial communication antennas may, and are
encoumeed to, collocate onto existing commercial communication towers
provided that such collocation is accomplished in a manner consistent with
this section Such collocation is pertained without amendment ofthe
causing conditional use permit if no additional modification to Me tower
is proposed.
(PDMC sm. 25.34.130.G (emphasis supplied).)
Here, Condition 5 of Me Conditional Use Permit for the existing SBA tower, issued in
2000, specifically allows f , and indeed rwuGes. collocation:
5. That where co -location may effectively be accomplished without violation
of Me provisions of proposed Municipal Code Chapter 25.IN and without
reasonable interference with applicant's existing use, applicant shall allow
third party co -location onto the tower erected under this permit. Applicant
may charge a reasonable renW fee for such co -located use to the extent
allowed by law.
(Planning Condition Resolution No. 1989, Conditions of Approval, Case No.
CUP 00-6, Condition 5.)
We submitted a lengthy letter to the Commission before the February 25 hearing. In that
letter, and at the hearingwe emphasized that the SBA tower is Presently vacant and is available
for lease by AT&T. To support this constitution, our letter included an attached letter from
Markells Markooms,SBA's site marketing manager for the California region. Ms. Markouizos
is responsible for SBA's negotiations with the various cell carriers about co -locating
opportunities and lease terms forthe SBA tower and others in California. Shereviewedthe
AT&T plans and said that the SBA tower would accommodate all of AT&T's tower equipment
at precisely the same height as on the proposed tower, and that it has plenty of room In
acwmmudaze AT&T's ground level equipment.
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page 3
As discussed in our Febntery 25 letloq the proximity of the two sites and the lack of any
intervening topography such as hills establish on its face Nat the coverage of Me proposed
AT&T tower and the existing SBA lower would be essentially identical and overlapping. To
confirm this, SBA commissioned an analysis by David Cotton, a registered professional
engineer, which was attached as Exhibit B lo our February 25 letter. Mr. Carbon concluded the
coverage provided by the SBA tower would be essentially the same as that provided by the
proposed AT&T tower.
At the February 25 hearing, Chris Delany, the representative of applicant Scandals, did
not dispute SBA's contention that the SBA tower could technically accommodate the AT&T
equipment, or drat the existing SBA lower wood provide essentially the same coverage as the
proposed AT&T tower. He also conceded that AT&T and thus fir made noeffontoseek co -
location on the SBA tower, and attributed this to a mistaken belief that the SBA tower was
already maned due to the presence of panels and other equipment on the tower.
During the hearing, several commissioners pointed out the City's preference for co -
location so as lo minimize aesthetic impacts and the prolifininfiran of lowers. One commissioner
noted drat the commission was especially vigilant about this issue where, as here, an exception is
requested from the minimum 1,000 foot buffer between towers. Another stated Nat the "onus is
on the applicanCto show the Commission that it has explored co -location. The Commission
Men continued the hearing to allow Mr. Doheny to address these concerns, and specifically to
contact SBA and fully explore co -location on the SBA lower.
In the spirit of this request, immediately after the hearing I personally gave Mr. Doheny
my business card, and urged him to contact me or have someone from AT&T contact me. A few
days later, on May 2, 2020, Markella Markouizos, SBA's site marketing manager for the
California region, contacted Mr. Doheny both by phone and by email and encouraged AT&T to
contact her about co -location. Mr. Modernizes wrote lo Mr. Doheny again on March 4, 2020,
minding him of the Commission's instructions and confirming Nat the SBA tower was
presently vacant of tenants and could immediately accommodate the proposed AT&T equipment
Despite coromvims, SBA has operated continuously during recent months, and I have
also been available continuously. Yet in the three -and -a -half months sin" the February 25
hearing. Mr. Delany never contacted me or SBA, and neither did anyone else at AT&T.
A second letter Mean Ms. Markouizos, attesting to the foregoing facts, is attached as
Exhibit A. Ms. Markouizos mammoth that SBA has co -location agreements with AT&T all over
Me United Sturm and in numerous locations in Southern California. She also Points out that in
just the last few months she has been working with AT&T vendors in two nearby cities who are
exploring co -location on existing SBA tower sites as an alternative to constructing separate
lowers Nr AT&T. In Cathedral City, just 16 miles from the Pahn Desert site, AT&T is
presently preparing an application to be submitted to SBA for en -location on an existing SBA
lower, and she expects it to be filed this week. In Dam Point, AT&T is testing its equipment can
an existing SBA tower and Ms. Madcouizos expects it to submit an application shortly.
