Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17C Res 04-27 CUP 04-01 - Nextel Communications/Cingular WirelessREQUEST: SUBMITTED BY: APPELLANT: CASE NO: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Consideration of a City Council request for review of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 04-01, a request by Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless to construct a 75-foot high monopine wireless telecommunications tower with two adjacent equipment shelter buildings within a 25'x 60' fenced area. The project site is located 300' south of Country Club Drive and 1,300' east of El Dorado Drive and is a part of a Southern California Edison substation. Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner City Councilmember Bufford Crites CUP 04-01 CASE APPLICANTS: Nextel Communications c/o Tetra Tech, Inc. Attn: Jim Lee 1590 Milliken Avenue, Unit H Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91761 REPRESENTATIVE FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: VelociTel, Inc. Attn: Steve Stackhouse 18071 Fitch Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, CA. 92614 DATE: ATTACHMENTS: April 8, 2004 Cingular Wireless Attn: Saundra Jacobs 3345 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA. 92612 A. Request for City Council Review Form filed by Councilman Crites B. Draft City Council Resolution C. Legal notice D. March 2, 2004 Planning Commission minutes E. Planning Commission Resolution approving CUP 04-01 F. Comments from city departments and others G. Chapter 25.104 (Commercial Communication Tower and Commercial Antenna Regulations) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code H. Plans and exhibits Staff Report Next& Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 Recommendation: That the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 04-27 affirming the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 04-01. I. BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2004, the Planning Commission approved this case subject to conditions (see Attachment D, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2251). Commissioners Sonia Campbell and Jim Lopez voted for approval. Commissioner Sabby Jonathan voted for denial. Commissioner Dave Tschopp abstained from voting to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest because he lives at Indian Ridge Country Club. On March 5, 2004 Councilman Bufford Crites called up this case for City Council review. The request for City Council Review form (see Attachment A) completed by Councilman Crites does not state why the case was called up. The Indian Ridge Homeowners Association is opposed to the proposed monopine because of concerns about negative aesthetic impacts and detrimental impacts on home resale values. On January 21, 2003, the Planning Commission approved CUP 02-27 to allow a 63' monopine cell tower at the same Southern California Edison substation next to Indian Ridge Country Club. This 63' high monopine has been constructed and contains cellular antennas for two wireless carriers: Sprint PCS and Verizon Wireless. The new monopine will be located 40' southwest from the existing monopine. The project site is at the southeast comer of a Southern Califomia Edison (SCE) electrical substation located 300' south of Country Club Drive and 1,300' east of El Dorado Drive adjacent to Indian Ridge Country Club golf course. The property is zoned PR-5 (Planned Residential, 5 du/acre maximum density). ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-5; SCE substation, Country Club Drive, and Palm Valley Country Club South: PR-5, Indian Ridge Country Club Golf Course East: PR-5, Indian Ridge Country Club Golf Course 2 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 West: PR-5, SCE Electrical Substation and Indian Ridge Country Club Maintenance Yard II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless are requesting approval to construct a wireless telecommunication facility on a leased 25'x 60' area at the southeast corner of a 3.35-acre parcel within an existing Southern California Edison electrical substation. The applicant is proposing a 75-foot high (to top of crown) monopine cell tower and two equipment shelter buildings. The Nextel Communications equipment shelter will be 12' wide, 20' long, and 10-6" high. The Cingular Wireless equipment shelter will be 10' wide, 16' deep, and 10'-6" high. The project site was chosen by the applicants for construction of a new cell tower because there is poor cell phone coverage for their customers in this area of Palm Desert. The 75' high monopine cell tower proposed by Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless needs to be 12' higher than the existing Sprint PCS monopine to achieve vertical separation between the four carriers' antennas and therefore avoid creating signal interference. The monopine will contain three sectors (metal "arms") with four panel antennas each mounted to the artificial pine trunk. The 12 Nextel antennas will be approximately 7" wide by 4' high. These antennas will be mounted at a height of 65 feet (from ground level to top of antennas). The Cingular antennas will be approximately 7" wide by 5'-6" high. These antennas will be mounted at a height of 56' (from ground level to top of antennas). Cingular Wireless is proposing to mount a 2' diameter microwave dish to the monopine's trunk at a height of 40'. The purpose of the 2 foot diameter microwave dish on this wireless telecommunication facility (WTF) is to provide a wireless backhaul telco (telephone) connection to other existing and/or proposed Cingular WTF sites in the area in lieu of a hard wired land line telco connections when those are not available in order to allow the completion of the necessary telco connections within the infrastructure of Cingular's wireless system and within the existing land based land line phone systems. The monopine's brown trunk will be 24" in diameter at the base and will gradually taper to a 17" diameter at the top. 3 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 Architectural Review Commission: