Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-11-20 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8.00 a.m.-5.00 p.m., 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346-0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER OF THE AGENDA. AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2012 A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2012. Rec: Approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a lot line adjustment, Lot D (Tract No. 25296, APN 652-160-058) at Bighorn Golf Club. Case No. PMW 12-270 (Robert & Robecca Pohlad, 860 Andreas Canyon Drive, Palm Desert; and Kristi W. Hanson, Inc, 72-185 Painters Path, Suite A, Palm Desert, Applicants) Rec: By Minute Motion, approve a lot line adjustment, Case No. PMW 12- 270. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a new monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node and associated equipment consisting of six antennas, one disconnect, one power pull box, and one fiber splice vault to be installed at 74-785'/2 Frank Sinatra Drive, APN 620-400-019. Case No. CUP 12-257 (Crown Castle NG West, Inc, 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250, Seattle, WA; and Susan Makinson, 5350 North 481h Street, Suite 305, Chandler, AZ, Applicants). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2593 approving Conditional Use Permit 12-257, subject to conditions. Action: IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION 2 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Agenda\11-20-12 agn.docx AGENDA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2012 XI. COMMENTS XII. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 16t" day of November, 2012. 0 Monica O'Reilly, Recording Secreta 3 GAPlanningWonica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Ngenda\11-20-12 agn.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES • TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM,DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER ar. Chair Sonia Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Roger Dash Commissioner Connor Limon -, Commissioner Van Tanner Vice Chair Nancy De Luna Chair Sonia Campbell Staff Present: Dave Erwin, City Attorney Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community'Development Mark Greenwood, Director of Public Works Kevin Swart, Assistant Planner Christina Canales Assistant Engineer Monica O'Reilly, Administrative Secretary 111. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Campbell led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian stated the City Council met September 13, 2012, and discussed two items of interest: 1) continued discussion of a consultant to be selected for updating the Housing Element. After deliberation, the City Council rejected all the proposals that have been received and directed staff to solicit new proposals, explicitly requesting the update for the Housing Element and requirements that are in SB 244. Staff hopes to return to the City Council with a recommendation at PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 the first meeting in October; and 2) the City Council extended a temporary signage program for 90 days. The program was devised and initiated early in the summer to assist residential home builders with better visibility during the weekends for their marketing efforts. Staff hopes to address the signage program during the update of the zoning ordinance to see if it should be a permanent program. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of September 4, 2012. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented. B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of an extension for Tentative Parcel Map 36338 at Avondale Country Club. Case Nos. TPM 36338 / HTE 10-388 (Avondale Country Club, 75-800 Avondale Drive, Palm Desert; and RBF Consulting, 74-130 Country Club Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, Applicants) Upon a motion by Limont, second by Tanner, and 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, the ConsebtCalendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER 3, None VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS Ak,..REQUEST FOR:RECOMMENDATION to the City Council for consideration of ,modifications to the prior approvals for Villa Portofino (southwest corner of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive) including: a conditional Certificate of Cornioliance tc�,`confirm the prior subdivision of a portion of property; a Tentati4jracf Map; a modified Precise Plan; an amended and restated Development Agreement; architectural elevations for 72 new condominium units on Lot No. 5 of the proposed map; and an exception to the current moratorium to allow roof decks. Case Nos. DA 11-516, PP 98-21 Amendment No. 2, and TTM 36404 (VP Builders, LLC, 76-081 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert; and Country Club Drive Investors, LLC, 28071 Las Brisas Del Mar, San Juan Capistrano, Applicants). Commissioners Nancy DeLuna and Van Tanner recused themselves from participating due to potential conflicts of interest. 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reported that on February 25, 1999, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 907 for a Senior Housing Development Agreement, a General Plan Amendment, a Change of Zone, and Precise Plan 98-21 for a health and wellness resort known as Villa Portofino. The project consisted of 161-bed skilled nursing facility, 150-bed assisted living facility, 288 villa units, and 182 casita units. In September 2000, the City approved a Parcel Map Waiver creating the 13-acre parcel along Portola Avenue. He displayed tract maps. He continued to report that sometime between 2001 and 2004, the previous property owner submitted a condominium plan to the Department of Real Estate without City approval. When recorded with the County of Riverside, the plan resulted in unapproved parcels that still exist today. In 2008, the developer reported that he sold the 13-acre parcel, including the Portola Avenue frontage required to be ,improved under the Development Agreement for the dedication, of Portola Avenue. The property transfer was done without the approval:6f the City, which is required by the Development Agreement. Sometime after 2008, Royce International filed for bankruptcy and the unapproved 'parcels became bank-owned. The parcels were then sold to new owners. Mr. Swartz stated that today there are three owners: Country Club, LLC, owns the 13.=acre parcel on Portola Avenue; VP Builders/Family Development owns a 9,.63-acre parcel and a 22.6-acre parcel; and JJL Property Investiments owns 1"1:21 acres. Over recent weeks, Family Development received.a title report. The title report concluded that VP Builders/Family Development owns the common area within the 11.21-acre parcel, and JJL Property Investments only,;owns the airspace for the 40 condos. He stated VP Builders/Family Development and Country Club Investors submitted an application to move forward. The original entitlements in regards to density, unit count, setbacks, building height (if roof decks are denied), and parking will remain the same as previously approved. The site consists of a clubhouse, 36'casita units, and 84 condominium/villas units. Mr. Svira tz stated the two property owners are requesting to bring the property back int��compliance by amending the Development Agreement to address issues including, but not limited to: ownership; amending the CC&Rs; construction of the temporary emergency vehicle access road (off of Portola and having to be installed before the next building permit issuance); a bbinc/ng for Portola Avenue and the secondary access road improvements, creating City, , approved parcels through a conditional Certificate of Compliance;,`" ntative Tract Map 36404; and coming to a conclusion regarding. tha�unapproved pad height elevations on the 11.21-acre parcel abutting Casablanca. The Tentative Tract Map and Certificate of Compliance will approve prior subdivisions of the property that do not comply with the Subdivision Map Act today. The Tentative Tract Map will also include the dedication of Portola Avenue right-of-way. Prior to the recording of the final map, the owners will enter into an improvement agreement with the City to address the construction as outlined in Section 2.2.3 of the Development Agreement. The applicants would also provide an improvement bond for the completion of Portola Avenue right-of-way and the secondary access 3 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 permanent improvements. The applicants have agreed to complete the bonded improvements within two years of when the Development Agreement and final map are recorded. In regards to the unapproved pad heights abutting Casablanca, in 2008 the City rescinded an approved grading plan when differences between the pad elevation shown on the precise grading plan and the mass grading plan were discovered. The proposed pad elevations on the rescinded grading plan range from 219 to 222 feet, which were much higher than the original mass grading plan elevations (ranging from 214 to 216 feet). During that time period, residents from Casablanca expressed- their concern with the pad elevations to City staff and the City Council: Staff informed all parties interested in the project that the unimproved: pad heights would have to be corrected before structures are constructed. Today the proposed preliminary grading plan attached to the tract map;shows the pad elevations range from 215 to 217 feet. This is one foot to two feet higher than the 2000 mass grading plan. Staff's concerns with the proposed: pad elevations arise from complaints driven by Casablanca residents, and from a drainage` standpoint. The City Engineer states that the pads,,- height elevations will drain appropriately. Earlier in the year, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting with Casablanca and Villa Portofino residents. VP Builders/Family Development notified the City that��they_ have a signed agreement in place stating that Casablanca approves the proposed pad height elevations. Since JJL Property Investors owns a Iportigrf'`of that property and is not part of the entitlements, staff requested a fetter from Casablanca acknowledging that they understand that constructior>`�or removal of the dirt may not commence within several years. Today the top 'of the dirt pad height ranges from 220 to 221 feet, and the proposed pad elevations would go to 215 to 217 feet. Mr. Swartz„ displayed photos of the pads. He indicated that the letter from Casablrlca homeowners' association dated August 29, 2012, is attached to the staf 'report in support of the proposed pad height elevations, and acknowledging,;that Lot 2 may not be graded or constructed for several years. He stated that`Ojince receiving the letter, several residents from Casablanca -.reported that they still have concerns with the pad heights remaining at the unapproved heigFhi. Since JJL Property Investors owns a portion of the lot and is not part of the current application, the City cannot condition the applicant to restore the pad heights to the elevations shown on the preliminary grading plan until construction occurs. Casablanca does have an agreement with VP Builders/Family Development to stabilize and maintain the pads in the meantime. If dust control becomes an issue, the City will involve Code Enforcement. Mr. Swartz stated VP Builders/Family Development is proposing 72 condominium/villa units on Lot 5 of the Tentative Tract Map. He displayed a photo of the lots. He continued that on August 28, 2012, the Architectural Review Commission approved the proposed 72 condominium/villa units. The 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 applicants are proposing six buildings with 12 units per building, which is consistent with the existing approvals. The proposed buildings will be consistent and match the existing Tuscany architectural style. The stucco, wrought iron treatments, clay tile, and colors will be compatible with the current architecture. He noted that the original units were approved with covered carports. The applicant is proposing tandem garages per unit. In addition, the applicant is proposing the rectangular buildings to include two elevators each instead of one elevator.. VP Builders/Family Development is requesting an exception to the current moratorium to allow roof decks on the proposed 72 units. On February 9, 2012, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 1232 on the issuance of building permits, conditional permits, and other entitlements for construction of roof decks. Mr. Swartz explained that the City Council has always been adamant on maintaining privacy of residents. The building height of the proposed six buildings is 31 feet"2 inches, and is current to what is out there today. The building height with the proposed roof decks goes to approximately 36 feet to the top of the pitch. During the original public hearings, Palm Desert Greens residents were concerned with the height and privacy views of the buildings along Country Club Drive. Mr. Swartz reported that the applicant scheduled a neighborhood meeting for September 12, 2012, and invited residents from Palm Desert, Greens and current Villa Portofino residents. The applicant provided a line of sight study showing a person standing on-a,,roof deck looking towards the rear yard of Palm Desert Greens homes: Staff` believes that privacy of the Palm Desert Greens residents would be adversely impacted. He stated that the applicant has new line of sightstudies from the south, east, and west here today that they would like to show to the- Planning. Commission. Mr. Swartz communicated that basod„on the previous line-of sl^,studies that the applicant submitted, staff believes:that tho proposed roof decks would pose a threat to the privacy of the ne'ighkorng�'residents and recommends that no exception to the moratorium, be,. granted, He mentioned that two letters opposing the roof decks have been,.received.