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page 4
Notably, in both of the above instances, AT&T had initially applied to construct
Freestanding towers very close to the existing SBA towers, but due in persistent concerns raised
by city srsffamour the members of the city commissions reviewing the y Jcets, it ultimately
elected to pursue co -location on the nearby existing lowers owned by SBA. At the Cathedral
City location, AT&T has already withdmvm its application to build a tower just a few hundred
fast away from the SBA tower, in the adjacent city of Desert Hot Springs. In Dam Point, if the
testing now underway is successful, it appears likely that AT&T will abandon its application to
the City to build a new tower on the same property as the existing SBA tower.
In case there is any question in the Commission's mind whether it is technically feasible
for AT&T lo do the same thing here in Palm Desem, we have obtained the opinion of
California registered professioml engineer, Jarryi Tibbetts, P.E. of Tower Engineering
Solutions, LLC. His letter, dated March 19, 2020, is attached as Exhibit B.
Having failed to even explore co -location on the nearby SBA tower, the applicant now
falls back on handling generic assertions that co -location is not feasible due in various unspecified
"econcemic reasons" and -terms and conditions" required by SBA. The Commission should not
countenance this continued evasion of the City's ordinance. Rather, it should tell the applicant to
meaningfully explore co -location with AT&T before the application is considered further. Ifthe
Commission concludes that it is futile to request this firm the applicant, it should proceed to
recommend denial of the project due in its negative aesthetic and other impacts.
2. SBA Than Not "Abandoned" its Existine Tower.
As part of its strategy to show that co -location is infeasible, the applicant offers a
preposterous and unsupported legal theory. Ina letter to the Commission, an AT&T attomey
asserts that it could not co -locate on the existing SBA tower because that tower has be=
"abandoned" by the passage of more than a year since the last tenant used the Fewer, and that
accordingly the permit for that Fewer is no longer in eHecc'
The applicant does not contend that the City agrees with AT&T's legal theory. Nor does
the City indicate that it agrees with AT&T, either in the staff report or elsewhere. Furlher,there
has been no formal notice issued by the City indicating that the SBA tower has been deemed
abandoned, or even that it might be deemed to be abaadoned at some time in the future.
For this Commission an assume, based purely on the self-serving legal conclusions of an
applicant's lawyer and with no support from City staff, that a viable alternative site does not
exist, and accordingly that the applicant Is relieved of its obligation to explore co-loeabon on the
site, would set a dangerous precedent and would make a mockery of the ordinance. Moreover,
AT&T's lawyer is simply wrong on both the facts and the underlying law.
' MC Dye's lmer isdantl May 22,2020, but evidently it was notrceivetl byok: City=61 about May29,
102Qorjustl0daysago. Wertcival Nelem from eCitylast Fd&y,lme5,200.
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page 5
The ordinance states:
L. Abandonment. In the event Me use of any commercial communication
tower has been discontinued for a period of 190 consecutive days, the
lower shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Upon such abandonment,
Me oumer/opemtor of the tower shall have an additional 180 days within
which We (1) reactivate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to
another owner/operator who makes actual use of Me tower; or (2)
dismantle and remove the lower. At the earlier of 181 days from the dare
of abandonment without reactivation or upon completion of dismantling
and removal, any variance approval for the tower shall automatically
expire.
(PDMC sm. 25.34.130.1. (emphasis supplied).)
First; it is important to now that under the ordinance, even if a lower is "deemed
abandoned" by the passage of I80 continuous days of worse, the ownermi erm r "shall have an
additional 180 days within which to: (1) reactivate Me use of Me tower or transfer the tower to
another owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower." (PDMC sec. 25.34.130.L.) The
clear purpose of this two -stage process is to give the owner an ample opportunity, after the
passage of Me first 180 days, to either "reactivate the use of Me tower" or transfer it to another
ner/operator, thereby avoiding any forteitare of its property rights. Indeed, the existence of
this two-step process strongly indicates that my "ahandomnent" must be formally declared by
the City in Order to trigger the second IWday period, and we assume that this is the City's
actual practice. Here, the City has never declared an "abandonment" of the use, much less has it
formally notified SBA or the property owner of such a declaration. Thus, even if one could argue
that abandonment has occurred the second HW-wend has not even begun to run.
Second, Me AT&T lawyer is simply wrong on Me facts. He alleges that "SBA's lower is
scant and has been vacant as of September 30, 2018 with no recants and no further use by any
other parry." He provides no scums for this statement. In fact, as explained by SBA's site
marketing manager Markella Markouizos in her letter (enriched hereto as Exhibit A), SBA bad a
tenant at the site with an active lease that expired on November 9, 2019, i.e., just 9 months ago.
Thus, even if an "abandorunent" could he deemed to have occurred automatically and regardless
of notice to the owner, after 180 days of nonusq the second 180-day period would not expire
until November 2020.