On February 10, 2004, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed and granted preliminary approval of the proposed monopine with the following condition: The artificial pine tree shall be designed to include a rounded pole trunk with artificial pine bark and shall include the installation of additional artificial branches so that the height of the lowest branches are 20' above ground level. The metal "arms" or "sectors" on which the cellular communications antennas will be mounted and the antennas themselves shall be painted a green color to match the green color of the artificial pine branches. The paint shall be a matte finish to avoid sunlight reflection and glare. The above condition of approval is included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2251, which is attached to this staff report. The above condition is also included as Community Development Department condition #9 in the draft City Council resolution attached to this staff report which affirms the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project. The monopine will not be obtrusive when viewed from Country Club Drive because it will be located 300' south and there are several 20'-30' high mesquite trees and 40'-50' high date palms along the south side of Country Club Drive. Bordering the site on the south and on the east there exist several 25' to 35' high Mondale pine trees and bottle trees and several 7'-10' high evergreen shrubs that screen and buffer the site from the adjacent Indian Ridge Country Club golf course. These existing trees also screen and camouflage the site from the nearest homes in Indian Ridge Country Club, which are located 330' to the south. The Architectural Review Commission determined that due to existing abundance of evergreen trees and shrubs bordering the site, there was no need to plant new trees. The Indian Ridge Homeowners Association, however, is opposed to the monopine because of concems about negative impacts on area aesthetics and detrimental impacts on home resale values. March 2, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting: At its March 2, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission considered testimony for and against the project prior to approving the 75' high monopine. 4 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 Letters of Opposition from Indian Ridge Country Club: Two letters of opposition were submitted by Indian Ridge Country Club. The first letter (copy attached) is dated February 25, 2004 and written by William Buzz Gill, Chief Executive Officer & General Manager of Indian Ridge Country Club. Mr. Gill states in his letter that the Board of Directors of Indian Ridge Country Club is unanimously opposed to the installation of a second monopine at the Southem California Edison substation for the following reasons: The overall aesthetics of a new 75' high monopine tower would have a negative impact on the views from the 10'h, 11", and 12'h holes of the Grove course on Indian Ridge Country Club property, would greatly impact the views of homes located across the fairways, and would negatively affect the value of real estate in the adjacent area. The second letter (copy attached) opposing the monopine is from Dana Brown, Indian Ridge Homeowner's Association Manager. Ms. Brown's letter requests that the monopine be denied because of negative aesthetic impacts on homeowners and golfers at Indian Ridge and claims that the monopine would have detrimental impacts on home resale values at Indian Ridge. Ms. Brown's letter states: The Indian Ridge Homeowner's Association received numerous complaints from homeowners within the community when the first original 63' Sprint monopine telecommunications tower was installed, and is now receiving new complaints from homeowners on the proposed 75' Nextel monopine telecommunication tower. Indian Ridge is a high -end prestigious gated community, with home sales ranging over $1,000,000.00. The new proposed 75' monopine would be detrimental to the aesthetics of the community, the view of the golf course fairways and would more importantly be detrimental to future home resale values at Indian Ridge. At the March 2, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Barry Keys, a resident who lives at Indian Ridge Country Club (244 White Horse), spoke in opposition to the monopine because it was tall and would be highly visible to many Indian Ridge residents, including himself. Mr. Keys stated he considered the existing 63' high monopine to be a visual eyesore. Mr. Keys suggested that the applicants try to relocate the new monopine further north within the Edison substation to minimize visual impacts on Indian Ridge residents. 5 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 Responses: The Planning Commissioners that voted to approve the new monopine concluded that the stealth monopine design of the proposed cell tower and the abundance of existing trees bordering the project site will camouflage the monopine as well as any existing stealth cell tower in Palm Desert. The nearest homes are 330 feet to the south. Construction of the monopine will improve cell phone service for Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless cell phone customers that live in Indian Ridge Country Club and other nearby country clubs. No evidence has been submitted to substantiate the view that the proposed monopine would have a detrimental impact on home resale values at Indian Ridge Country Club. At its March 2, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission asked the applicant if it might be possible to move the proposed monopine to the north side of the Southem California Edison substation site. The applicants responded that Edison would not allow cell towers anywhere else on the substation site other than the southeast corner where the new monopine is proposed. The reason for Edison's position is that it wants to reserve the remaining undeveloped area of the substation for the installation of new electrical equipment that Edison anticipates will be needed in the future to meet increased demand for electricity