° Mr; Swartz reported that there is also a letter from JJL Property Investors, and they 'are her6"i- to express their concerns to the Commission. Staff is recomirriending_ approval to the City Council for the modifications to Precise Plan 98-21.. .. ded and restated Development Agreement, Tentative Tract No. 36404, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance, and 72 new condominium/villa units without the proposed roof decks. He offered to answer questions. Commissioner Connor Limont asked for clarification that the buildings would be 31' 2" with an elevated pad height of one to two feet. 5 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9.18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Swartz responded no and displayed a photo of the location of the future casita units. He noted that the 72 condominium units are consistent with the existing villas at 31 feet in height. Commissioner Limont asked for clarification that the two-bedroom units would only have one parking spot per condo. Mr. Swartz replied yes. The condos and villas were approved for one parking stall, which is allowed since it is under the Senior Overlay Zone. 2 y , Commissioner Roger Dash understood that there was one owner at one time, now there are three owners. The original plar� wasµ�to have skilled nursing, assisted living, condominiums, and casitas. He asked if;that's still the plan or are they talking about different lots. Mr. Swartz answered it is still the,plan. What they are talking about is legalizing the parcels. The skilled living and., assisted living-'Were always approved for the 13 acres. The skilled nursing is to the north, and the assisted living is to the south. The project is proposedfor 288 villa units and 182 casita units, which is consistent with the original entitlements. Commissioner Dash stated'thaf the1ots are owned by different people. He r asked if they are all working together tad prd ide the"services as identified. Mr. Swartz responded two of the,three property ownersare working together. The third property owner is still look'ng at title reports and figuring out what he owns. At this time, the other two owners are moving forward. j. Chair Campbell declared the public hearing open and invited the Applicant to address`'the Commission on this matter, followed by any public testimony IN F, or OPPOSITION. ;, Mr. Rudy Herrera, VP Builders/Family Development, handed to staff 30 signed letters from the current Villa Portofino homeowners in support of the roof��ecks and the proposed project at Villa Portofino. He acknowledged and thar staff/from the Planning Department, Engineering Division, the Directori� the.City Attorney, and the City Manager for working hard to put them on the'`Planning Commission agenda tonight. Mr. Herrera stated that this has been the most difficult entitlement process of his career. At the beginning of the entitlement process there were three property owners: VP Builders, JJL Property Investments, and Country Club Investors. They were working together to work out the various issues. However, Mr. Herrera stated, along the way JJL Property Investments, the owner of the 40 airspace units in Lot 2, went completely dark to VP Builders, Country Club Investors, and to the City in regards to mapping and the entitlement process. JJL Property Investments previously worked with them on a day-to-day basis up until the 6 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9.18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 issue of ownership of Lot 2 arose. It left the other two owners with no alternative but to move forward without JJL Property Investments. At this time, JJL Property Investments are not part of the Planning Commission process. They are not gaining or losing entitlement rights. Mr. Herrera communicated when they entered into the due diligence process to purchase the property, they knew there were issues that included: compliance with the Map Act, status of the Development Agreement, completion of the Portola Avenue improvements, CC&Rs compliance, secondary emergency access, maintenance agreements, traffic signal, landscaping, retention and drainage easements, Water Quality Management Plan, relations with Casablanca homeowners, and pad heights. He said the staff "report was very well written and detailed. He stated that all the issues have'been"addressed and resolved. The only item they would like to discuss is the roof decks, which they will present shortly. Mr. Herrera stated with the'^Planning Commission's approval, this will be the first step in closing out a'very long list of"outstanding issues that has plagued the development for years. The approval would also give the City certainty on the public improvements, as well as life safety .issues. He offered to answer questions, and requested; tq reserve the right to address any items that might be brought up during th6::public testimony. Commissioner Dash inquired°."'who is going-, to be responsible for the improvements at the beginr ing of Country Club [give and going south. Mr. Herrera answered VP Builders and VP Land will be bonding for those agreements:"with the City, and there is a separate agreement with Country Club Investors. From'tC g time t4 final map is recorded, they will have two years ta`fully complete.:ihe Portola.Avenue improvements. Upon recording of the final rra .the ded;ication"of"the land would be given to the City. He added that.they would'be putting up"completion bonds to complete the work. If they fail,do so,the Cty` ill have bonds to call on to have the work completed. Commissioned Dash'basked if the utility poles will be removed on Portola :Avenue and ifte streetwould be widened. Mt Herrera res onded that the street would be widened to the right-of-way, and"ihe"",power"fines would not be removed. He said the lines are not allowed to be undergrounded. Commissioner Dash noted that there are no power lines exposed on Portola south of the area; beyond Hovley there are no power lines. He asked where those lines are. Mr. Herrera replied that he did not know, but as you travel north the power lines do exist. He mentioned that due to the voltage the lines carry, they cannot be undergrounded. 7 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Vincent Barbato, VP Builders/Family Development, stated he is going to address the roof decks issue. He explained the redesign was a direct response to the market and market requests. The existing product did not have garages, and they have been told that residents prefer to have them. The existing residents also had floor plans that had certain issues, so they have addressed and corrected them as well. One of the greatest assets of the community is the views, but they realized not everybody gets to appreciate those views with the current design. Approximately 50 percent of the residents get to enjoy the views and by virtue of the floor plan the other 50 percent do not. The roof decks would allow all residents to enjoy the views. He explained that the units that are 12-plexes are compatible with the current 12-plexes that are there now. They have four units downstairs and eight units upstairs. Four of the units upstairs will face the view to the south, and the other four units to the rear will not. The units to the rear will face a retention wall. In order to give those residents a view, they designed the roof decks so they could also look to the south and enjoy the view. He said they designed the decks towards the rear of the building, which creates physical barriers that prohibit people from being able to look into other residences. He mentioned they completed line of sight surveys. He also mentioned when they met with Palm Desert Greens and current Villa Portofino to present the line of sight study, no one in attendance objected or raised questions. He displayed the line of sight study, and said that the distance between the two properties is 200 feet. He also presented photos from Google Earth showing the different views from Villa Portofino and the side of the street into Palm Desert Greens. Mr. Barbato displayed�new line of sight studies and gave a brief description of different views. He stated the study shows they are not affecting the privacy of any o ,the residents. Mr. Barbato noted the Architectural Review Commission supported,and approved,the roof decks. He asked the Planning Commission' ii support 'the ;roof decks and thanked them for their consideration. Mr., Barbato offered`to answer any questions. Commissioner:Dash '"ked Ms. Aylaian and referred to the ordinance that created the noratonurn He said there is a statement that says, "Notwithstandin any provisions of the Municipal Code to the contrary, no issuance of permit of any nature shall be approved or any request for roof dec�thin the, 10 and a half months."He asked if that is in conflict with the request that they are faced with. Ms. Aylaian responded that the City Council can grant an exception to a moratorium. If the Planning Commission wanted to recommend the roof decks, their recommendation would go as part of the entire package for the City Council's review. The Planning Commission cannot grant an exception to the moratorium, but they can make a recommendation to the City Council that an exception be granted. Chair Campbell asked how many roof decks are on each building. 8 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9.18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Barbato said each building has four roof decks and referred to the photo. Chair Campbell asked if all the tenants would have access to the roof decks. Mr. Barbato replied no. The only people that have access to the roof decks are the owners themselves. Chair Campbell continued with public testimony. She asked Mr. Tokheim to step up to the lectern, and stated to him that the; Planning Commission received his letter. The letter states that he did not:receive a notice of this public hearing, and requested staff to check if he,was notified. Mr. Swartz stated that staff sent out a notice to`owners of property within 300 feet of the surrounding area. He mentioned that he has not had a chance to go through the mailing labels to verify that a notice was sent to Mr. Tokheim. Some notices were returned, but. the-, notice to Mr. Tokheim' was not sent back. During the Public Hearing, he would go through the labels to make sure a notice was mailed out. Mr. Tom Tokheim, JJL Property Investment ,stated that he did not receive a notice for this hearing, but that ha,bas in the,Npast. He communicated he has legal representation and consultants continuing to work on this project. There is a question on the ownership and a:difference,-of opinion regarding the ownership. Mr. Tokheim mentioned he'''met with Mr. Swartz earlier in the day and received a `copy of the notiog.and staff report. At that time, he showed Ms. Aylaian and Mr. Swartz information from his title company and his lawyer. He stated that the tax bill he received indicates that the parcel (Lot 2) is 11.48 acres and not 11.21 acres, as presented on the photo. Correspondence he has,,received since closing escrow i�n February 2010 also references 11.48 acres:;Mr,. Tokheim said Mr. Swartz mentions ownership in his staff report, and thaf there is an agreement within the City and the other organizations as far as what the,title is As he reviews the grant deeds, it definitely talks about real property bt he has heard tonight by two individuals about airspace units. He said he is not sure if people are in agreement that it is airspace units or pad of the parcel''or the entire parcel. There is a question as to the ownership of the, ''entire parcel, and he assured the Planning Commission that he has been receiving�all the notices and the tax bills that show the 11.84 acres. He stated that no information has been shared with him or his partner regarding the Tentative Tract Map application. They were part of the project up until the question of ownership was raised. It came to his attention sometime in June, and there was a dormant period from April till mid June. He stated that over the summer and through vacations with a couple of different attorney firms, consultants, and title companies they have been working around vacation trying to clarify ownership. They have not opted out of any map application; they are continuing to finalize the results of their inquiries. He stated that he wished his attorneys and his civil engineers were at the meeting tonight, and 9 GAPlanning\Monica OFeilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\918-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 wished they had everything nailed down. He stated there is a question on the ownership of the entire 11.21 or 11.84 acres. What he saw today in the Tentative Tract Map application was that there is an irregular rectangle parcel on the right side sectioned off, and part of another parcel is taken up. He stated until the ownership issue is resolved, he does not know how that could be done. Aside from the ownership issue, he or his partner have no understanding of what separating the parcels would have on their ability to develop it in the future. He said he could tell from the discussions tonight there are other agreements in place with regards to,the parcel or part of the parcel that they are not knowledgeable of, and haver"no understanding with regards to pad heights, clean up, and stabilization;. Mr. Tokheim feels that they have a right to understand what the agreement"are for this parcel. Chair Campbell interjected and asked thp),City Attorney, if. they could move forward or if the item needed to be continued. Mr. Dave Erwin, City Attorney, responded that there is discretion with the Planning Commission to move forward,They have looked at the ownership issue, and they have not seen anything thatwould indicate that Mr. Tokheim is owner in fee in this. There is some question about his ownership. Mr. Erwin stated that he does not believe there is anythng;,that would keep the Planning Commission from making a recommendation to the City Council at this time. That ownership issue, if there .is a problem and a,question, will be resolved before anything is done on the property. Chair Campbell asked if'Lot 5 is the one in question for this evening. Mr. Erwin replied thatis Correct.,, Mr. Mai'W Greenwood, Director of Public Works, clarified the map before the � Planning Commission tonight does include Lots 1 through 5. It sets pad heights on those lots;and they are not just talking about Lot 2 or Lot 5. Commissioner LiKnont asked Mr. Greenwood in regards to the heights of the otfi`ar parcels that are one to two feet above grading, would they also be included as par .pf the approval tonight. Mr. Greenwood responded that was his understanding. The pad heights were established in the Planning Commission packet that is before them tonight. Ms. Aylaian requested for Mr. Swartz to address the pad heights. She stated they left a range of pad heights that would allow for a couple of feet of latitude for parcel No. 2. 