Third, the AT&T lawyer wrongly assumes that the "use" of a cell tower becomes
"discontinued" sufficiently to be deemed an "abandonment" of Me use simply because there is
no meant physically operating a communications facility on Me tower for a single I90day
period. There is no basis for such an interpretation, and we are unaware of Me City interpreting
the ordinance in this way. In fact, the "use" of cell lower does not become "discontinued"
simply because no tenant is actively operating equipment on that tower, any more than the `use"
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page b
of restaurant becomes "discontinued" simply because one tenant leaves and there is no tenant
operating a restaurant there.
Indeed, AT&T's harsh and illogical interpretation of the ordinance would subject SBA to
a forfeiture of legally vested fight to operate the lower simply because it is unable for a short
time to find a tenant, regardless of its intent and good -faith efforts to find a tenant. Moreover,
Me logical implication of AT&T's argument is that if a tenant has a lease to use the tower, and
even if It has equipment of the tower, but the tenant chooses for as own reasons not to actually
warmest equipment on the tower for a 180-day period the City could declare the tower
"abandoned" and trigger the second 180-day period see forth in Me ordinance —without the
owner even knowing that this has happened.
As explained by Ms. Marko rims in her letter, SBA has continuously operated this lower,
and sought rebates for it, from acquisition through to the present. It has never intended to
abandon the tower, nor do its actions or omissions reasonably support a finding of abandonment.
The City has never adopted the applicant's fllacious rationale for avoiding its obligation to
explore co -location. Neither should this Commission.
3. The `Mor opolm" Looks More Like Cell Tower Than a Palm Tree.
Among Me stated purposes of Me Communication Tower and Anterma Regulation is "To
minimize adverse visual impacts of commercial communication towers and antennas from
arefl design. siting, landscace screening. and innovative camouflaging tecMiaues." (PDMC
se. 25.34.130.A.3 (emphasis supplied).)
There is no "careful" design, siting or landscape screening, or "innovative camouflaging
techniques" at work here. This is a generic monolealm cell tower, located prominently on a flat
lot. Martinson cell towers are notoriously obvious, and this one is no exception. They can than
become more obvious over time, as the artificial fiunds become damaged and are not promptly
replaced. At the February 25 hearing, the applicant could have made quelled these and other
concerns. It could have submitted project drawings and simulations that convincingly
established that the proposed lower actually looks like a palm tree, rather Nan a cell tower. It
could have oRered specific conditions that fie the approval to such drawings, and which require
prompt replacement of any damaged fronds, with specific penalties for noncompliance.
However, Me applicant did none of this. Instead, it made a generic presentation relying entirely
on vague black -and -whim elevation drawings that clearly show Me Panel amtemn mays
Protruding well beyond the artificial fronds. Unfortunately, any conditional use permit will be
tied to these project drawings, not the optimistic assurances of the applicant or City staff.
At the February 25 hearing, one commissioner asked whether an "encased" pant bee
design (in which Me equipment is concealed within Me upper Mark) had been considered. The
applicant rejected such a design out of hand, citing the technical limitations that it would impose.
The applicant was essentially conceding that the proposed equipment necessitates the placement
of large array of Flat panels protruding well beyond the center of the nee.
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page
Nothing has changed since the February 25 hearing. The protmding equipment is still
Were, and the design is still anchored in the same black-and-whilo elevations. Accordingly, If it
recommends approval of this Project, this Commission runs a high risk of having buyer's
conserve once the project is complete. And without drawings and clear conditions ofapproval
that require a holy camouflaged design, the City will have no remedy whatsoever against AT&T.
This Commission can recommend denial of this project simply because it looks too much
like a cell lower. It should do so.
4. There is No Justification to Grant an Exception or Waiver From the
Required 1 000-foot Separation Distance Between Commercial Towers.
There is a 1,000 foot minimum separation distance between commercial towers (PDMC
sm. 25.34.130.P.3.) Yet the proposed project is just 908 feet from an existing lower. Although
92 feet may seem a small divergence from the rate, as at least one commissioner emphasized
during the Primary 25 hearing, there must be a compelling justification for punting any
exception or waiver Gory the rate, and exceptions; are granted only in "really extreme cases."
Here, Were is no justification at all for the exception.
Initially, AT&T's lawyer attempts to avoid the I,o00 foot separation requirement
entirely, based on an argument derived from his claim that the SBA lower has been "abandoned"
under the oreirimrce. He argues that because the SBA tower has last its status as a legally
permitted structure, Were is no "legally viable" rower within 1,000 feet, and no exception is
required City staff has not adapted this contention; lo the runway, its pasition, as set tbrtb in
the staff report, is still that that an exception is required. (See Staff Report at pg. 3.) Indeed,
regardless of the merits of the AT&T lawyer's argument (or lack thereof), which are addressed
elsewhere in this lever, the fact is that the SBA lower is there, is pan of the existing
envirwrimmit, and is just 909 feet away. Those as the only rejection facts for purposes of
determining whether an exception is required Goa the 1000-f t minimum separation distance.