and its transmission. Since March 2, 2004, the applicants contacted Edison again to inquire if it might be possible to lease space for the monopine further north within the substation. An Edison representative responded that the company's position had not changed and that the southeast corner of the substation was the only location where Edison would lease space for a new cell tower at this substation. On March 2, 2004, Mr. Steve Stackhouse, representative for Cingular Wireless, stated to the Planning Commission that one reason the Edison substation site was chosen for the locating the new monopine cell tower is because there is a need to provide better cell phone coverage in this area of Palm Desert for Cingular Wireless customers. The existing gap in cell phone coverage is demonstrated by the color propagation maps submitted by Cingular Wireless that show existing and proposed cell phone coverage in the vicinity of the project site. Another reason for choosing this project site for a cell phone tower is that other properties in the vicinity are residentially zoned (PR-5), predominantly residentially used, and do not have existing wireless facilities. Although the project site is also zoned residential (PR-5), it contains public utility uses (i.e. an electrical substation and a 63' high monopine cell tower and related equipment cabinets). Therefore, the applicants' viewpoint is that construction of the proposed 75' high monopine at the Edison substation would not introduce a completely new use to the area. 6 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 At its March 2, 2004 meeting the Planning Commission asked staff if cell phone carriers (Sprint PCS and Verizon Wireless) on the existing 63' high monopine had been notified of the of the public hearing on the new monopine. Staff responded that the answer was no. Only surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified. Since March 2, 2004, the applicants contacted Sprint PCS and Verizon Wireless to ask them if they had any concems about the new monopine cell tower. No concerns were expressed. The applicants stated to the Planning Commission that the 75' height for the proposed monopine was needed in order to achieve adequate vertical separation distances between Nextel's and Cingular's antennas and existing Sprint PCS and Verizon Wireless antennas on the 63' high monopine to avoid creating signal interference between the carriers. III. ANALYSIS: A. Telecommunications Act The Telecommunications Act requires that local governments approve wireless facilities where significant gaps in coverage prevent adequate cell phone service. Cities are not obligated to allow wireless facilities for every cell phone company in a given area. When a significant gap in cell phone coverage exists, wireless providers must use the least intrusive means to provide service. Adequate service is a function of two factors: 1. Signal coverage for a particular location. 2. Capacity of the antennae to handle the volume of calls. Signal coverage: Antennae must be disbursed throughout an area so that there are no "gaps" or dead spots in coverage. Capacity: A single antenna can handle a fixed number of simultaneous calls. When that number is exceeded, there is a busy signal or calls are dropped. The total number of antennae for a particular area must therefore be matched to the call demand. 7 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 Is there a significant gap in coverage? Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless submitted color propagation maps that show there is a significant gap in cell phone coverage for its customers in the vicinity of the project site. Is this design and location the least intrusive available solution? The project incorporates the least intrusive design available based on the cell tower's stealth monopine design. The Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission determined that the proposed monopine design was acceptable due to the existence of several mature pine and bottle trees and evergreen shrubs adjacent to the south and east sides of the project site, the existence of mature mesquite trees and date palms along Country Club Drive, and the site being located 300' from Country Club Drive. B. Ordinance Requirements (Section 25.104.060.B) Regarding Location and Separation Distances for Commercial Communications Towers: The applicants are requesting exceptions from certain provisions in the Zoning Ordinance regarding which zones commercial communications towers may be located in, separation distances between towers and separation distances between towers and off -site residentially zoned properties. The exceptions requested by the applicants are listed in subsequent numbered paragraphs below. Zoning Ordinance section 25.104.060.B states that: "The Planning Commission may waive the separation requirements from residentially zoned properties and residential uses found in Section 25.104.040(B)(2) if it is determined that the tower or antenna utilizes an approved stealth design (i.e. artificial palm tree)." Section 25.104.040(B)(2) states: "Separation requirements for commercial communications towers shall comply with the following minimum standards:" Off -Site Use Residentially zoned lands or residential uses 8 Separation Distance A minimum of 300 feet Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 The Planning Commission granted the applicants' request for the following exceptions for the reasons stated below. 1. To locate a commercial communications tower on residentially zoned property. The Zoning Ordinance states that communications towers should be located on commercial and industrial zoned properties and not on residentially zoned properties. The project site and all surrounding properties in the vicinity are zoned PR-5 (Planned Residential, 5 du/acre maximum density). The nearest commercial zoned property is located 1.2 miles west at the northwest corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street. The nearest industrial zoned property is located 1.5 miles to the east at on the northwest corner of Country Club Drive and Park Center Drive. Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless already have cell towers on industrial properties in the vicinity of Cook Street and 42"d Avenue and in the vicinity of Country Club Drive and Washington Street. Locating the proposed monopine at the Ralph's Shopping Center on the northwest corner of Country Club Drive and Cook Street is infeasible because it is too far west and would not fill the existing "gap" in cell phone coverage for Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless customers in the vicinity of the project site. Over 90% of the land area within the City of Palm Desert is zoned residential. In order to adequately provide cell phone coverage for the entire city, locating cell phone towers on some residential zoned sites is required. For example, on October 7, 2003 the Planning Commission approved CUP 02-20 (Cingular Wireless, applicant) to allow installation of a 58' high cell tower with a stealth monopalm design at the southwest corner of State Highway 74 and Cahuilla Way at Bighorn Country Club. The nearest home at Bighorn is approximately 250' to the south and the nearest homes in Silver Spur Mobile Home Park are 150' to the north. The nearest commercially zoned property in South Palm Desert was 2.5 miles to the northeast at Highway 74 and El Paseo. 9 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 2. To locate a cell phone tower closer than 300 feet from off - site residentially zoned properties. The Zoning Ordinance states that there should be a 300-foot separation distance between a communications tower and off -site residentially zoned properties. The existing 63' monopine is located 50 feet from the Indian Ridge Country Club golf course to the south. Although the proposed monopine would be located 10 feet from the Indian Ridge Country Club golf course property, the nearest home is located approximately 330 feet to the south and there are a substantial number of mature Mondale pines, bottle trees, and evergreen shrubs that would help camouflage the proposed monopine. The Planning Commission determined that the monopine stealth design of the proposed tower is acceptable. 3. To locate the monopine cell tower closer than 1,000 foot from another cell tower. The Zoning Ordinance states that there should be a 1,000-foot separation distance between communications towers. Although the new monopine would be located only 40 feet from the existing monopine at the Edison substation, the Commission determined that the new monopine is acceptable for the following reasons: (1) its stealth design, (2) it would not introduce a completely new use to the site, and (3) the existence of several mature evergreen trees and shrubs will help camouflage the monopine from area residents. Development and performance standards for commercial communications towers are listed in Sections 25.104.040 and 25.104.060 of the Zoning Ordinance. A discussion of project compliance with these standards follows. 1. Fencing: A minimum 8' high fence or a wall shall be provided surrounding the equipment shelter. Project: There exists an 8' high wrought iron fence on the southerly and easterly borders of the project site. The applicants 10 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 propose to construct new 8' high wrought iron fencing with barbed wire along the westerly and northerly boundaries of the 25' wide by 60' long project site to secure the monopine and two equipment shelters. 2. Landscaping: The project shall include minimum perimeter landscaping screening to minimize visual impacts to nearby viewers to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Commission. Project: The Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval of the project after determining that existing 25'-35' high Mondale pines and bottle trees and 7'-10' high evergreen shrubs adjacent to the project site's southerly and easterly boundaries were sufficient to camouflage the site from view from Indian Ridge Country Club golf course to the south and east and the nearest Indian Ridge homes located 330' to the south. New landscaping was not required along Country Club Drive because the project site is 300' south of Country Club Drive and there exist mature mesquite trees and date palms along the south side of Country Club Drive that help camouflage the proposed cell tower. 3. Height: A communications tower shall not exceed a height of 75 feet measured from ground level to top of artificial vegetation. Project: The proposed monopine will have a height of 75' from ground level to top of artificial pine branches. The project is in compliance with the 75' maximum height of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission determined that the requested 75' tower height was appropriate in order to provide adequate vertical separation distances between the antennas of cell phone carriers on the existing 63' high monopine and the new monopine and thus avoid creating signal interference. C. Findings Required for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit: The cell tower's monopine stealth design, existing mature Mondale pines, bottle trees, and evergreen shrubs to the south and east, an existing 8' high wall and mature mesquite trees and date palms along Country Club Drive 300' to the north will adequately camouflage the monopine from surrounding properties. 11 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 (a) That existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider. Response: There are no existing cell phone towers or high buildings in the vicinity of the project site that could be used to co -locate the proposed cellular antennas. The proposed monopine is needed to fill the existing "gap" in cell phone coverage for Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless customers in this part of north Palm Desert. (b) That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna at the height proposed. Response: Site selection and antenna height is the result of a computer analysis of service coverage requirements for the Coachella Valley, Southern California, and the United States. A free standing wireless communications tower was determined to be necessary to provide adequate cell phone coverage for Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless customers in the vicinity of the project site. (c) That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility. Response: Existing cell phone coverage in this area by Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless is inadequate as demonstrated by the color propagation maps submitted by the applicants. The proposed communication tower will provide better service and create a larger network leading to increased clientele. 