10 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Mr. Swartz stated the actual range is on parcel No.1, which is located in the Planning Commission packet labeled sheet No. 3A, and Lot 2 is on sheet No. 4. Mr. Tokheim recommended that this item be tabled for 30 days until the ownership issue is settled, and reports and documents could be reviewed. He would like to understand why time is of the essence. The project has had a lot of issues over the last 12 to 13 years, it had a lot of missed steps, there have been failed banks, and other things that went on. He would think the last thing the Planning Commission would want to do is take some steps to move in a different direction, and then have to back up in 30 or 60 days. He asked what is lost by another 30 days until this could be resolved. Chair Campbell referred Mr. Tokheim's,question to the City Attorney. Mr. Erwin stated that the discretion is with the Planning Commission. He frankly does not believe the property issue would be resolved in 30 days. Information indicates that Mr. Tokheim has an ownership of airspace from the documents they have seen so far. This is an issue that has been dealt with for a period of time, not just the last few weeks, It has been several months going through documentation and that is the conclusion of the City Attorney at this time. Chair Campbell clarified if the Planning Commission could move forward. Mr. Erwin suggested moving forward. Commissioner, Dash asked, the City Attorney what is meant by airspace ownership. Mr. Erwirfrdplied that;he could explain as much as he can. He stated that he does not understand airspace. In condominium developments, you can create airspace that 9-.owned. Commissioner 6mont inquired if the airspace would limit whoever builds after this. For example, if you have a roof deck and you say I can see so much, and then the next development comes in and they say, you can't build that height because you are taking up our airspace. Mr. Erwin stated that the airspace is within the unit itself. Mr. Swartz stated for the record that he had just reviewed the project files, and that Mr. Tokheim's name and address is on the mailing labels for the legal notices, so he is not sure why he did not receive a notice. In the future, staff will make sure he receives a notice. 11 GAPlanning\Monica OlReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-13-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Chair Campbell also clarified that the notice was not returned. Mr. Swartz answered that was correct. Ms. Diana Plotkin, 73-730 Calle Bisque, Palm Desert, addressed the Planning Commission and said she is not a full time resident; she's here six months out of the year. She congratulated the developers for doing a wonderful job, but she has three major concerns: 1) the dedication of Portola Avenue. She hoped that the developer would take out the construction completion bond so they could finally get the Portola rights to Palm Desert. That way it can be. straightened out and have sidewalks installed..;Sho stated that she has lived there for 12 years, and they have been waiting,"for'that length of time. The corner is very dangerous. They have seen crashes and drunks drive up onto the property. She has been in touch with the Planning Department regarding the dedication of Portola Avenue; 2�,;,the roof tops. If the roof tops are approved, people will go up to the,,deck to maybe sunbathe and turn on their radio or just to talk. You will be`'ablq to hear the noise all over, which will radiate to Palm Desert Greens and 'Casablanci." In addition, the roof decks will take away the view from people that have views today in order to give new people views. It will decrease the property values for those that will be affected by the sight. With the moratorium; the roof decks should not be considered at this time. It is "an impact;to the quality of life for the rest of the people who live in the area;land 3) the'third,issue-is the berm. The berm has existed since Villa Portofino si�rted.:to"build: It is seven to eight feet higher than the code.requires. She personally has chased people off the berm who have tried to climb over into Casablanca. She knows for a fact that condos in Casablanca that are closer to Monterey have been burglarized, although they can't say it is because of the berm, but the fact remains it is dangerous. She voiced that the,,berm`should come down, and it should come down now. It should be no higher than the code requires, which is the law. The berm is illegal, and she would encourage before any permits are issued that the Planning C66imission order them to reduce the berm to code. She thanked the Planning Commission. Ms. ,,,Gail Christiansen, 73-820 Calle Bisque, Palm Desert, addressed the Planning Comm sion and said she is the president of the Casablanca homeowners' association. She commented that Mr. Tokheim was talking about thepad elevations, and the Planning Commission's vote might impact on Mr. Tokheim's elevations. Her understanding is that the City Attorney has filed against that property. If there is change of ownership of any type or before anything is started development-wise, he must bring those elevations down. She feels that is a moot point. She doesn't see how that is an issue for Mr. Tokheim. She stated that she has met several times in the last year with Family Development. They have had numerous conversations over the phone and email, and negotiating for a year. Family Development has signed an agreement with Casablanca that is recorded on the property and that 12 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9.18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 addresses the concerns of soil stabilization, maintaining the property, the elevations of the property, and setbacks. For a majority of the Casablanca homeowners, issues have been addressed by Family Development. Casablanca supports their endeavor to start development of this property. The bottom line is that all the issues will be gone once the property is built out. Once built out there will no longer be issues with elevation, sand blow, and tumbleweeds. Ms. Margaret Marshall, 403 San Michelle, Palm Desert, commented that she is representing Villa Portofino's members. She stated she faces Portola Avenue and does not have the gorgeous views. Villa Portofino has fabulous views, and they feel like they are in Italy where driving into the development. The members are thrilled to have Family Development with them. They are pleased on how they are addressing different issues, and would like to see the project started. She mentioned that she does have one issue, which is if you are facing Portola Avenue there is a wire fence that has an ugly green cover and an unfinished road in'"front of the fence. Ms. Marshall requested that all owners would agree on completing the road and building a permanent structure when they put in the new access from Portola Avenue into Villa Portofino. She stated people would like the roof decks, and it would also be visually attractive. Ms. Marshall thanked the Planning Commission. Mr. Herrera apprised the Planning Commission regarding the "berm" that VP Builders, VP Lartd:and Family Development has entered into a maintenance agreement with°Caslnca to maintain the dust, weeds, and to keep it from becoming unsightly u64 it is developed. He noted that they would be covering the cost- ;for the maintenance. He said when the site is presented for development,,.,,,the issu -of ;that pad,heights would be addressed per the Tentative Trao Map. Sfaf', themselves, and Casablanca support the pad heights,�that are being proposed to the Planning Commission. Mr. Herrera stated in Fight of Mr �Tokheim's letter and Mr. Swartz's acknowledgment that he was noticed their' (Family Development's and Tom Tokheim's) attorneys exchanged a conversation last week notifying him as well, and he indicated that his attorne},was not going to be present. His attorney did not know if Mr. Tokheim was going to be at the meeting so the letter was a shock. He said they-were working together up until the ownership became an issue, and they had no choice but to move forward. He encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward in light of the City Attorney's comments. This ownership issue has been very well known for several months, and if there was clarification or any documents that would prove otherwise he is sure they would be there during the hearing, yesterday, or when they knew about it. He does not think this is the forum for ownership issues; they are here to process the Tentative Tract Map, the Conditions of Approval, and the Resolution. Mr. Barbato emphasized the views and property values of residents would not be affected. They are building the two-story residences where they were 13 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9.18.12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 already approved and where they currently are. He noted that no two-story residences are approved to be built along the Casablanca borders. He stated they do not want to impose their will on anybody, and they have tried to embrace everybody's concerns, feelings, and sensitivities and incorporated them into what they have done. He thanked the Planning Commission for their support. With no further testimony offered, Chair Campbell declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Limont requested a clear understanding in regards to the packet, if they were to approve as proposed, she asked if the pad height elevations on the 11.21-acre parcel are separate or part of it. She said the staff report states, `: . . the unapproved pad heights will have to be corrected to the original pad heights approved on the 2000 mass grading plan before structures are constructed thereon." Mr. Swartz responded that the pad heights would have to come down. Currently they are about 220 to 222 feet, On the preliminary grading plan, which is attached to the Tentative Tract Map, the proposed pad heights are 215 to 217 feet. When construction does occur, the pad heights would have to come down to those elevations. Commissioner Daslir commented that he is willing to move forward with the Resolution, if yhb is read„ng it correctly. He clarified that staff is supporting the project as,presented, but not supporting the roof decks. Ms. Aylaianreplied that was,correct. Commissioner Dash stated the only change he would like to see done is the Portola 'dedication; but the response is that it cannot be done. He would not delay any activity for,that matter. He also stated the roof decks are under investi ation and/or stu b City staff, and he feels it would be inappropriate 9 "� Y Y ,for,the Planningr Eommission to make a recommendation when it is being studied by staff. Staff has a broader understanding of the values, the virtues, and the,liabilities of roof decks throughout the entire City. Therefore, he would have to wait until they have some resolution or recommendation from staff. If he as a Commissioner voted one way or the other, it is going to have an influence on what staff would do and he would not want to put that burden on staff. He stated he agrees and supports the Resolution as prepared. Commissioner Limont stated the Villa Portofino project was difficult simply to read so she could only imagine the work and the efforts necessary by staff to get to the place they are today. To say that previous staff, City Council members, and Commission members with her included, missed on this project is an understatement. As a City, she feels they really blew it. They 14 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 allowed a developer to do basically what they wanted to do without the City's approval, and then walk away under the protection of bankruptcy, leaving both the lender and the City in this mess. At this point it makes sense to provide reasonable guidance to the new owners to move forward in a positive fashion; however, it does not mean compromising ordinances and making decisions that, like previous ones associated with this project, will come back to haunt existing neighbors, as well as the City and staff of Palm Desert. The roof decks are not a necessary part of the design and not currently allowed with new construction in the City of Palm Desert, and cause an extension past our City height limits. Therefore, she agrees with;'staff's recommendation to' approve this proposal without allowing roof decks. Chair Campbell concurred with the other Commissioners and staff regarding the roof decks. The other buildings in Villa Portofino are excellent the way they are, and she does not feel they, should be different from the other buildings. In addition, there is a moratorium and the Planning..Commission should not go against that. Commissioner Dash moved, by Minute Motion, towaive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2592, without allowing roof decks and subject to conditions. Motion was seconded by Limont and carried by a'3-0-2°-vote with DeLiana and Tanner ABSENT. Chair Campbell congratulated, the applicant, and,.fhe City looks forward to having the condominiums built IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. UPDATE OF THE MASSAGE.ORDINANCE Ms. Ayf ian stated she will provide information on how the City currently controls massage establishments, massage therapists, recent changes in State law, and how staff proposes to accommodate the new laws. It will make a difference on how business is done at the Planning Commission. She warned the Planning Commissioners that they might not be comfortable with some of the items being recommended because it is a change from what has been done in the;past. There are reasons why the City cannot continue doing what it has been doing, and Ms. Aylaian noted massage regulation in the City is complicated. Ms. Aylaian stated that there are four ordinances that are involved. The City controls the massage establishment itself under one chapter. It controls the therapists and their licensing in a second chapter. It issues businesses licenses in a third chapter. The fourth piece is the Land Use Element, which is what the Planning Commission deals with, and the only part that applies to massage is the Conditional Use Permit processes under Title 25. 