In order to grant an "exception" from the minimum separation distance, the Planning
Commission would need to make both of the following Me findings:
N. Exception procesia—Fini ings. The Commission shall make the
following findings to approve exceptions.
1. That Were is a unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic
bemure which results in a compelling technological need to locate the commercial
communication towers and/or commercial communication antennas in the
location and/or at the height proposed.
2. That the unique land use characteristics or geographic features
mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns.
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page 8
(PDMC sm. 25.34.130.N (emphasis supplied.)
These findings simply cannot be made. There is no "unique land use chascmdetic or
nearby geographic feature" at all, much less one Nat "results in a compelling technological need
to locate Me commercial communication mwere number commercial communication antennae in
Me location andlor at the height proposed." There are also mo'lnique land use characteristics or
geographic feahves" that would mitigate the negative aesthetic concerns associated with
mmopalm ce8 towers. In fact, Me surrounding land use is a typical commercial area, and the
geography is extremely Flat, just like the vas[ majority ofthe City. Therefore, them is no
justification for an exception from Me 1,000 foot separation requirement.
A separate section of the code allows the Planning Commission to gram[ a "winiver"from
Me separation requirement for a tower that "utilizes an approved stealth design (e.g., artificial
palm tree)." (PDMC sec. 25.34.130.O.2.ii.) There are no specific frldings set out in the
ordinance for such a "waiver," and it is nuclear whether such a waiver could be granted without
making the findings for an "exception" set Cored in the preceding section. However, even if no
findings are required at 91fi a"waiver;' aced even if this Commission were inclined to entertain
Me merits of a waiver it would still be guided by the purpose and intent of Me ordinance as well
as Me general findings necessary for my tower project. Given that the stated purpose ofihe
regulations is to mvtimize adverse visual impacts, and to promote and encourage co -location and
shared use of movers rather Nan construction of new single -use towers there is no justification
for a waiver that places a new tower even closer Nan 1,000 feet from an existing tower.
S. Even Without an Exception, The City Hai Discretion to Beat This Prou"
Because the Necessary Findines Cannot Be Made.
Even if an exception were not required to authorize this project, the Commission would
have broad discretion m recommend denial of the project. None ofthe necessarythree findings
can be made, when in fact all three findings must be made. These findings are:
E. Findings. Nora freesttraing commercial communication
twors/commercial communication antennas shall not be allowed unless Me
applicant substantiates to Me satisfaction of Me Commission:
1. That existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford
Me applicant Me ability to provide service m Me service area of the applicant or
service provider.
2. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area
cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid Me necessity for a fieestanding
tower/antenna at Me height proposed.
3. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic
reassess) for requiring a new freestanding facility.
Honorable Commissioners
Jane 8, 2020
Page 9
(PDMC sec. 25.34.130.E.)
As to finding (1), AT&T has made no showing that existing towers (including the nearby
SBA tower) "do not technologically afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the
service area of the applicant or service provider." In fact, as we have shown in this letter, the
SBA tower does afford AT&T the ability to provide the necessary, service.
As to finding (2), AT&T has not established that "the geographical boundaries of the
proposed service arw cannot technologically be bifurcated an avoid the necessity for a
freestanding towedanterma at the height proposed." There is no evidence to this effect in the
record at all.
As to finding (3), AT&T has not shown "compelling technological or economic reasons)
for requiring a new fiaestradmg facility." As discussed above, AT&T's showing ofnced simply
ignores the nearby existing SBA lower, which provides completely overlapping coverage and is
available for lease by AT&T.
Since all three of the above findings must be made and none of them can in fact be made,
the project should not be approved.
6. The Real Palm Trees Proposed in the Plans Would Take At Least 50 Years to
Reach the Height of the Proposed 65-Fom Monooalm Tower.
In the mast recent iteration of the project; the applicant has raised the landscape plans to
purportedly mitigate visual impacts of the 65-foot mnnopalm lower in two ways. Firer, it
proposes to relocate two existing mature palm trees immediately adjacent to the tower, which
trees are of unspecified began, but each of which are well below 40 feet tall (sm elevations and
landscape plan). Second it would add two new trees toward the front of the car wash property,
which trees would be either 40 feet mil (per the elevations) or35 feet tell (per the landscape
plan). All of due trees are the species Washingtomafilgem(Cal ifomia fan palm). Numerous
other, smaller areas would remain scattered around the property.
The applicant would like this Commission to believe that a group of four California fan
palms 40 fed hill or less would screen or camouflage the new lower. However, Carl Mellinger, a
professional cehtified reformist retained by SBA, has abo ddy established Nat they would not. Mr.
Mdliagar's letter was attached to am February 25 letter, and is attached again as Exhibit C to
this letter. Mn Mellinger pointed out that palm trees grow very slowly If inches or less per year,
depending upon the species), and that the particular species proposed bere, Waahingronia filifero
(California fan palm), grow even more slowly than that.