12 Staff Report Nextel Communications & Cingular Wireless CUP 04-01 April 8, 2004 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15332 (Class 32, Infill Development Projects) of CEQA Guidelines. Submitted by: ancisco J. Urbi Associate Planner Approv Homer Croy Assistant City L. Ortega anager Department Head: Philip Drell Director of Community Development ger for Development Services 13 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW DECISION OF THE Planning Commission (Name of Determining Body) Case No. CUP 04-01 Project Proponent: Date of Decision: Mar 2, 2004 Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless Address: south side of Country Club approx. 1,300 feet east of El Dorado Description of Application or Matter Considered: Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 75 foot high monopine wireless telecommunications tower with adjacent buildings w el w() mix t 4 3C .s' O MembetYbf the City Council FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Filed: . 3 -- 5 — r) Date of Consideration by City Council: Received by: Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H:Uklassen\WPdata1WPDOCS\FORMS\cnd req for rev.wpd COPY TO DATE 5/21/03 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIAt AR 118 2004 U. %:1,./ ,lt.: F. LOP MENT DE,PARTM. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REM EV DECISION OF THE Planning Commission (Name of Determining Body) Case No. CUP 04-01 Date of Decision: Mar 2, 2004 Project Proponent: Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless Address: south side of Country Club approx. 1,300 feet east of El Dorado Description of Application or Matter Considered: Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 75 foot high monopine wireless telecommunications tower with adjacent buildings w Lb- U Member6f the City Council FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Date Filed. 3 -- S— O Received by: Date of Consideration by City Council: t, Action Taken: Date: Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk H. vidasseMWPdaaiWPOOCSIFORMSIcncl rep for rev.wpd COPY TO DATE 5/21/03 RESOLUTION NO.04-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CUP 04-01 TO ALLOW A 75-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND EASTERLY OF EL DORADO DRIVE. CASE NO. CUP 04-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 8'h day of April, 2004 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a call-up by Palm Desert City Council Member Bufford Crites regarding Planning Commission approval of CUP 04-01 to allow a 75-foot high wireless communications tower and related equipment shelters within a Southern California Edison substation located southerly of Country Club Drive and easterly of El Dorado Drive; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council finds the following facts and reasons to justify affirming the Planning Commission approval of CUP 04-01: 1. That existing towers and buildings in the area do not technologically afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider; and 2. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna at the height proposed; and 3. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Conditional Use Permit 04-01 is hereby approved for a 75-foot high wireless communications tower and related equipment shelters subject to the attached conditions. City Council Resolution No. 04-27 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 8th Day of April, 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ROBERT SPEGEL, Mayor City Council Resolution No.04-27 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 04-01 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file to the department of community development/planning, 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. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicants shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission 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. 5. That where co -location may effectively be accomplished without violation of the provisions of proposed Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 and without reasonable interference with applicant's existing use, applicant shall allow third party co - location onto the tower erected under this permit. Applicant may charge a reasonable rental fee for such co -located use to the extent allowed by law. 6. That the communication tower shall comply with all provision of the City's Zoning Ordinance including but not limited to Section 25.104.040, Commercial Communication Tower Ordinance. 7. Applicants agree to maintain the artificial pine tree. Applicants will enter into an agreement to maintain said monopine for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind 3 City Council Resolution No. 04-27 successors and assigns. The site shall comply with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801). 8. The applicants shall comply with abandonment requirements set forth in Section 25.104.040 (o) of the City's Commercial Communication Tower/Antenna Ordinance. 9. The artificial pine tree shall be designed to include a rounded pole trunk with artificial pine bark and shall include the installation of additional artificial branches so that the height of the lowest branches are 20' above ground level. The metal "arms" or "sectors" on which the cellular communications antennas will be mounted and the antennas themselves shall be painted a green color to match the green color of the artificial pine branches. The paint shall be a matte finish to avoid sunlight reflection and glare. 