15 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\918-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 One chapter of Title 5 governs massage establishments: it tells where they are permitted (what zones they can be in); it defines the building requirements (door locations, plumbing, parking, and access); it deals with operating requirements (hours of operation, how you have to conduct business, keep logs); it deals with exposing and touching (prohibiting therapists from exposing themselves or exposing their clients and touching them in the genital area or other ways that are inappropriate); it deals with the permitting process (what you need to do to operate your establishment); and it deals with inspections, which allows the City to inspect these business. Another chapter of Title 5 contains the requirements for the therapists. It starts with a detailed background check and proof of education, then it goes back to exposing and touching. It requires identification badges and particular dress to keep therapists more clinical, and it has a very detailed permit process that describes how each therapist needs to be permitted. For the business license section of the municipal code, there is a simple application requirement with a nominal fee. For land use, the fourth section of the municipal code impacting massage, she noted Title 25.72 regulates the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, but does not mention the word massage anywhere. With Title 25, the City looks at parking, hours of operation, and compatibility with neighbors. This four-part system, which involves a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission, is what the City has been doing for a long time, but there's a new State law that prohibits that. If a massage therapist or a business is licensed througt ,California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC), the City no longer controls'the €our areas just"mentioned. They no longer control the therapists :Jicensing (dune by CAMTC), they do not control Land Use (removed"",all together); 0nd they do not control the massage establishment. It only leaves-1he City, with business licensing, which is purely ministerial. It does not give the,City muc�control. The new legislation has taken away all the`controls that' ipically the City"had. Ms. Aylaian stated the CAMTC has been in existence' since 2009, but staff has not modified the ordinance because the' Were not certain how the CAMTC operated, if they were funded, What there wereIable to do, and staff did not have confidence on the services thgy would provide. She stated CAMTC has come a long way in the last couple of years They were created by the State legislature to create voluntary certification for Certified Massage Therapists (CMTs) and Certified Massagd,Practitioners (CMPs), to ensure training of CMTs and CMPs, and increase education and training standards. The CAMTC can do a better job than the City at investigating schools issuing diplomas, suspending certification in six hours, preparing declarations for use in court, and monitoring the Department of Justice arrest reports from across the country on a daily basis. Ms. Aylaian said staff will be proposing a revised approach that would be consistent with the State law and would draw more heavily from CAMTC and the things they have to offer. The City would rely on the CAMTC for the certification of individual therapists. The City would also rely on CAMTC for the issuance, renewals, suspensions, and revocations. A 16 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-15-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 revocable City Registry would give the City the ability to do inspections of massage businesses, receive additional information on the general business and corporation, and the ability to revoke their registration. Therapists would need to have both a CAMTC certification and City registration in order to practice massage. The City would be able to investigate and do background checks for anyone that owns more than five percent in the business. For enforcement, they would be able to do business inspections and enforce registration suspensions and revocations; certification enforcement would be through CAMTC. The next step is taking to the City Council for consideration to change two of the chapters under Title 5. One chapter would address the therapists, and the other chapter would address the business establishments to make those consistent with the new State law. Staff would only come back to the Commission to identify and to approve an ordinance saying in which zones massage establishments are permitted. She asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions,.- Commissioner DeLuna stated she is not pleased with the State taking over something that the City has had control of. She said the State is understaffed, overworked, underfunded, and they have no vested interest in any of the individual municipalities. They have no real reason to be as invested in the process down here from Sacramento or wherever their regional office is located. She said she heard a lot of what Ms. Aylaian say is that the State can do this, the State can do that. She does not hear where they will routinely investigate. It s©und�,like the City is giving up control of a process that the City has made very efficient anti has worked. She asked if the Conditional Use Permit, or Land' Use Element is being removed from the licensing process. Flow would the,City maintain control and uniformity? Ms., Aylaian stated that the CAMTC;-is not the State. They are an independent organization. She said when she 'mentions State, it is a statewide certification but not issued by the„State. The State does not do the background checks, revocations, Q�the suspensions. She believes the CAMTC is privately funded .from their fees.," Commissioner DeLuna asked if the CAMTC is self regulating. Ms. Aylaian responded she does not have an answer, but would look into it. She stated the CAMTC is more deeply staffed and funded than the City for doing background checks, sting operations, and investigating the educational institutions that are providing the credentials. She mentioned staff saw a presentation from CAMTC, and they are almost exclusively retired vice cops from Los Angeles that are doing the background checks and investigations. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the CAMTC has a local office. Ms. Aylaian replied they do not. 17 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9.18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Commissioner DeLuna inquired where the closest office is located. Ms. Aylaian said she believes they do everything out of Sacramento, but could not be certain. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Police Department is satisfied with this new process. Ms. Aylaian said yes. The Police Department has beerr involved with CAMTC, and it is their recommendation as well. She commented it is regrettable that the City does not have the power, but it is not, something the City is giving away. It is legislation that has already been,writtO t,rwhich says that local jurisdictions cannot require licenses, they cannot make requirements on these businesses or individuals if they have gotten their license through CAMTC. It l`also says that Local jurisdictions cannot require ConditionaUse Permits. Commissioner Tanner interjected than it sounds like a contract even though the City is not paying for it. The City its using a contract type of vendor to take care of the City's problems. The City is not really saying they are going to do away with the problem, it is just saying`we.will have an opportunity to present it to a different staff and,different control system. He stated the City still has ordinance and zoning issues that they could stiff enforce. Ms. Aylaian clarified that massage establishments would be able to open their doors in whatever zone. She, explainied that`'the City would not be able to require anything different from al,°massage therapist than a chiropractor, nutritionist, or cosmetologist. The`one question she does have for the City Attorney is the concentration of businesses. When they were looking at tattoo businesses, tattoo businesses do notrequire separate licenses. They looked at radius distances or some way to govern, from a fiscal stability standpoint, Otte" itydid not rely too heavily on any one type of business for revenue. Mr. Erwin stated they are still looking at that issue. Commissioner Dash asked if CAMTC would be charging the City a fee. Ms. ylaian responded cities do not get charged for services that CAMTC provides. Commissioner Dash inquired where funding comes from. Ms. Aylaian stated she believes it comes from the massage therapist license fees. Commissioner Limont asked if there is an issue, how quickly is the response time. 18 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 Ms. Aylaian responded the first call is to CAMTC, and worst case if it is over a three-day holiday weekend, it might take them up to 48 hours to revoke a certificate so they could not practice anywhere in the State. She noted that it would take considerably longer to revoke a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Tanner inquired if the City is able to do sting operations with the City's Police Department. Ms. Aylaian responded the City has done that in the past. Commissioner Tanner asked if the City has to use CAMTC for sting operations. Ms. Aylaian said the CAMTC sting operations are focused on the institutions issuing credentials and diplomas. Commissioner Tanner asked if there is an illegal operation, the City would go in and bust them. Ms. Aylaian responded that the Police Department would continue to enforce. Commissioner DeLuna stated that they have not allowed certain type of massage establishments. She asked if that opens the door saying that they could now have massage establishments. Ms. Aylaiart,responded the door has already been opened by the State; the City has n6t.reflected that in the municipal code. CommissionerTanr�er asked ii they don't have a choice. Ms. Aylafa*replied-that was correct. Commissioner; !eLun�a inquired if they could affect the zoning so they are only allowed in dertain zones. Ms. Aylaian responded that would be their intention. X. COMMITTEE:.MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION None 19 G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 XI. COMMENTS Ms. Aylaian commented that staff believes there will be a Planning Commission meeting on September 18. XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Campbell, second by DeLuna, and 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 6:31 p.m. SONIA CAMPBELL, CHAIR ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 20 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2012\Minutes\9-18-12 min 2.docx CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: LAURI AYLAIAN, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: BO CHEN, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP WAIVER NO. 12-270 DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2012 The above-referenced parcel map waiver has been reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department and found to be technically correct. Please schedule for Planning Commission action as soon as possible. PMW 12-270: Property Owners: Robert C. and Robecca C. Pohlad, and Bighorn Golf Club Applicant: Kristi W. Hanson, Inc. 72-185 Painters Path, Suite A Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Ingrid Espe ------------- -------- -------- BO CHEN, P.E. N City Of Palm Desert I Department of Community Development /� Cr9wr� •1ti PARCEL MAP WAIVER .,-•. 73-510 Fred Waring Drive• Palm Desert• California• 92260• (760)346-0611 • Fax (760)776-6417 Ap licant: - 940T( W. a I I&I . Telephone: 8 Mailing Address: "�2- Ib;� PAI NMgC PAn.J , W I TC A Fax number:-"7( O -77(0_ 40 E5 City: PA DESERT* State: CA Zip: WEmail; „� •��n�9� �m Property Owner: t? 6�T pONl.ltrb Telephone: Mailing Address: 001 13 "00 wry"' Fax number: City: PDltrlq State: MN ZIP: Email: Representative: _CAM P— 1�r Telephone: Mailing Address: Fax number: City: State: Zip: Email: Please send correspondence to(check one):_ Applicant Property Owner Representative Project Address(s);_$(00 A1l1bRF.14� )t�D�l hRl�) i �►�I/ Assessor Parcel Number(s): _1�52- I loo- D54j Existing Zoning: General Plan Designation: Project Request(describe specific nature of approval request): Lor [rive AWUsr✓ Ayr Property Owner Authorization: The undersigned states that they are the owner(s) of the property described and here' a authorizatio r the filing of the application. Signature Print Name Date Applicant/ Representative Signature: By signing this application I certify that the information provided is accurate. I understand that the City might not approve what I am applying for and/or might require conditions of approval. I2 JAPP40 L. M fi;r ,;4w6J 1,G, rig -c - Signature Print Name D to Property Owner Authorization: Agreement absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT absolves the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities reg(�lY4any deed restrictions that applicable to the property described herein. Signature Print Name Date OFFICE USE ONLY PROJECT NO: PMW�Z Z 7b DATE: 7— ACCEPTED BY: ,.5 City Of Palm Desert I Department of Community Development � EL MAP WAIVER PARC 73-510 Fred Waring Drive•Palm Desert•California•92260•(760)346-0611 • Fax(760)776-6417 n s=• Applicant: Telephone: Mailing Address: ^- I gnG '''" ' �4 1 Fax number: -14#0-1Y36-40°14b �. City: PMAIL p L State: Zip: �12��Email: rY C Property Owner: �11210 �'�:ifll�i �e/�1,�C�4�fi _Telephone: Mailing Address: ra35 Iv1GGcQNt'i'E �IIL� Fax number:'�l(�M-11°I-1q 3 City: PALL i -t' State: ► _Zip: 22 Email: Representative: PhIZL. OppuamL.�� Telephone: Mailing Address: c �� P,�i ler`1 dVVJV'W1 Fax number: City: State: Zip: Email: Please send correspondence to(check one): X Applicant Property Owner Representative Project Address(s): (A) b .T�`YG(' ism 25?a14 I L DC�s6Rr3 't'.A 0112AW - Assessor Parcel Number(s): WON Existing Zoning: NAWNIaD 1 IL odT'I L General Plan Designation: -___ Project Request(describe specific nature of approval request): ._........_.____._ _.,.._.._._ _ _ .__....__.._......__..._.___....._____ Property Owner Authorization: The undersigned states that they are the owner(s) of the property described and herein give authorization for the filing of the application. Signature Print Name Date Applicant/ Representative Signature: By signing this application 1 certify that the information provided is accurate. I understand that the City might not approve what I am applying for and/or might require conditions of approval. I11Xl�Ph'�- v Signature Print Name D to Property Owner Authorization: Agreement absolving the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities relative to any deed restrictions. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT absolves the City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any deed restrictions that may be applicable to the property described herein. ?.-- Signature Print Name Date OFFICE USE ONLY Q PROJECT NO: PMW L? - .Z O DATE: (Z- ACCEPTED BY: r 5 EXHIBIT "A" *40f P.M.W. 12-270 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL"A"(ADJUSTED LOT 12,TRACT NO.25296) LOT 12 OF TRACT NO. 25296, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 378,PAGES 81 THROUGH 90, INCLUSIVE,OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER,OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF LOT"D"OF SAID TRACT NO.25296,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 12, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 13 OF SAID TRACT NO.25296; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12,N 83020'00"W, A DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE PROLONGATION OF SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12,N 83020'00"W,A DISTANCE OF 84.21; THENCE S 28040'00"W,A DISTANCE OF 28.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12, N 81020'00"E,A DISTANCE OF 98.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL"A"CONTAINS 35,964.05 S.F.(0.83 AC.), MORE OR LESS. FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS,CONDITIONS,RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS,RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY,EASEMENTS,OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD, IF ANY. PAGE 1 OF 2 PAGES �I **Not EXHIBIT "A" P.M.W. 12-270 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRANSFER PARCEL(FROM LOT"D",TRACT NO.25296 TO LOT 12,TRACT NO.25296) THAT PORTION OF LOT"D"OF TRACT NO.25296, IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 378,PAGES 81 THROUGH 90,INCLUSIVE OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER,OF SAID COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 12 OF SAID TRACT NO.25269, SAID CORNER ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 13 OF SAID TRACT NO.25296; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12,N 83020'00"W,A DISTANCE OF 78.55 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE PROLONGATION OF SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12,N 83020'00"W,A DISTANCE OF 84.21; THENCE S 28040'00"W,A DISTANCE OF 28.