In suer, even assuming a mowed ram of six inches per year. my 40 fact hill trees would
take 50 years to reach the height ofthe 65-foot hill monopalm. Any trees less than40 feet call
would rules even longer. In the intervening decades, these trees would provide no mitigation of
the visual impacts of a barely disguised, rigid monopalm tower.
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page 10
Thus, ifit recommends approval at all, in order to create a meaningful visual buffer the
Commission should recommend a condition providing for Me installation of day larger been, at
least 55 feet in height. According to Mr. Mellinger, 55 foot call Mexican Fan Palm Irevs are
readily available in Me local area, at acast including installation of$5,250 per tree. We suggest
a condition to this acted
Installation ofNatuml Free Field. Prior to the mis ante of a certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall install a field of at least natural living palm
trees(of species Marked ban palm (w hingtonia robusm), California fan palm
(Waehingtonia frlifera), or daze paou (Phoenix dwevea ra). Such trees shall beat
least 55 feet in height and shall be located cm Me same parcel in which Me tower
is lobe installed. The final design and details of the two field shall be subject to
Me approval of the Community Development Department.
A. If the Prided is Approved With a Field of Natural Palm Trees. the Trees
Should be Sulaket to a Maintenance Covenant
If the Commission recommends approval at all, it should be subject to a separate
condition of approval that requires the owner of the site to enter into a recorded covenant
providing for continued maintenance of Me existing has over time. We suggest a condition to
this effect
Covenant to Maintain Named Trot Field. Prior to the issuance of
certificate of occupancy, the owner shall enter into a recorded covenant on a form
provided by the Community Development Department, providing for the
maintenance of fie trees indefinitely. The covenant shall provide Nat for the life
of Me permit, and far as long as Me subject lower mains on Me property, each of
Me lives shall I e maintained to Me satisfaction of Me Customarily Development
Department (including, but not limited to, periodic tree trimming), and that trees
shall be replaced as necessary with trees of similar heghS species and quality, to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, all at the ownePs
sole expeae. In the event that Me City deems the project as in violation ofthis
condition, it shall provide the owner with a notice ofdeficiency. Theownershall
correct Me deficiency within 72 hours of such notice. Failure to cope[ Me
deficiency within Nat time shall be a violation of Me conditions of approval
sufficient to institute revocation Proceedings.
Honorable Commissioners
June 8, 2020
Page 11
In conclusion, we ask that your Commission recommend the denial of the permit or, at a
minimum, continue the hearing to allow the application to be modified to address the above
Comments.
Very only yours,
i AAV
John A. Henning, Jr.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Jane 8, 2020, letter from Mail M aiwit izos
Exhibit B: March 19. 2020, letter from Janyd Tibbens, P.E.
Exhibit C: Febmary 24, 2020, letter from Carl Mellinger
Honomble Commissioners
Jone 8, 2020
EXHIBIT A:
NNE 89 2020 LETTER FROM MARKFLLA
MARKOUIZOS
(sr
SBA ® SBA Cam 8051 ono sss Avenue
Buni CmBraea Avenue
Itasca Rates. FL 33487-IM7
T+561.9957670
F , 561.995.7626
aEaaaexam
Jorge 8, W20
Amhitecmml Review Commission
City of Polito Desert
c/o Nick Mellow, Assistant Planner
City of Palm Desert, Califomia
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 9MW
RB: CUP 19-0002-7SW5 Country Club Drive (AT&T Smanliwr I Chris Dohen
Honorable Commissioners.
I am the site marketing manager for the existing SBA cell tower located at 77988 Country Club Drive in Palm
Desert, California. Our lower is approximately 908 feet northwest of the new cell tower proposed by AT&T at
98005 Country Club Drive in Palm Desert.
Like many SBA towers, our Country Club Drive tower is designed to allow multiple carriers lo "co -locate" their
telecommunications equipment on the same tower. Co -location allows multiple carriers to share the same
tower, thereby minimizing the need for multiple movers with overlapping coverage and the resulting aesthetic
and other impacts. I am responsible for SBA's negotiations with the various ce8 carriers about co -locating
opportunities and lease terms for the Country Club Drive tower and others in California.
As I understand it some AT&T vendors applying for permits for new towers have contended that it is generally
infeasible for AT&T to arrive art co location agreements for SBAbwned towers. This is contrary to my
longstanding experimce, as well as my recent experience. We have co- location agreements with AT&T all
over the United Stares, and In numerous locations in Southern California. In just the past few months since
your February 2 hearing, I have been working with AT&T vendors in two nearby cities who are exploring co -
location on existing SBA tower sites as an alternative to constructing separate towers for AT&T. In Cathedral
City, just 16 miles from the Palm Desen site, AT&T is formally preparing an application to co -locate on an
existing SBA tower, and I expect it m be filed this week. In Dana Point, AT&T is presently testing its
equipment on an existing SBA tower and I expect it to file an application shortly.