10. New perimeter fencing to be constructed around the proposed equipment shelter shall be 8' high wrought iron fencing painted in a gray color to match the existing wrought iron fence to the south and east. The proposed access gates shall also be wrought iron. 11. Operation of the wireless facility shall comply with sound level specified in Chapter 9.24 (Noise Control) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Department of Public Works: 1. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 2. Proposed building and equipment pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 3. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 4. Applicant comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 4 City Council Resolution No. 04-27 Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of: 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1/2" x2-1/2", located not less than 25 feet nor more than: 150 feet from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not les than one 2A110BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 7. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24 feet of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36 feet wide, and 32 feet wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with a minimum 45-foot radius turn -around, 55 foot in industrial developments. 8. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'-6". 5 City Council Resolution No.04-27 9. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency. To facilitate plan review, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. 10. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 6 CITY Of PC:Dl DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 info®palm-deser,. org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. Conditional Use Permit No. 04-01 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a City Council request for review of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 04-01) a request by Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless to construct a 75-foot high monopine wireless telecommunications tower with two adjacent equipment shelter buildings within a 25'x 60' fenced area. The project site is located 300' south of Country Club Drive and 1,300' east of El Dorado Drive and is a part of a Southern Califomia Edison substation. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15332 (Class 32, Infill Development Projects) of CEQA Guidelines. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday April 8, 2004 at 4:00 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 conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, Secretary March 28, 2004 Palm Desert City Council 1. II. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY - MARCH 2, 2004 6:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jonathan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Campbell led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL Members Present: Sabby Jonathan, Chairperson Dave Tschopp, Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Jim Lopez Members Absent: Cindy Finerty Staff Present: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Bob Hargreaves, City Attorney Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Phil Joy, Associate Transportation Planner Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Request for consideration of the February 3 and 17, 2004 meeting minutes. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp, approving the February 3 and February 17, 2004 meeting minutes. Motion carried 3-0-1 to approve February 3 (Commissioner Lopez abstained) and 4-0 to approve February 17, 2004. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Mr. Drell summarized pertinent City Council actions of February 26, 2004. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 None. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. HPR 03-01 - DORI CREE, Applicant Request for approval of a first one-year time extension of a hillside development plan allowing grading and construction of a 12,819 square foot building pad, and a 6,415 square foot access driveway, on a 5.12 acre lot in the hillside planned residential zone west of the storm channel, south of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-013. B. Case No. PP 01-27 - RICK JOHNSON COMPANIES for MATINEE TRUST, Applicant Request for approval of a second one-year time extension for a precise plan of design to convert three single family dwellings into professional offices and parking lot. The project is located at the west end of Guadalupe Avenue at Monterey Avenue, 73-026, 73-031, 73-040 and 73-041 Guadalupe Avenue. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 4-0. VIII. 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. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 A. Case No. CUP 04-01 - NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS AND CINGULAR WIRELESS, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 75-foot high monopine wireless telecom-munications tower with adjacent equipment buildings to be located on the south side of Country Club Drive approximately 1,300 feet east of El Dorado. Mr. Urbina outlined the salient points of the staff report describing the location, surrounding uses and zoning. He reviewed the history of approval for an existing 63-foot high monopine nearby. He also used photo simulations to show the views from the Indian Ridge Country Club golf course of the existing SprintNerizon 63-foot high monopine and the proposed Nextel/Cingular Wireless 75-foot high monopine. Mr. Urbina noted that two letters had been received in opposition. One letter stated that the Indian Ridge Country Club Homeowner's Association started receiving complaints from homeowners about view impacts from the existing monopine after it was erected, but at the time of that hearing there were no letters of opposition. The letters of opposition now request that the Planning Commission deny the new monopine because of impacts on