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12, N 81°20'00"E,A DISTANCE OF 98.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE ABOVE DESCRIBED TRANSFER PARCEL CONTAINS 1,093.40 S.F.(0.03 AC.), MORE OR LESS. FOR GRAPHICAL PURPOSES SEE EXHIBIT`B"ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS,CONDITIONS,RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY,EASEMENTS,OR EXCEPTIONS OF RECORD,IF ANY. 0 1 a d ,r tS54 �" /Z iRE ' Wayne A. McGee L.S. 5479 to F SI s PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES THIS PLAT WAS PREPARED FROM RECORD DATA AND EXHIBIT nB so 0 3o so DOES NOT REPRESENT A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON. THIS MAP HAS BEEN APPROVED P.M.W. 12-270 UPON THE EXPRESSED COND177ON THAT BUILDING PERMITS SHALL NOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS AMISTMENT PLAT UNTIL NECESSARY IN FEET ) DEDICATIONS, IF ANY, HAVE OCCURRED. i inch = 60 ft. NOTE• THERE MAY BE EASEMENTS OF RECORD DELINEATED AND REFERENCED ON THE UNDERL PING MAP, OR 7HERE MAY BE EASEMENTS WITHIN THE AREA BEING ADJUSTED THAT ARE NOT SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT THAT COULD ENCUMBER SAID PARCEL HEREIN. TRANSFER PARCEL LOT 'D" (0.03 AC.#) TRACT NO, 25296 i M.B. 378/81-90 GOLF COURSE A.P.N. 652-160-073 A.P.N. 652-160-046 N8320 00'{y p 84.21, u 162.76' 0°'nv�1N8i 20 0 78.55' 98.20 T.P.O.B. O P.O.C. LOT LINE BEING z ELIMINATED o I o_ I rn I �r� PARCEL 'A' LOT 13 LOT 'D" .d, (0.8J AC. +/-) 7RACT NO. 25296 TRACT NO. 25296 M.B. 378/81-90 M.B. 378/81-90 � LOT 12 l 7RACT NO.. 25296 N_ J;- M.B. 378/81-90 o A.P.N. 652-160-058 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA Cl 15.56 32,50 27'25'43' C2 17,94 40.00 25'41'42' ��sr6 G3 C3 76.17 172.00 25°22'29' 9 pNpL LA1V0 A. tijc o D � nREP p u0R, v,B, a � NO. 5479 Exp. 9/30/14 LEGEND: tp9r P EX. LOT LINE TO REMAIN F�F CAL1F� ELIMINATED LOT LINE — — — — LIMIT OF TRANSFER PARCEL71 ADJUSTMENT PLA T - CITY OF PALM DESERT PREPARED Y.• APPLICANT: APPROVED BY.- KRISTI HANSON ARCHITECT R. PAGE GARNER 72-185 PAINTERS PATH, STE. A i /d PALM DESERT, CA 92260 WA YNE A. Mc GEE DA TE CITY SUR VE YOR /0 /olt Z L.S. 5479 L.S. 6155 EXP. JIJ1114 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A NEW MONOPALM DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM WIRELESS NODE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CONSISTING OF SIX ANTENNAS, ONE DISCONNECT, ONE POWER PULL BOX, AND ONE FIBER SPLICE VAULT TO BE INSTALLED AT 74-785 Y2 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE; APN 620-400-019 SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner APPLICANT: Crown Castle NG West, Inc. 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98109 Susan Makinson 5350 North 48th Street, Suite 305 Chandler AZ, 85226 CASE NO: CUP 12-257 DATE: November 20, 2012 CONTENTS: Resolution No. 2593 Legal Notice Architectural Review Commission Minutes, September 25, 2012 Architectural Review Commission Minutes, October 9, 2012 Plans and Exhibits Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2593, approving Conditional Use Permit 12-257 as proposed. Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a distributed antenna system (DAS) within a faux-palm tree structure that is approximately 40'0" tall. The proposed location of the faux- palm tree on the west side of Cook Street, north of Desert Mirage Drive within the Staff Report Case No. CUP 12-257 Page 2 of 5 November 20, 2012 existing City-owned parkway landscaping outside of the Desert Willow Golf Course. The faux-palm tree is designed to blend in with the existing landscaping and there is no visible equipment shelter that is typical of other cellar projects. Architectural Review Commission The project was presented to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on September 27, 2012. After discussion by the ARC members, the project was continued with the following direction: 1. Move the faux-palm tree inside the wall or closer to the existing palm tree grouping. 2. Submit a detailed site plan. 3. Install additional palm trees and landscaping, if necessary. 4. Present revised photo simulations of the project. The applicant worked with staff to revise the plans, and research the possibility of moving the project site to the inside of Desert Willow. It was determined by both the applicant and staff that the project site could not be inside the golf course for multiple reasons, and an alternative location on Cook Street was selected. Staff explained that the recent fires to the palm trees provided some flexibility for the location, and recommended that the applicant work with the City to replace damaged trees to help hide the faux-palm. The ARC members agreed with staff and approved the project on October 9, 2012. Background A. Property Description: The proposed project site is located on the west side of Cook Street, north of Desert Mirage, and south of Frank Sinatra Drive within the City's landscaped parkway along the perimeter of Desert Willow Golf Course. B. Zoning and General Plan Designation: Zone: Planned Residential, Five Units per Gross Acre General Plan: Open Space, Parks \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\CUP\l2-257 Crown Castle Desert Willow\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. CUP 12-257 Page 3 of 5 November 20, 2012 C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: P.R. — 5 / Planned Residential Development, 5 dwelling units per acre South: P.R. — 5 / Planned Residential Development, 5 dwelling units per acre East: P.R. — 3.5 / Desert Falls Country Club West: P.R. — 5 / Desert Willow Golf Course Project Description The proposed project consists of installing a 40'-0" faux-palm DAS wireless node located in the City's landscaped parkway along the perimeter of Desert Willow Golf Course on Cook Street, north of Desert Mirage Drive and south of Frank Sinatra Drive. The DAS node does not require the typical equipment and screening as other faux-palms approved in the City. The project site will have a standard electric meter pedestal and a ground-level fiber vault that will be installed in the public right-of-way. The faux- palm is designed to blend into the existing landscaping. The three antennas will be located outside of the trunk within the faux bearded fronds; antennas will be painted to match the faux bearded fronds. Three antennas will also be located within the faux green palm fronds [?] and painted to further disguise the wireless facility. The project includes landscaping improvements with some shrubs and potentially new palm trees. Recently, many of the palm trees along the perimeter of Desert Willow Golf Course were burned from several different fires that are currently under investigation. City staff is working with the City's insurance company to replace the palm-trees; however, the applicant has agreed to potentially replace any palm trees around the project site that the insurance may not replace. Analysis The Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.104 regulates all the standards and requirements for commercial communication towers and commercial antennas within the City. Section 25.104.030 (A) states that commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district in the City. Exceptions to this provision may be processed pursuant to Section 25.104.040 (L). Section 25.104.040 (L), states that any request to deviate from any of the requirements shall require approval of an exception pursuant to Section 25.104.050. Section 25.104.050 states that the Planning Commission may approve exceptions relative to: \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\CUP\l2-257 Crown Castle Desert Willow\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. CUP 12-257 Page 4 of 5 November 20, 2012 1. Zoning districts in which commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas may be located. 2. Height of building mounted commercial communication antennas. 3. Separation distances between residential zoned lands or residential uses and commercial communication towers. 4. Separation distances between commercial communication towers. Upon affirmation of the following findings: 1. That there is a unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic feature which results in a compelling technological need to locate the commercial communication towers and/or commercial communication antennas in the location and/or at the height proposed. 2. That the unique land use characteristics or geographic features mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. In this case, the project is proposed in a Planned Residential (PR) District, and per 25.104.030 (A), it is not allowed in a residential zone without an exception that can be approved by the Planning Commission per Section 25.104.050 stated above. The proposed project is a DAS faux-palm tree and is smaller than a typical mono-palm at only 40' high instead of 70' (typical mono-palm). In addition, the applicant will work with staff to provide new palm trees around the project site to provide a cluster around the faux-palm tree. Staff is recommending approval and the findings for approval are provided below. Findings Findings for the approval of commercial communication towers are stated in Municipal Code Section 25.104.030, Permitted Commercial Communication Towers and Commercial Communication Antennas in Zoning Districts of City. As such, new freestanding commercial communication towers/commercial communication antennas shall not be allowed unless the applicant substantiates to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission: 1. That there is a unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic feature, which results in a compelling technological need to locate the commercial communication towers and/or commercial communication antennas in the location and/or at the height proposed. \\srv-f12k3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\CUP\t2-257 Crown Castle Desert Willow\PC Staff Report.docx Staff Report Case No. CUP 12-257 Page 5 of 5 November 20, 2012 Site selection and antenna height are the result of coverage gap and/or coverage capacity issues within a certain area. The applicant has provided a coverage map that indicates there is a gap in coverage for the proposed carrier. The physical height of the faux-palm tree will blend in the new palm trees that are going to be replaced due to the recent fire damage. 2. That the unique land use characteristics or geographic features mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. The location is a gap in coverage for the proposed carrier. The area of the gap is surrounded by residential land uses and would not be acceptable adjacent to single-family residences. The applicant has worked with staff to provide a well designed faux-palm tree within an area that can provide real palm trees around it to mitigate any aesthetic concerns of the faux-palm tree. Environmental Review The project involves installation of new equipment, which is considered a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA, and no further review is necessary. Submi ed By: Tony Bagat , Princ a Aanner Department Head: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\CUP\12-257 Crown Castle Desert Willow\PC Staff Report.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2593 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEW MONOPALM DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM WIRELESS NODE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CONSISTING OF SIX ANTENNAS, ONE DISCONNECT, ONE POWER PULL BOX, AND ONE FIBER SPLICE VAULT TO BE INSTALLED AT 74-785 Y2 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE; APN 620-400-019. CASE NO. CUP 12-257 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20t" day of November 2012, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC. for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2012-20, the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the recommendation to the City Council of said request: FINDINGS: 1. That there is a unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic feature which results in a compelling technological need to locate the commercial communication towers and/or commercial communication antennas in the location and/or at the height proposed. Site selection and antenna height are the result of coverage gap and/or coverage capacity issues within a certain area. The applicant has provided a coverage map that indicates there is a gap in coverage for the proposed carrier. The physical height of the faux-palm tree will blend in the new palm trees that are going to be replaced due to the recent fire damage. 2. That the unique land use characteristics or geographic features mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. The location is a gap in coverage for the proposed carrier. The area of the gap is surrounded by residential land uses and would not be acceptable adjacent to single-family residences. The applicant has worked with staff to provide a well designed faux-palm tree within an area that can provide PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2593 real palm trees around it to mitigate any aesthetic concerns of the faux- palm tree. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 12-257, subject to conditions attached. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of November 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SONIA CAMPBELL, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: LAURI AYLAIAN, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2593 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 12-257 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: • Planning Department • Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. Department of Public Works: 1. Existing landscape and irrigation that may be significantly damaged by construction or installation, above ground or below ground, will be required to be replaced with like species and size and irrigation repaired. 2. The applicant shall not trench or bore in the public right-of-way per Palm Desert Municipal Code 12.22.010 which restricts any construction within the public right- of-way for three (3) years after the date of street improvements. 3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for construction in the public right-of-way. Department of Building and Safety: 1. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2010 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2010 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2010 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2010 California Electrical Code. E. 2010 California Energy Code. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2593 F. Title 24, California Code of Regulations. G. 2010 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 2. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 3. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 4 l, I I Y 01 rNL 11� � SEI� I .� w,•:. 73-5 F.10 FRED WARING DRtv PALM DEsr.RT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL-76o 346—o6u FAX:76o 341-7o98 in(.Clpah -dos,t—g CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 12-257 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST A NEW MONOPALM DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEM WIRELESS NODE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CONSISTING OF SIX ANTENNAS, ONE DISCONNECT, ONE POWER PULL BOX,AND ONE FIBER SPLICE VAULT TO BE INSTALLED AT 74-785'/z FRANK SINATRA DRIVE;APN 620-400-019. O \ Q to a Y U. O FRANK SINATRA DR. DESERT MIJD1 PROJECT AREA NRTT.G. RC 818VICINITY MAP ---- ---- ---- --- SAID public hearing will be held on November 20, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project is available for review in the Department of Community Development t the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun LAURI.AYLAIAN, Secretary November 10, 2012 Palm Desert Planning Commission ���---� CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Missy Wightman, Assistant Planner From: Christina Canales, Assistant Engineer Date: October 5, 2012 Subject: Conditions of Approval for CUP 12-257 The information provided for the proposed monopalm located at Cook Street in front of Desert Willow maintenance building has been reviewed and the Public Works Department has the following conditions of approval: 1. Existing landscape and irrigation that have been significantly damaged by construction or installation, above ground or below ground, will be required to be replaced with like species and size and irrigation repaired. 2. The applicant shall not trench or bore in the right of way per Palm Desert Municipal Code 12.22.010 which restricts work in the right of way for three years after the date of street improvements. 3. 'The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for work in the public right of way. BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT Development Review Committee Response Reviewed in Building & Safety by: Russell Grance (AL Planner: Missy Nale Project Name: Crown Castle NG West Inc, Project Location: 620-400-019 Date: September 11, 2012 Building Comments: I have reviewed the information provided and have the following comments: 1. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes: A. 2010 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2010 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2010 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2010 California Electrical Code. E. 2010 California Energy Code. F. Title 24, California Code of Regulations. G. 2010 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 2. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 3. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. • Page 1 d" 73-5 IO FRED WARING DRIVE PALm DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2i78 TEL: 760 346—o61 I info@cityofpaim(lesert.org October 10, 2012 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION CASE NO: CUP 12-257 --7— APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC. 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250, Seattle, WA 98109 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a new monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node and associated equipment consisting of six antennas, one disconnect, one power pull box, and one fiber splice vault. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PR-5 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval subject to: 1) monopalm shall match other Washingtonia filiferas onsite; and 2) moving node to site shown on the attached exhibit as "proposed site." Date of Action: October 9, 2012 Vote: Motion carried 8-0-1-0 with Commissioner Colombini abstaining (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to the Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. r,�vaiq,eo ox aannrn vev,a ARCHITECTURAL REV 1 COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 the roof hipped away from it in some way it doesn't become so jarring. He said if they decide to keep the tower element, then it should be centered more. Chairman Gregory said the goal of this Commission is not to be obstructionists. The Commissioners recognize that the applicant is doing a nice thing and would like to encourage her to continue. He hopes she does not see this as a roadblock, but there are certain reasons this is being reviewed by the ARC and the Commission has to address each of those reasons. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved to continue Case MISC 12-260. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lambell and carried by an 8-0-1-0 vote, with Commissioner Colombini abstaining. 2. CASE NO: CUP 12-257 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC. 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250, Seattle, WA 98109 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a new monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node and associated equipment consisting of six antennas, one disconnect, one power pull box, and one fiber splice vault. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PR-5 Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development, stated this request for a 40'-0" tall monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node was continued from a previous meeting. The location of this monopalm would be on the east side of Cook Street and the Commission had asked that a couple different locations be investigated and even perhaps moving it to the other side of the wall on Desert Willow. If not, they asked if it could be moved back at least closer to the street. She said a couple of things have happened since they last met and they would now like to recommend a different location. She passed out plans to the Commission and said the applicant submitted an explanation of the reason why they have selected this new location. At the last meeting, there was a possibility that it could go on the other side of the wall onto the golf course. However, staff has discussed the issue with the golf course management and with the property owner representative and they are GAPlanningWanine JudyMord Filesll ARC CommisisonllMinutes120121121009min.dom Page 9 of 19 ARCHITECTURAL Rl� W COMMISSION MINUTES October 9, 2012 not willing to put it on the other side of the wall for a number of reasons. When you combine that with the applicant's reluctance to move it, staff would like to rule that out from further consideration. With that being said, staff would like to propose a different location from what was shown in the packet. It is located on Cook Street, close to where it was originally proposed. She passed around a photograph showing the street view and described the area where the monopalm would be located. The trees in the proposed location were destroyed in a fire and new trees have been ordered. The applicant has a little bit of latitude in that the trees have not yet been purchased and they will have the ability to try and marry up the antenna with the installation of the trees. Staffs recommendation is to put the monopalm in this location and the applicant be directed to work with the agency in the replacement of trees to get a stepping effect in the height of the trees between the one that the applicant needs for coverage and then the three shorter trees be staggered in height. Commissioner Vuksic said as you are coming to the site heading north, you are farther away from it and your line of sight will tend to put that monopalm in the center of all these trees and you are getting a nice nestling effect. Commissioner Touschner made a motion to approve the proposed location and Commissioner Stendell made the second. Chairman Gregory was concerned that the new plans did not reflect the original proposal of a faux Washingtonia filifera. Ms. Susan Magansen, representative for Crown Castle, assured the Commission that the faux tree will match the Washingtonia filiferas currently onsite. She stated that the top of structure will be 40', but that includes top of frond. They generally keep at least a 4' setback from the wall for structural reasons and will work with Public Works on that. She stated there will not be equipment housing above ground besides a fiber vault and an electrical meter pedestal, which will be screened. ACTION: Commissioner Touschner moved to approve subject to: 1) monopalm shall match other Washingtonia filiferas onsite; and 2) moving node to site shown on the attached exhibit as "proposed site." Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by an 8-0-1-0 vote with Commissioner Colombini abstaining. G:\PlanningWanine JudyMord Files\1 ARC Commisison\1Minutes\2012\121009min,doca Page 10 of 19 I Y I 73-510 FRED NVARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25714 TEL: 760 346-061I • info(Okiryofpalmdesert.org September 27, 2012 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION Revised 9/28/12 CASE NO: CUP 12-257 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC. 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250, Seattle, WA 98109 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a new monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node and associated equipment consisting of six antennas, one disconnect, one power pull box, and one fiber splice vault. LOCATION: 74-785 '/z Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PR-5 Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the Architectural Review Commission continued Case CUP 12-257 subject to: 1) move the facility to inside the wall or locate it more within the existing palm group; 2) submit a detailed site plan; 3) add additional palms in groupings, if necessary; and 4) present new photo simulations of revised proposal. Date of Action: September 25, 2012 Vote: Motion carried 8-0-0-1, with Commissioner Colombini absent (An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to the Commission for approval.) STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety. CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda, new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight days prior to the next meeting. ,,PA, Eo o F <<F ePw ARCHITECTURAL RE' �W COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2012 Commissioner Gregory recommended that the applicant take some of the Commissions suggestions and do the remodel in a way that this Commission will feel more comfortable. There should be more sensitivity with the existing architectural theme of the house and something that is more in keeping with the spirit of the neighborhood. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case MISC 12-260 subject to: 1) re-evaluate the front right elevation design in keeping with the rest of the residence; and 2) evaluate how to connect the front new fagade with the old fagade beyond only painting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Colombini absent. 2. CASE NO: CUP 12-257 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC. 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 250, Seattle, WA 98109 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a new monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node and associated equipment consisting of six antennas, one disconnect, one power pull box, and one fiber splice vault. LOCATION: Southwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive ZONE: PR-5 Ms. Missy Nale, Assistant Planner, presented the project and stated that the applicant has submitted an application for a 40'-0" tall monopalm distributed antenna system wireless node. This application is different from typical monopalms in the fact that there is no associated equipment shelter above ground besides an electrical meter pedestal. Public Works was concerned with the new pavement on Cook Street. The applicant will have to do a lot of undergrounding and will have to stay out of the roadway since there is a three-year moratorium on newly paved streets. They may have to go through the landscape area with the plans reviewed by the landscape manager to make sure they are not affecting any major root development. Staff recommends approval of the proposed monopalm design. Typically, an applicant must locate the faux palm among live palms or plant three to five live palms adjacent the faux palm to further disguise it. By moving the proposed project back to 17'-6" from the face of the curb and locating it among existing California Fan Palms, staff believes that no additional palms are needed, and it will further disguise a site that is immediately adjacent a heavily traveled public roadway. G IPlannirrglJanine Jtr YM.ld Filae l ARC Co '1ieis k l klnl..Q012112iwZAniadi.x Page 3 of 8 ARCHITECTURAL RE: JW COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 2012 The Commission reviewed the plans and was concerned that the faux palm is not nestled in with the other palm trees in that area. They suggested pushing the palm farther back within the other palm groupings. Ms. Susan Magansen, representative for Crown Castle, said the existing trees are 27' to 28' tall and they are proposing top of frond 40'. So the top of structure is closer to 32' with the fronds. They have been working diligently with staff trying to find the best location for this palm. They do have some flexibility, but going farther back would be a little more difficult from a construction standpoint because they would more than likely be disturbing the existing palms. It would be a difficult endeavor, but not impossible. She felt that construction would certainly disturb the palm trees. The Commission reviewed the plans and recommended moving the proposed faux palm tree behind the block wall onto the Desert Willow property or move it further back closer to the block wall. They asked the applicant to restudy the location and palm groupings. ACTION: Commissioner Lambell moved to continue Case CUP 12-257 subject to: 1) move the facility to inside the wall or locate it more within the existing palm group; 2) submit a detailed site plan; 3) add additional palms in groupings, if necessary; and 4) present new photo simulations of revised proposal. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by an 8-0-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Colombini absent. 3 CASE NO: MISC 12-261 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): TERRY ARCHER, 77185 Michigan Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval to construct a new carport 20' back from face of curb; per Section 25.16.090, C. LOCATION: 42875 Massachusetts Circle Ms. Aylaian indicated that Mr. Archer, who was not in attendance, requested that his case be continued. The applicant is appealing the necessity of building a carport and would like to have that issue addressed before staff will consider the case. ACTION: Commissioner Stendell moved to continued Case MICS 12-261 due to applicant's request. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Levin and carried by an 8-0-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Colombini absent. G P)annirgU-t-JudyMord Plteall ARC Commiels 1\1K1inulos12012`I Page 4 of 8 • 0 • • OS tL E WN • • • C( A4S • • • • • Z�oZ s i ��o • • iuewdolenep 4unwwoo • Uatap wled jo 4c) • • Proposed DAS Master Plan Network • • • City of Palm Desert • • • Project Information • • • CUP 12-257 • • • • • • • • • Planning Commission Hearin • g • • November 13t", 2012 • • • • c OWN • A"S TL E • • Proposed DAS Master Plan Network • City of Palm Desert • • CUP 12-257 • • • • • Project Information • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • • • Tab 1: Project Narrative • • • Tab 2: Network Map • • • Tab 3: Zoning Drawings and Photosimulations • • • Tab 4: What is DAS? • • • • • • CUP Submittal Date: August 281h, 2012 • 0 • • • c OWN • A"S TL E • • CROWN CASTLE NG WEST, INC/NEWPATH NETWORKS CITY OF PALM DESERT • • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION August 23rd, 2012 • NewPath Networks, LLC, ("NewPath") hereby submits this application for a conditional use • permit ("CUP") for the installation of a distributed antenna system ("DAS") network within public rights-of-way ("ROW") of the City of Palm Desert ("City"). • • 1. BACKGROUND. • A. NewPath DAS. • • NewPath is owned by Crown Castle NG West, Inc., one of the leading telecommunications infrastructure companies in the Nation.' NewPath designs, develops, installs and operates • fiber-fed, multi-tenant DAS networks in the ROW.2 NewPath's DAS networks provide visually • unobtrusive, low-profile and low-powered wireless telecommunications infrastructure -- including fiber-optic transport and back-haul services -- for use by multiple wireless • telecommunications carriers such as AT&T, MetroPCS, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. DAS improves network capacity and coverage, reduces interference and improves voice • quality, high speed data, video, and Internet services for wireless users. Maintaining network strength or "capacity" has become a challenge for wireless carriers because of the exponential growth in demand for wireless data. Sufficient network capacity is critical to • maintain a consistent level of coverage and bandwidth to maintain communications services, especially those necessary for emergency personnel such as E911, fire, police, paramedics, • and other emergency response resources. It is critical that such communications services be reliable throughout the City to ensure adequate public safety. • Great need also exists based on the increased burdens on the existing wireless network. • The last five years have witnessed an explosion in the number of wireless devices accessing the Internet at broadband speeds, from 3.1 million in 2005, to 21.9 million in 2006. Those • numbers are still growing at exponential rates. There has been a concurrent exponential growth in the number of wireless subscribers, from 194 million in 2005, to 263 million in 2008. • These subscribers averaged 751 minutes of use in 2008, an increase of 128 minutes or 21 million from 2005. Text and SMS traffic increased to 601 billion text messages in 2008, an increase of 544 billion text message or 954 percent from 2005. Photo/Video messages were up to 5.6 billion messages in 2008, an increase of 5.3 billion or 1875 percent from 2005. • Additionally: • ' Because of the ownership relationship between NewPath and Crown Castle NG West, Inc, the names • "NewPath" and "Crown Castle" are sometimes used interchangeably. 2 NewPath's regulatory status as a CLEC means that, while it may provide infrastructure for PCS and other wireless service providers, it is distinct from a CMRS, Cellular Telephone, PCS, or Private Mobile Radio Service provider. • 3194998.1 • (1) In a recent international study, the United States dropped to fifteenth in the world in broadband penetration, well behind South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and France.3 (2) 25 percent of all American homes are now wireless only.4 (3) More and more civic leaders and emergency response personnel cite lack of a robust wireless network as a growing public safety risk. The number of 911 calls placed by people using wireless phones has significantly increased in recent years. It is estimated that about 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from wireless phones, and that percentage is growing.5 (4) Data demand from new smartphones and tablets is leading to a critical deficit in spectrum, requiring more wireless antennas and infrastructure. According to a 2011 report, wireless data traffic was 110 percent higher than in the last half of 2010. Similarly, AT&T reports that its wireless data volumes have increased 30-fold since the introduction of the iPhone.6 (5) Wireless data traffic is expected to grow by a factor of 20 between 2010 and 2015.7 The above statistics demonstrate that the need for wireless networks to keep pace with • increased demand and reliance on wireless technologies. B. NewPath is a "Telephone Corporation" Entitled to Build Its Networks in the ROW of the State of California. The Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") has designated NewPath as a "competitive local exchange carrier" ("CLEC"). NewPath's CLEC status means that it qualifies as a "telephone corporation" under state law, and therefore has a special legal status throughout the State. • By virtue of the PUC's issuance of a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" • ("CPCN"), CLECs have authority under state law to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments" in the ROW subject only to local municipal control over the "time, place and manner" of access to the ROW. (Pub. Util. Code, §§ 1001, 7901; 7901.1; see Williams Communication v. City of Riverside (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 642, 648 [upon obtaining a CPCN, a telephone ! corporation has "the right to use the public highways to install [its] facilities."].) The PUC issued a CPCN (copy on file with CUP application) which authorizes NewPath to construct the network, pursuant to its regulatory status under state law. NewPath's special . regulatory status as a CLEC gives rise to a vested right to use the ROW in the City to • 3 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Directorate for Science,Technology, and • Industry, "Broadband Statistics," (June 2010): <www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband>. 4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (April 2011). 5 Federal Communications Commission (2012) http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-911-services. • 6 Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors (White House, Feb. 2012) at 2-6. • ' Id. • 3194998.1 2 • "construct ... telephone lines along and upon any public road or highway, along or across any of the waters or lands within this State" and to "erect poles, posts, piers, or abutments for supporting the insulators, wires, and other necessary fixtures of their lines, in such manner • and at such points as not to incommode the public use of the road or highway[.]" (Pub. Util. • Code, § 7901 .) The nature of the vested right was described by one court as follows: "[1]t has been uniformly held that [section 7901] is a continuing offer extended to telephone and telegraph companies to use the • highways, which offer when accepted by the construction and • maintenance of lines constitutes a binding contract based on • adequate consideration, and that the vested right established thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent acts of the Legislature. [Citations.]" ... Thus, telephone companies have the right to use the public highways to install their facilities. • (Williams Communications v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 648 quoting • County of L. A. v. Southern Cal. Tel. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 378, 384 [196 P.2d 773].) While Public Utilities Code section 7901.1 grants local municipalities the limited "right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed[,]" such controls cannot have the effect of foreclosing use by NewPath of the ROW or otherwise prevent NewPath from exercising its rights under state law . to "erect poles" in the ROW. That is because "the construction and maintenance of • telephone lines in the streets and other public places within the City is today a matter of state . concern and not a municipal affair." (Williams Communication v. City of Riverside, supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 653.) On the basis of NewPath's status as a CLEC, and its concomitant rights to the ROW, the • Network is designed as an ROW system. With respect to the siting and configuration of the • network, the rights afforded under Public Utilities Code section 7901 and 7901 .1 apply. • NewPath reserves its rights under section 7901 and 7901.1, including, but not limited to, its • right to challenge any approval process, such as the conditional use permit process, that impedes or infringes on Crown Castle's rights as a CLEC. 2. THE PROPOSED NETWORK. MetroPCS approached NewPath to deploy a DAS network to serve its City of Palm Desert and Palm Springs area customers. In furtherance of that objective, NewPath proposes a new, multi-carrier DAS network consisting of one (1) proposed "node" (i.e., antenna facilities).$ The network is intended to address current and future wireless coverage and capacity for the City. 3194998.1 3 • • • A. Design and Location of the DAS Nodes. • • The proposed DAS node will be contained within a faux-palm tree structure, utilizing upper and lower panel antennas with an approximate total height of 40 feet (see site specific Zoning • Drawings including site plan, elevations and photosimulations for further detail). The • following chart and aerial describes the design and location of the proposed node: • • • # Node ID# Proposed Design Address/Intersection • 1 LAD08602 Faux-Palm Tree West side of Cook St, North of Desert Mirage Dr • • • LAD08602— Faux-Palm Tree on West side of Cook Street, north of Desert Mirage Drive • • • . !•` , CRO•R CAME 40EM W IRO/OW IEIIfJ10M WRF RX.1(iY@ WM TM M THE WW EOE OFCOOR R.A"R=OE7ELV M RORIR OF OWff 1•I MM • • • • • 8 NewPath anticipates that other carriers, such as Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile, may also seek to use the network to improve their service in the area once the network is built. 3194998.1 4 • To minimize visual impact, the node will be designed to be aesthetically unobtrusive, incorporating the transmission equipment and antennas into a faux-palm tree structure. (See Zoning Drawings and Photo-simulations for further detail) The node is proposed as a new, faux-palm tree structure capable of supporting the required . equipment. In addition to the antennas, which will be hidden amongst the faux palm-fronds as well as the dead-frond skirt, minimal accessory equipment will include pole-mounted fiber repeater radios. The fiber repeater radio converts digitalized spectrum received from the hub into RF signals emitted from the antenna array to the service area. The facilities will also • include a standard electrical meter pedestal and a ground-level fiber vault which will be • installed in the right-of-way. Node LAD08602 is proposed adjacent to the Right-of-Way, in the parkway of the City-owned • Desert Willow golf course on the west side of Cook Street, just north of Desert Mirage Drive. At the City's request, this node was placed within the boundaries of the City-owned parkway rather than at its originally proposed location in the ROW in order to provide the most suitable location with maximum screening. The faux-palm will blend nicely into the existing grouping • of natural palm trees and be aesthetically pleasing. The new location utilizes an existing area of densely populated palm trees and removes the node from the main view corridor of the street. In furtherance to its request, the City has agreed to provide a no-cost easement to allow for this installation at this location. B. Other Design Elements of the Network. NewPath's standard network design generally utilizes existing verticality such as streetlight poles wherever technically feasible, in order to avoid adding new poles to the ROW. In this case, Staffs preference was to utilize a stealth design such as a faux-palm tree as there are very few streetlights within the City (dark-sky ordinance) and the installation of flag poles or • other decorative-type poles along scenic corridors is prohibited. Moreover, the single-DAS node network is designed to incorporate additional carriers. The "multiple-carrier" design will allow more than one network provider to use the same system. The network therefore allows one aesthetically unobtrusive node to take the place of multiple, single-carrier antennas or . macro-sites -- thereby avoiding the prospect of multiple carrier-constructed antenna facilities servicing a single service area. Put another way, the network is the equivalent of a collocation system, as it permits many carriers to transmit their signals over one antenna system with only a single series of vertical elements. In addition to the specific design elements of the proposed node, other considerations have • been employed to minimize any aesthetic impacts that may be associated with the network. Despite the low profile of the nodes, and the resultant limitations of such a low-profile system, NewPath seeks to maximize the coverage of each node location within its Palm Springs area network, since maximization of the node coverage equates to a lower overall number of facilities for the network and a less intrusive system. Accordingly, the location was chosen to • provide an effective relay of signal from adjacent nodes in nearby Palm Springs area Cities, . 