I have reviewed the revised plans for the proposed new AT&T facility at issue here, which are dated May 6,
2020. The project consists of a 65-foot tower disguised as a palm was (or "marnopolm'*), along with a ground -
level equipment enclosure 324 square feet in shre. Om lower is also 65 feet hall, and is presently vacant. SBA
acquired this site from SprintMextel and has continuously operated it and sought tenants for it from acquisition
through to the present. Our last tenant bad a lease that expired on November 9, 2019.
The SBA tower can easily accommodate all of the AT&T equipment, at precisely the same height. Our site also
has over 400 square feet of ground space available, aM it can accordingly accommodate all of hie ground
equipment shown on the AT&T plans. Given the proximity of the two sites and the roughly flat terrain between
SBA ® SBA Cam 8051 ono ays Avenue
Bo51 eons Caeawanue
6cca stale. FL 33487-IW7
T + 581.995 )8]0
F , 561.995.7626
aEasaexonn
them, the coverage provided by the SBA tower would be essentially the same as that provided by the proposed
AT&T tower.
As I understand it, a the February 25 meeting of you Commission, the commissioners asked the applicant,
Chris Dnheny of Smardink, to explore co-loem on on the SBA tower. Rather than wait to hear from Mr.
Dnheny, I called him myself on March 2, 2020, and moodured myself and offered to discuss co -location
opportunities. Mr. l Ibeny said he would need to refer my inquiry to his leasing manager. I then wrote a
conf ing email to him and asked him to pass my name along by the leasing manager.
I did not hear back from either Mr. Dnheny or the AT&T leasing manager. Two days later, on March 4, 2020, I
wrote another email to Mr. Dnbeny, reminding him that you Commission bad recommended that Smardink
contact SBA about the possibility of co -locating the AT&T equipment on the existing SBA lower. I also
mentioned that our tower was presently vacant of tenants and could immediately accommodate the proposed
AT&T equipment. In closing, I said Nat "SBA is open to discussing with you or anyone else from AT&T or
Smaddink the terms of a long-term lease for this use"
A copy of my March 2 and March 4, 2020, counts is attached hereto.
More than three months passed, and I never heard back from Mr. Dnbeny or anyone else a AT&T.
On June 4, 2020, upon learning that Smaddink was still pursuing this application and would be appearing again
before your Commission, I left a voice mail for Mr. Dnheny and asked him to call me back about co -location.
This morning, I also left a similar voice mail for Christopher Morse of AT&T, whom I understood to be
responsible for leasing generally in this pact of California. As of the writing of this letter l have resolved no
reply to either message.
Very truly yours,
Markella MarkoWws
Site Marketing Manager - California
From: Maintain Mark Lures; [mailro:mmalkouizos@sbastil
Sent: Wastrel March 09, 20M 5:00 PM
To: Cans When
Subject: RE: CA95536-A Country Club, CRY of palm Desert SBA-3 Palm Daat
Hi Chris,
I wanted to follow-up and see if you were able to get hold of your Ceasing Manager. As I understand A
at the February 25 hearing the Architedu21 Review Commission of the City of Palm Desert
recommend" that Smartlink contact SBA about the posslbility of be locating the AT&T equipment for
s tM1 project on the existing SBA tower on Country Club Drive. After the hearing, our attorney, John
Henning, gave you his card and you said you would be calling him after you checked with your contacts
at AT&T. I have been In touch with Mr. Henning and he Indicated he had not heard from you.
As Mr. Henning told the Commission, our tower is presently vacant of tenants and can immediately
accommodate the proposed AT&T equipment. SBA Is Open to discussing with you or anyone else from
AT&T or Smartlink the terms of a long-term lease for this use.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
I appreciate your help.
Markella Marl o ai tcs
MF-Sea abXte4ng
CA & HI
SBA
SAID, Communications Comwallon
9%south Coast Dove
Suite 200
Cunha Mesa, CA 92625
919.8920517+C
Your Signal SfeM Have.
From: Marcella Marcoulzos
Sent: Monday, March 2, 20201:50 PM
To: Chris Dohenyands.doheny@smartlinkllc.wm>
Subject: CA05536-A Country Club, City of Palm Desert SBA-3 Palm Desert
Chris
IN. Thanks Hatching my call. Below my behold information. Please pass it along t0 your Ceasing
Manager. I am happy to provide additional information about our tower.
Thank you,
Markella Marlsouizos
Mgr.$iowhkafmg
CA & Hf
SBA
SBA Communications Corporation
959 South Coast Cme
Su1e200
Chem Mesa. CA 92626
999H920517,C
anmaMuzm®stsuals com
Your Sg"I $forte NM.
Honomble Commissioners
Jone 8, 2020
EXHIBIT B:
MARCH 19, 2020 LETTER FROM JARRYD
TIBBETTS, P.E.