aesthetics, views and there was also an allegation that it could adversely affect property values within Indian Ridge Country Club where there are many homes valued at or above $1 million. The reason the project site was chosen was because of an existing gap in coverage for both Nextel Communications and Cingular Wireless. The closest existing towers are in the vicinity of Hovley Lane East and Cook Street and in the vicinity of Country Club Drive and Washington Street. These facilities are approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed project site. He explained that the Zoning Ordinance encourages the location of wireless communication facilities on industrial or commercially zoned properties, but the nearest zoned industrial properties are on Cook Street near Hovley Lane East and on Country Club Drive approximately a quarter mile west of Washington. The nearest commercial property is the Ralph's shopping center at the NEC of Country Club Drive and Cook Street. He said the sites in between these areas were ruled out by the applicants because they are not as much in the geographic center of where the existing gap in coverage exists. In addition, this site was chosen because the Zoning Ordinance encourages co -location or clustering of these wireless communication facilities. The existing monopine, however, 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2* 2004 could not accommodate additional carriers because there were already two carriers and each carrier needs a certain amount of vertical separation distance as well as a certain minimum height to adequately relay a signal. He showed other views of the site and stated that the nearest homes in Indian Ridge Country Club are located approximately 340 feet to the south. He reiterated that the main objections from the Indian Ridge Country Club Homeowners Association are negative impacts on views and potential adverse impacts on property values. Mr. Urbina informed the commission that one of the main criteria for approving a conditional use permit per the Zoning Ordinance is that the conditional use will not create a materially injurious impact on surrounding land uses. He supposed that could be construed in different ways and negative aesthetic impacts could fall into that category. The Zoning Ordinance encouraged the design of wireless communication towers with a stealth design as the applicant had done in this case. The new monopine is proposed to be 12 feet higher than the existing monopine in order to avoid signal interference with the existing two carriers. There also had to be a certain amount of vertical separation distance. Staff's recommendation was for the Planning Commission to approve CUP 04- 01 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. He noted that both of the applicants were present. Commissioner Tschopp announced that he would be abstaining since he owns a residence in Indian Ridge Country Club. Commissioner Lopez asked if the proposed monopine was the same company that did the previous one. Mr. Urbina deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Campbell noted that the plans also showed a two -foot diameter microwave dish that would be at 40 feet. She asked if that would also be covered by the branches. Mr. Urbina indicated that the elevations didn't show the dish being covered by branches, however, one of staff's recommended conditions of approval is that additional artificial branches be added in the lower part of the monopine so that there will be a maximum distance of 20 feet from ground level to the closest branches so that the branches would match the lower branches of the existing adjacent pine tree. With that condition staff thought that microwave dish would be camouflaged by the artificial branches. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't see that dish on the plans. He asked if it was part of the original submittal. Mr. Urbina explained that there were two sets of plans distributed. The dish only showed up on the Cingular Wireless plans so if he was looking at the Nextel Communications plans he would not have seen it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if ARC considered that dish and if they had that plan to look at. Mr. Urbina said no, the Cingular plans were submitted afterwards. Chairperson Jonathan asked if what they saw was just the Nextel proposal and they had not had the opportunity to review the modifications that Cingular Wireless was proposing. Mr. Urbina said that was correct. The Cingular plans are virtually identical except for that two -foot dish so the Architectural Review Commission did not review the two -foot dish, but everything else on the plans were supposed to be the same. Chairperson Jonathan asked if ARC was aware of the two -foot dish when they granted preliminary approval. Mr. Urbina said no, because it was communicated to staff that the two applicants had worked together to jointly prepare the set of Nextel plans. The microwave dish came later. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the existing monopine was about 20 feet lower. Mr. Urbina said it was 12 feet lower. Chairperson Jonathan noted that in the past applicants have always said, as this one is saying, that they need to be higher than anything else around them. He asked what a higher antenna and tree might potentially do in obstructing the existing monopine. Mr. Urbina said the existing height was being requested in order to avoid horizontal signal interference with the two existing carriers. Chairperson Jonathan said he knew why the new monopine would be okay since it would be higher than everything else around it, but he asked if the new monopine would pose an obstruction to the existing monopine antenna. Mr. Urbina said no, not according to the applicants because of the new monopine's additional height and avoidance of signal interference. Chairperson Jonathan said he would address this with the applicant also because every time an applicant has come before them and they have had concerns about antenna height, they have always said they had to be higher than anything else around