3194998.1 5 so that ubiquitous coverage is provided throughout the service area with the least number of nodes. • Each node is locationally dependent on the other nodes of the Network. To move a node too far from its proposed location will result in an inability meet coverage objectives. Moving outside that proposed location will preclude the ability of the node to properly propagate its signal to the other nodes in the larger network. NewPath also sought out existing utility pole • and streetlight pole sites that could serve as a potential host site for an alternative location, • thereby eliminating the need for additional vertical elements in the ROW. Even apart from the specific design elements discussed, DAS itself is inherently minimally • intrusive by design. Specifically: (1) NewPath DAS utilizes the latest in wireless infrastructure technology, incorporating smaller, low-power facilities instead of using larger -- and • sometimes more obtrusive -- cell towers; (2) NewPath DAS utilizes the ROW, thereby avoiding intrusions into private property or undeveloped resource areas; (3) NewPath DAS allows for collocation by multiple carriers, thereby avoiding antenna proliferation; (4) NewPath DAS strikes a balance between antenna height and coverage in order to minimize visual impacts; (5) NewPath DAS carefully spaces the nodes to effectively relay signal with a • minimum of node locations; and (6) NewPath DAS seeks to utilize existing vertical elements in the ROW, such as • utility poles and streetlights, whenever technically feasible, thereby minimizing . the net number of vertical intrusions in the ROW. • 3194998.1 6 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G.Brown Jr.,Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION • 505 VAN NESS AVENUE - • SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94102-3298 • April 16, 2012 Cord Hute • Synthesis Environmental Planning 6 Carmen Court Novato, CA 94945 • Dear Mr. Flute: NewPath Networks, LLC. submitted a Notice of Proposed Construction (NPC) for authorization to proceed with the construction of the Palm Desert Distributed Antennae System (DAS)project. According to the NPC, the project involves the installation of fiber optic cable, DAS antenna . nodes, and other associated equipment in the City of Palm Desert, California. The NPC requests the Energy Division to act upon NewPath's request for a determination that the project is consistent with the activities determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the California Public Utilities Commission • (Commission). On November 9, 2004 the Commission granted NewPath's request for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide inter/intra- local access and transport area services in • California as a non-dominant interexchange carrier. On May 25, 2005,NewPath submitted • A.05-05-021 seeking expansion of its authority to include the installation of DAS antennae, nodes, and other related equipment in California. Under D. 06-04-030,the Commission determined that the DAS projects proposed by NewPath would fall within one or more categorical exemptions identified under CEQA, and that further environmental review of these proposals would not be required. The Energy Division has reviewed NewPath's proposal to construct a DAS project in the City of Palm Desert, California and has determined that the proposed construction activities are • consistent with the activities found by the Commission to be categorically exempt from the • requirements of CEQA. The Energy Division hereby grants NewPath with the authority to proceed with the construction of the project as described in the NPC. Sincerely, eensen Uchida California Public Utilities Commission Regulatory Analyst • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q C PALM DESERT RG T( WIE Y• Aa +C Crown Castle — _ LAD086-02 s.DEXTER AVE.NORTH,SURE 250 SEATTLE,WA 96I09 Phone:(206)336-7382 r x."yG ""' UG#LAD086-UG07 -S di �` P �Lu Lu 'm' .. ,, Lc.irNrcn d 1 a $1 w CL 6 Pd 4 vmm Ra 1 Z L�•nE FOR ALL LEASE DUCT SEE 1 DWG#LAD086-F 1 1 8 awe Nr F«s Cr a x 1 2 4 U YrWA ' 1ay m W4 "w dre g R 8S � oaxncru o� �g W+q�q 6 R„p,e F Nxni In o � WU YI mi F.H.o, ,..,, .I . oucouroy Cxiha «xxy Cwe D, Ca y cm 0, Gamy Cw0 D, C.-Y CIW O, - C-WY CW D, Couney Cluo a C-*y cwC B°uiw�G.ny°nd �bC � R°wn'LarY°nd Ec..Rw,Lirycnd s Y E C`dae^�p° -d'y e. WA°H°ru De Ck Rcrcn Rf'✓ Sa , p o. yNy� Y Rbn�RO J C2^ Wyy°'y 6 � v .p�,•l�1 „JJBr 5°r £ tt UG#LAD086-6G01 s RNYn d Ruv.np:p�eM d „ i,nwny gRN,p.d Rumm�9 Ryn°y.C' RunmN�"nyi a' . Rwmrp Bprnp.d owp.m.eeF Cn F g LU LLI m 9°uBMiybG QQ }rw.i,+�re teeny !% +ape d t,� i HRl6s/LnE 'ZW,LnE xowylnE HorFeVLnE ..H , *y L. 4. e. z y s+ c LEGEND SYMBOLS 9 `° " s HUB -LAD086 PALM DESERT AERIAL ROUTE 74876 42nd Ave.PALM DESERT,CA 92211 a SITE# POLE TYPE RAD 7 RAID2 "" ———— UNDERGROUND LEASE DUCT o w E �s' a�Ia"�'^` LAD086-02 UNDERGROUND ROUTE A City Palm Desert STEEL POLEJ 3S-O' N/A j WIS Cook St. — STREET LIGHT POLE r 347'WO C!L Desert Mirage Dr. MMMn.nesl:' STEEL POLE sw i FIBER FOOTAGE AERIAL 0' JPA POLE zeA, aim u r unx�. HUB LOCATION LEASE UG 2,500't BURIED 6,300't DATE:08-13-12 SHEET 1 OF 1 "'°° xxe d °" "° ..d +n•-- TOTAL FIBER FOOTAGE 9,680't C. O AUtO 4w %w1w .r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m 0 y x X OSSSS I, • ■ ® 0 G x • ® r X ,��, o o 0 0 m m � m � y mz 'vvvO_n a.c.m�z-i O)(Jt�W N- Z 0 V DO 0Mm2 CA z mj' — O O Xm Z� i ww�v+�� m 000000 O 0° G mrpi r M" O �_ rn rn Cn Cn 0]Cl1 .= Z yr nrrv`+rNwZ ::. Z y C z vx x rpx rrnN a 0m 'O fA RI -a c x x x O x Cn N r*t m Om rw ra+ zmnn �c r y n oz r� vmx NNTy_XZ mmC�p� 22 D mff�rnf -Nitre - Dmmm TN Ox x �Nx f:E vo-�m� p Ao pax x " ''AO�^ zDzr+iZm Z m os=cngin jN O�Om �Np�� m p D Z Nm m T Y COmp O'O O Dim (n Z .0,-Z. *yam oZ_ rn O nn?WA�� -Ni�vzi O pN rii= A --q M 3 Cr m mrnD O � w O n V aoAzm cis N D W m;-0 >-�Z r < \ C OO n cA�p AXN DfmT1Z fn r m -r-1�— f7 N 1 m Om COOK ST. y m� �ZzZ0N mZO zD A D oO:mm O .pzA woo 01 o- rlrr�w w r0> 0DfA C D :E D x v m O m •• r S x Or zZ �Oz m mZ .MZ Z -i N r L ((A A G7 Z O Z 0 D m O Z D m D O Z Z r m = 0 D N cn z Ln �o n c � c m x r mo x m _ m m rn m A m Vo x Z GERARD FORD DR z o z o-o z O O Z o ,=n CD ca = Q - c 0 to N cn ( D -1 � m CD _r p Q I m O O O m m m O \ \ p =m�� O Z c W z T tin M z Z C m 0 D Z D Z ODOO Z C) m Q O D 'O� Z O Fri ; < cZi m Cm') !'i�o z O 3 O•�.. <� Z � D n D Z m C �n � rn C")!'� IT D Z Z co m Z D m D Z (�O Q UD �' D O Oz D Z rnn�r D oo--� m rOi x O c0 D m C3 m cW oo< z o — o ZZ z z a'orT' D3 cn , o n v LO cn n J N m N W C= W m W Z U r N m n r*i 0 C7 cNi, OO c O O Q CD Z O CD O � co O � O Z Z E Z — Z D m r*� m m N N W U4 (VJ N N c o N c cn I I I O O V cn � W V m Z '0 In ('7 D D \Z7 2 IT7 .-O m (Dn -0 C7mC7 M N D m Z-i�� ONrn-0W ONrn CD rrD Z p m Zn IV W C) 0 � mN p r N r r m C") N m m D OOmm rri 00.. WDm z N N N3 xn — Ln m �Z Ln C;-m m � Q W=M—Z OO =f+'I =Z 70 Z DTJr -oO r C m G� Co.r C <(:� r+r'1 cp D t+i ..ir rmZ �..r r _Z WOO< oo�m�m oo�mw�m c� m M87 cpnp`:O ton- O np� r�C1 O -Z-I I c0 co D D r GE - n D Oo 0� C N W m iv W p w O r Vl L. c0 r U1 N N Z O IV m NZ F D .m N U4 C O ::a m _< < Ln 4Ln N D n Ln N n O c m c m 3 V) to Z M O r+i m - O O H o -u N 3 m m 3 pv (n CD m r F m 3 m m O A m x 7 O D N p ^p C ^, O $�^ 1 L r cEMM> � A O Nc _ �I"/711vV~ T vApmZ 3 � ww �u cn ycn mot' z W 2 ■ _ KDpOy M coW z z n �� Q � /1O T m^mx A m �1 oa. D ww\.� J T m�zxA , N _ _ _ • • • • • • o NORTH m ca o �N 0 C) p o o m �L z m CD Z z y��S 0 cn O 7 v 0 70 o � AZIMLn UTH m m D o 0 d < D 742-215 A z say �zj N m n IQ `z m S8. A, a m �y B .P SFcrOR { D G Cn m ILI Z � I r m v m z o m z Z �o D oc o < \1�AU.1�a�� I I m �� n Dz 54.7" I 53.4" 0 c 51.3" z 0 mA 0 CT O) 2 7" m m r 0 0 0 0 m • m 0 c 0 N D z -4 m z z D 23.2" W D D Z= 7.1CID D Z p nDc ivDZ D�� g � O°O �F,�z zP z N fl O D D j ro 0.- A O - 0°O z � D n rrn z n -I D in m - W N N N = m m Ul m rn Z p i p in N Z :�U 9 3DA t rU m i^ i MW N N Z o N Q A N O m m < W m A m D D3...�pv O m m z (/l JO v mpm m 7�c Z .P x Z K D (� Q �,.� z�0 Gn f z m Z D Z N S S S lm:foo : M D r m m 3 O I �4x 3 F w 'E m A v r m m c a — z m �{ P + —T m m o -------------�- rn m N r m C- D g Q < L4 U • o0 o - 1 ' a� z .................._- D _sw �o m ►�.yy m 77�� yEz 1 I •- o�,s oNi ���A_ i m �� z oz m z o m 'b o m L w x � m >z y m Ll O �1 At rn p O V) z ; Z O D Z xa r --I Q ;� ; �Am o� m m o G� m nn zmq a DNO cnz o r vZ O jp m .Z_1 n T.D n 00 m3 o o Orn A r mm =oo t* am Z� "c> jI m (r m MW u. 0 O N p= m p Fi m OT m v� FRONT OF PAD Y N Z O- 14-O.c. n I £ _ o o + o j 2. - a 0 ;dam o 24 t� O, �OoRyr ymO �N • +� n ��N m /of-e._' Z A moy�y N k S NC ty �.dy ��y ZO O �z� c � �m�i R �c Z �m M.3 ZDSAO§ A x 0 1 H O 16.. _ � �F o0 a S cci +g � Zm m �'�i g'-� m QQ m xy C" o M. z o A m p c Z O >y I 0 z23 m Z ; C C� mNOl�1 8 �S pA A m w m "om 5 D m N O O N o o N 3 0S m m m z I N A m N m v f7 C -� D z D W m P `m om n v �o g m m A r 3 v y m m O A m y yy� ///���\ X D � m N z m e o f m N m ~ O O mZ m "m-.m O z p n�ia O .$m W 12 0 cmz�n3 v fATI N� D3mm> 3 z � Z m ' O 3 D O ti pa_ D �� mmm8o A V/ m O A A H 0 Pr cn R 0 N �z _ ` = ( x n m m 0 O o� �I � oc �Nrpizm' A Z m W C) mD ag�� Arggc CA m O Dy mA zv��O D N � AA im'-7o in O C0 �y cp�Ofm F� mZ DO�trrnA � 9 NO �m mZON Z C r O-i n �iz r r w z➢ _ n r nx D �n BOO z� z frTl X r m D➢ rrO�1 a m O O O o j\� v /j\////\ z Z amm I�m /\\�C/\ ➢ v O x m 'o Om r ®TI j\/\\ T � mD zM 0�70 Z O T\® /\y/ X0 o�, O D x 1 m p D v z p A Z rTl x O Z D i/ r� O z /may/ r o / D m C / Z..n m =Dz m0 CDO z o A o m C,y Z D m O N rrn O m m Z //\� 1 ➢ ZO 0Z n. Z>Z m O c tntnr0 to m y0T ZDDm rZ.. C7rZ.. O rn m o➢ 0 �n x�Z Zia z Z ZD 00 m D m n C X O � n x0 xm mC- 0CD Tm r m >D to -Z r m0 C F+ 14 y�m0 m0 O O Z1 -0O5 8�f Zx ,= D� m O C-n -n nO M r O m A C) A v p r n o 0 o vi 0 CD x0.) m O �z \/ Ww �o m r �7 z n O j%\\j\// n A 5 0 v o 77 m 27 m c vD "z n C D Z fTl \/\\/ \\// m 1 O X z z i \\\�/\\/ ;.:w v, < m X ram= �� ➢ O \ \ \ \ W nl NORTH CD co m o co ~ > 0 m O A n O z o X w \ A O O OT z D m z O () Il ID A � N cn m m - -1 O \ ➢ N !v z n O n Z Z Z D C-) N -0 ED rn ~v A z W z n _0A O— D D w n D r m o cn C,rj o I" N v� rrn 0 O o Fo+ + o Z C D ➢ n ? r r r N i � � r m A Vl l m A N 41 In � T V m D D T T T O Z 9 O O � N - v 2 Z Z 41 A N N D D C v 3 3 VI o� (� m y o O m v A !^ O D myt Z D \u m `L O CD On�a O m cr^zrn3 v m C- vApm>D 3 co r C.T1 T00 Z W 8 3y OOD N x ; O (% Q /�O Q A m O o A /� N M. O r�`1Z m r O C� D O z s O 4 O y ZJ O N fT'I TI D C X r r O O � D M Z r - - I D xcK 4� O F (f r 6 Z +Ya►'xyd"�• A&s ' rli -1 t O � O � - O D Z . r*i m O t Z z � � n � m � p fn m O N o Ao z 3 m z c o N p N f'l A O 3 p Z m o m r m m o m r o f m o 3 n `p N a) a o it O -_ommA i O 9 gD O W a j $m I cm�+N3 D c 2 "ooz a) Nm n3��p zD V omx S. ZCD7 i11 M a >!�o> N co mmOa zAvm O lLn r OO m v m I CD-0 N o D O z / O D m vo m D to 10 / 5' 5' \ oM mn -c) m mca m O mo 1 m o>x. D_ ini; >0 M 1 m m o m J� Z> PROPERTY LINE--- _ m m mUOp°- F z O - = D ao w ro N 10 " z I I I CATV - CUROFACE 4"G _- _. cz)CD z7 m 8 WO C. CDm I� CI= 2 C O N cND W N Z C) C) - Tl r J CN N f.J fD/1 p g o� 582'f N. OF C/L DESERT MIRAGE DR. v x x rn o N �CD MEASURED ALONG W. CURBFACE �00 g i ZE o Tt acm dI DD OvAA mOLnc� o� _ J� CJ `_J r m m (I�� mD�n .ZJO �m�nn m U -0 DO➢T 00�� .Z7JCOZmx o1> m��r1 m 'D zm z -1 K: mCJr omlvr Dm vmi �Dr O r^c1 m cp m ?m 1Nr,�is Ihmo,, r=Q0 <D.- � o on o m O�I� o N z m y I A �� Imo ���TIC moth Z ~ v�m Imo. m-mi SD 15>> O m z W� �x-� m -0 D mm m mr M mac) ��m QOczi� m o r'lJ N m Q' N O 7" -� r- r nD zzF, r o ���x o�C m od m D o o c� ACn2t x z VARIES o v C) J o CD VARIES VARIES 26' 12' Z o M m z m N O Orr Z G c z O 0 o r x r � I m + O 9' i ` Z O O F n C �� O-- -� n 5 PIL VARIES 4i —__—_____—__—__—__ _ __e_ ••O DIRT PKWI. PA 8'CONC.S.W. \ 4"C�C/, N I �! au w_ Ja-W_— A N C/L-__-_____L___ C, Fi- _—_—_- 18_MEDIAN C/r _—_ c/L OO O c/P W -12'S-- -_— c(v N e • O • • • VARIES DIRT PKWY. _4"PNR—PA -�-__�------COOK ST ---------r---------------------- N o -F i m WWI C0 m " CD \ D Cnt,r ws_ / ,j Z z l z x \ o "gg 9 � n D O D G'1 m m v A oo D T O s m r m D r O I CD em � rCnrr � '�0000,.� ry Z N o 0 x / A Z r D ti T n n o m o 0 0 0 o 0,0 v .yn A \ r v N n n A A A m O Z x x� 13�m+ ? D D DD '0> DZm C 8 C Al cm ,� r- rrrrr O fp I cn m � Z� Dr C) �nT � nT O I D m0f�n1C� p D00000 .m .'(7 0 y t7 G T O D C O Z T Z Z Z Z Z m = � x DOm DT=mmm �C Nn n - Z M.Z .m Z r r v � v m N 0. m n; m =3 r O ; N c \ GZ'>c � 1� 00< gZZz v m N 12 `(.; moO� z� mmc�0�c>O < ca n ' ozzv � 3 � m�OD OO> Dnn ^ o n \ 1 Z z m n n 0 a "ice a\\\\ � v m. o O m A > C yC ^' �zo m v'O i I x f) O D 1 0 i s D v r Nv =i 0 1w > Zi to 1 G y D D Vm'' D v m D r Z N 1 r m m z ow D D m v t� v O Co nmC CD C < Z zf7m m G z 00 � z Dv' 0 M> v m 1 m A D (- z Z0 p 00� M z zv z v rn C7 (•] III m m m A v �D Z vzv Cn Dz y 1 m v N n Zml o O n y z D > o � O ;a Douvi m A Z O O O N o N A < CI O Vl N Vl N m N m V D m m T m O to ?o z 3 m c O y '� m fTl A i p 3 m a O m K 3 _ D N .-.vmma z O Q N y O ` m 1 11 552 52 D D v m Q me w m ,� m 3�m� v CDN co CTl �' Z m m m r 3>0"0> m Z •p Iw 1� OCn v /!\ a. �,\ Z m�zxv ~ I { ao O m m m m<w O S z A N IA rT-lz _ _ _ 1. z - �'� - - ��•.. ..-vim ;'^" -_ t, • � 3iv a a1:- • r . l 1 r LP - • • • • • • • O • • L r ■ 4/� ul G� Q • p • • ca  • • • O CL LM • s � blo DU, • OC • • • • • • • • • • • • U) N • a O — • O .U) • a) o a) o -0 • QQ U M Q 0 'U U U _0O Q • O Q O O O ' • O� ! u N a) • to j • O -�-' O cn •C6 U) U O co E cn Q > O • O U) U O a) U • (� (n U o a) Co a) Q cn • a) O � — � U 4-0 -0 a) N N U a) • N cn 4-1 O (� o C: U — to 0 • v) � 0 C � a) 3:c C: 0 'U) 0 0 co • Q o o cr Q c c� Q o Q U o • 0 U o 0 c� E 0 �. 0 }, U W • • • • �I _ I m r � s �Li i 6 t ,� 1 • • • • • • O � ° c� • U) ° U) 0 U) m m 0- CL • � � • (6 U — O 0 -0 (6 Q. O > — O O •— to 0 ° Q_ • omE 0CL — � 0 0 — 0 4� .� • v U) o O 4-0 � > • U }' OQ C� vo a L >> � O r O O � 3 Q ._ 0 r � � • a� —j o � � � °� � 4 � � > • � c � � H � � ° � � • • U • • • • 10 • • • • • • • L • 0 L • ^l � • O W O • 0 0 • — t o • C Uw O Cl) O • O N X • � o O • c o • cfl • • — oo M CD -Fo • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Cl) o cn U) • � � o • U U m am � oo� � cn • � o —°U N U O U • < 6OQ � p }. o •o0ooa •R • (D W > • � �-} W � � W Q z Q140W a) 4 � E 5u, � � Q � 0 • woo ° ULVa� � � � ooQL � :tt a. .Q :D Z3 cn W 0- o � • � � ° c� c� Qc� o- a� Lc� Z .� a� � � a o � ! � V U 0 � 4-- +-+ +r .- • • • • • • • Q • W cfl • W Z o • J � N • W W H Z L. W y c� L • O T a�' cc) Z o 0 3 �: W 1 V CD 4)r N E N co~ • U '_ 0 Ir- • W c� G a . IL E LL p c N F- IJL • ° d 00 v o o a� cm W O vs � d � � Cp co6 2 C cl L (D r, J • — Q u, LU .2 °' °O oo W8 U a d7 0 � _ a o," +; (n • �— tm W Z m N m 0 F axi NCD • V) Q N ° ` o) W r �' ~ F- W • a 0 • V Q N0 o0 U] 0 40 W J O U LN N oN0 c ° W > � � N � o a3 • � J Huj 4 c a y s co G1 co p a o y aV ,_ o � UN N `� Cl) c w y • Q �- ' w • W a M • IXco • ww o • = V H > • W • • • • • • • O wo • w U) CQ • Z D - a o � • W J z • > > < • U J LL • W U = O • �• CO U. W J J • oW � w ? c) U) > uj �� uj W C7 O p ..J w• Q W LuCPU U) OC ��� - NON y _ wLU W O V U O • L.L. 3" ; � CQ � p • W z O z ; a`5o a�_ i U Q • - o O x LL >: W � { 1 I f < • a J 1 gzw W J ,�' p Q Lu • cs a - Ny J e , oa_ W • a � zQLL U) (� , Q U • V) W Z YLu • W 0 owz ,G W O — J Z �3!W ~ W WgZ W S w z • < > • I _ _= a W D m o a • O N � U) Z p W ' W Q z rK . z • J J a � o • a W w a • • z 0 v)- • ° a Q • H w U • W W Q z • > �- CO cU) • z V) W W • O o • U = • • • • • • • i c6 • i- - 0 -0 R5 • 70 � _� o • -0 O U • -�-� M O i 0 o • E U 0 • 0 .- U • o :3 a) � c� • E • o Q M � U � • O — 0 i N UO > N 4-1 • _ '— O L i O 4-1 • � � E o � }. 70 O • Co 3: N U U) O O O • (� i3 U � cn '(� N cn • U N 0 ) — O CD- + • O o '� ,� • 0 -0 N U • U c� ._ O O o c) LL70 • • • • • ' O • �o �� a O o N L C 4-- (n _0 L � O C _0 O O (� U O O • m C� -0 m _N N E O L j O � 7 • 70 00 N /•� •U L L L L O.0 V E � LU O O O�-� CoC6 (n O � � >+ Q L O M a) N O (^n, (� — U) (n L cn 4--0 .� Q� p • o U O N C6 i -+•-' N +� O O �_ v �O cn O LL - (nO� z o � +v �� '� �E C/) M =pU- 4 m . O =U) 0• a) O ca U N O cn O CO EN O cpn >>1 >' C6 U -o -0cm C: • M cn -0 Q ^cn 4- Ca O p �C j O0 V E >1 O (n � O 0-(n � ~ Q O U can U O Cn Q U (DNCO -- '— U ( � Z3 mQ 00 a) aD �, � E � U a � Q° � � ) (n � � � a) " (n -0 U U- � z • •