Ut td
TES Tower Engineering Solutions, LLC
March ll20M
Cry of Palm Dared Planning Department
73-510 Fred Wanng Drive
Palm Desert, CA St
Re: Existing 54.5 fi. Palm Tree Monopole
SEA Site #CM6536-A
SEA Site Name. Country Clubgi Desert
778M Country Club
Palm DeaM, CA 92211
pressure County
Latitude'. 33 759528
LayiNde:-116.300222
The Honorable City of Palm Desart Planning Department;
This letter will summarize the results of wr engineering determination on the adequacy of the above -
referenced structure to safely support the antenna and equipment changed as noted below. Our engineering
determination was based on an investigation of the antenna and equipment loading used in the reeeM
previous passing prommi al analysis by Tower Engineering Solutions (TES), (TES Project # 53763 dated
May W, 2013) and then" proposed equlpmeM.
The following information was used in the determination;
Tower Drawings prepared by Paul J Fwtl And Company (Pi Project If 33200-039 dated
0622n000
• Foundation Drawings prepared by Paul J Ford And Company RJF), Project # 33200-039 dated
0622J2000
• Geotech Report prepared by Earth Systems Consultants, , File # 07274-01 dated 0=11999
• Structu l Analysis Report by Pi Job 33201 defed OW221MOD
Our engineering determination was based on a comparison of the antenna add equipment leading used In
the original pole design and the new proem ed antenna configuration.
Analysis Criteria'
• 110 mph Ul0mate Design Wind Speed, per ASCE 7-16 wiM maps
Exposure
• Risk Category ll
Topography Caregcryt
Crest Height m 0IT
TA-222-H Standard
13209 enwayDme,Suite6W,lrvfog Tt 975038 Phi(992)4834609, Fax:(912) 9159615
Nt 1(1
TES Tower Engineering Solutions, LLC
Fiwl Antennaz. Mounts antl TmnambaIon Linn
Information pertaining to me proposed beater's final configurotlon allanlennos and transmission lines are
shown below. The inventory is based upon me equipment inventory as shown on Sheet A-2, latest
Antenna Plan, from mining drawings completed by Casa Industries, Inc. as part of zoning application CUP
19-0002 in the City of Palm Down.
�k)
Type
Model
Fixed Lima
Mount y yP°
Cartier
BS
Branchnds
QB h"2&076111
No ice
1128-
((3)1/2'BC azyx
(6)Generic
T-Arm
Mounts
AT&T
AMenndort
Panel Antenna
RRU
erman RRUa
Assumptions:
• Orginel structure and foundation were constructed In accordance with the original design and
specifications and are in good c rdlibon.
The Palm Tree Monopole can accommodate all the proposed carriers equipment as indicated In that final
antennas, mounts and transmission lines table.
Co cllgs_mn
The Palm Tree Monopole will be stmcturelly adequate b hold AT&T'a loading shown above in the table after
modifications completed by SBA. The modifications will Include the removal of any existing appurenames
and mounts that were abandoned and the structural upgrading of the monopole to accommodate additional
loading.
This PE Letter determination is based on the Information and assumptions outlined above. Deviation from
the information and assumptions will invalidate the determination and require further review.
I you have any questions, please do not baslham to contact us.
1320 Greenery Dave Saw 600, Wing, Taxes 75038 Pan:(992),183M`], Fax:(972) M 9615
Honomble Commissioners
Jone 8, 2020
EXHIBIT C:
FEBRUARY 24, 2020 LETTER FROM CARL
MELLINGER
CARL MELLINGER CONS6ETIS(Q LLC Ceu.1mwrm PALMH✓.u:ui Rrivni
FF Feexuaxs 24.2020
CLIENT: John A. Henning, Jr.
SITE ADDRESS: 78005 County Club Drive, Palm Desen, CA 92203
CONTACT ENTO: (323) 655-6171,'heori nefa olano'oelaw¢ouo com
ASSIGNMENT: I was requested by Dohn A. Hemming, Jr. lo prepme a report detailing
my opinions regarding the use oflmge palm trees to camouflage a simulated palm tree
cell tower.
:lnu lu VM
A65-f t-tall simulated palm tree cell tower is proposed for a property at]8005 Country
Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92203. City staff has recommended that the property
owner swromd the cell tower with numerous real palm trees (possibly 3 to 5 trees
clustered around the facility and additional trees elsewhere on the site). An important
question is how tall these surrounding Ices should be.
Palm trees appropriate for this site include Mexican fan palm, California fan palm, and
data palm. new species may be found locally at specialized nurseries at 40- to 55-f t-
Wil, and Was of those heights should Perform well in this desert location. Although
smaller tees are more widely available at ramenes, palm trees grow slowly and smaller
trees would take decades to grow to the same height as the proposed 65-foot fall
simulated tree.
OBSERVATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISCUSSION
I reviewed photos from the applicant which depict the site of the proposed simulated
palm him and a tendering of the proposed simulated tee itself. City staff has
recommeradest that the property owner summit the cell lower with numerous real palm
trees (possibly 3 an 5 trees clustered around the facility and additional trees elsewhere on
the site).
Recommended species for this desert location are Mexican for palm (Wasbingronia
robusm), Califnmia fan palm (W hingoniafigera), and date palm(Phossia
dactin ra). In my opinion, all of these species can pefform well at this site, even if the
heights as installed are 40 to 65 feet.
Although smaller specimens of these species me commonly available at nurseries, it
would asks many decades for these smaller tees to reach the height of the simulated
trees. Both the Mexican fan palm and date palm are expected to grow approximately 6
inches per year, and the California fan palm tends to grow more slowly than that.
Therefore, for example, if 20-foot-tall Mexican an palms or daze palms were pleated, it
would take approximately 90 veers before they would reach the height of the proposed
65-foot Eff simulated palm tee cell tower.
Tall specimens of these species are readily available on the market In July 2019, I
surveyed the local market for such trees and found largertrees available from three
P.O. Box H35 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272I(310) 454-6915I GlnkgaOnegradcom
CART. MELLm4rtR CONS!,.TiN(:, LLC CEuCTowex PALMHenan REMIRI
Fegnuans 24,2020
diharem[ sourw5. This in formation is stir l ement. These sourece, along with costs for the
bees and installanOn, are listed below:
1. W. D. Young & Sons Palm Nursery, Indio
Mexican fan palms are available at 0-to50-foot-tall with a delivered cost
(including purobase of me and delivery to the site) of approximately $1,000 plus
tax. The war of installation is mannerism at this time.
- Date palms may available at 40-f 50-foot-tall with a delivered cast of
approximaely $3,000 with no tax. The cast of installation is unknown at this
time.
- Califomia fn palms are available at 40-to 50-ft-ball with a delivered cost of
approximately $3,000 plus tax. The cost of installation is uNmown at this time.
2. Sera Time Company, LEE, San Valley
- Mexican fan pabns are available at approximately 55-foot-tall at $50/f t. Each
palm would cost $2,500 to install. Thus, the installed cost of a 55-f t-tall tree
should be approximately $5,250. Even taller specimens mayposslbly be
obtained.
- Date palms are available at approximately 50-f [-tall. Purchase, delivery, and
installation should cost approximately $5,000 per tree.
- No California fr palms are available but tall specimens can be located with time
and a procurement contract.
3. BrigbtView Tree Company, Flllmore
- Mexican fan phns are vailable at various heights. The tallest available, at 39-
t-tall, would cost approximately $3,000 delivered. The cost of installation is
unknown at this time.
Sincerely,
`� xattw9
Carl Mellim er
CERTIFMDARBORIST#WE-1976A
REGISTERED CONSULTING ARBORIST 4620
TREE RISK ASSESSOR QUALIFIED #1365
Arborul Disclosure Statement: ANonsrs are free specialists who use their educaboo, Inowlaige raining
and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance their health and braury and balleWt to
where the tlsk of Irving near Ireoi Clients may choose to owed or disregard the raommandatiaos of the
arWnstorb seek additional advice. Trees and other plant life are living, changing counters aRec[Nby
musainerable factors defend our control.Trwsfailinwaysandbecauaotmnditions edorMfully
understand . Amorists cannot detector anticipate every canines or ascot that could possibly lad tote
stmctuml failure of a tree. Conditions are otter hidden within the trees and below graded. Amorists warrant
audience arm a me, hell be healthy nr safe cants olcircumstances for cry wenfic fusion o wbm
,,lM upan,mayfiFb¢r,mdiW wMq amv tmae with matimmt ortherapy, cannot b, guaranaxde
P.O. Box It 35 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272I(310) 454-6915I Glnkga oic(iend.cone
CARL MELLINGER CONS!, [LING, LLC CELL TOWER PALM HEIGHT RevORT
FEBRUARY U, 2020
Treehren5 Coning, bracing and removal of frees may involve comsideretions beyond IM scope of&a
ethernet skills and usual services such as the boundaries of properties, propeXy ownership, site lines,
neighbor disputes mW agreements and other issues. Therefore, alloria6 ammo[consider such issues unheis
wmpleds and aavnh iofarmatem is disclosed in a timely fuhion. Then, the Mond can reamnably he
expected At rely upon the cmmplaenea' and accuracy of the iohrmation provided. Trees cm be managed
but that computed, To live near hats, regardless of their tradition, is At accept some Ogee of Held. The
ready way to shortage all task associated with Ideas u At eliminate all Ideas.
P.O. Box 1135 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272I (310) 454-6915 1 GankgoORegaoLmm