them. In this case the applicant is making a similar case and says they need to be 12 feet higher so they can be higher than the other one. That left the other one lower, so he would defer to the experts. Mr. Urbina agreed that the applicant could better answer that question. Chairperson Jonathan opened, the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. JAMES LEE, Nextel, 1590 Milliken AVernue, Unit H, Ontario, California, addressed the question. To answer the question about the 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2.2004 vertical separation, he explained that the reason they need to be higher, they need vertical and horizontal separation so they don't interfere with the existing signal. The reason they don't go lower, although it was possible to stagger the antenna and go lower, but if they go lower the carrier below them would also have to go lower and most likely that wouldn't meet their coverage objectives. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was possible that the proposed monopine could create interference for the existing monopine. Mr. Lee said there was no evidence that would be created. When they go out there they do a study to make sure that isn't the case because that wouldn't be useful for them or the other carriers. Chairperson Jonathan asked staff if the other carrier was notified of this application --if they received public notice. Mr. Urbina said no, just surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius. As a follow up, Mr. Lee said he reviewed the conditions of approval set forth and accepted them. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the dish was necessary. Mr. Lee explained that the dish was actually for the other carrier and it is necessary. It is for Telco to transmit Telco to the site. He clarified that Telco was telephone service. Commissioner Lopez asked if Nextel was going to be the higher of the two. Mr. Lee said that was correct. Commissioner Lopez asked if they needed to be higher than the other monopine so that there would be no interference with the other tower. Mr. Lee said that was correct. Cingular is staggered with Verizon and then there is Sprint, then Nextel. Commissioner Lopez said he was still confused about how this affects the other tree. Mr. Drell explained that the tree wasn't the obstacle. It is separating the signals from one another so that they are all going out on a plain. They need the signals at a different vertical plain. They need to be vertically separating. The reason they are higher is to get higher than the highest 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 antenna on the existing pine. Otherwise, if they were on the same level, they would be on the same plain and they would be picking up each other's signals. It is to create vertical separation. Theoretically, they could have one pine that was even taller. Maybe 80 or 90 feet and create the separation on the one. Mr. Lee said that was correct. Mr. Drell said if they did that the tower would be even taller than the proposed one. Chairperson Jonathan suggested that the next time they have an applicant that says he needs to be 75 or 85 feet high because he needs to avoid interference with surrounding structures, they can say no, that isn't true. Mr. Drell said that it was two different issues. The issue of height had to do with overall coverage. The higher the antenna the more the antenna can cover because it doesn't run into things in the environment. This height issue had nothing to do with that. This had to do with particularly avoiding conflict with the antennas on the adjoining tree. Mr. Lee confirmed it was to avoid interference with the existing carriers. Mr. Drell said they usually hear that they want the height because they want that antenna to cover a larger area without running into buildings or other large obstructions in the vicinity. This had nothing to do with that, although a side benefit is additional coverage. But the primary benefit is so that the antenna will work and not interfere with the adjoining antennas. Commissioner Lopez said that Nextel is at 75 feet or so. Mr. Lee said Nextel is at 65 feet. The top of the pole is at 75 feet to create the integrity of the pine tree. Commissioner Lopez asked on the next level below that, who the next vertical carrier is on the existing pine. Mr. Lee said it is Sprint PCS. Commissioner Lopez asked how high they were. Mr. Lee said it was 57 feet to the top of their antenna. Commissioner Lopez asked who the next one was. 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 Mr. Lee said Cingular. Commissioner Lopez asked if that was another eight feet of difference. Mr. Lee said roughly eight feet. Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the information was on their chart. Commissioner Lopez acknowledged that and then noted the next one would be below that. So they needed approximately eight feet difference. Mr. Lee said it was about three feet from tip to tip from antenna to antenna to antenna. There were no further questions. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Stackhouse from Cingular wished to address the commission. MR. STEVE STACKHOUSE with Velocitel Incorporated, 18071 Fitch Avenue Suite 200 in Irvine, 92614, stated that he was present on behalf of Cingular Wireless. He explained that Nextel Communications is the lead agency in this request. They were approaching SCE as far as doing a co -location at this substation when they realized that having discussed this matter with the City of Palm Desert, that Sprint had already been approved here, as well as Verizon to co -locate with them. They met with them because, after doing a great deal of recon for this entire area as determined by the search rings given to them by Cingular Wireless, when that occurs they have a very finite area of opportunity where they are to try to seek to provide a location. In doing their investigation, they realized that the area of coverage objective being sought here was almost entirely, if not entirely, residentially zoned and predominately residentially used as well. The first commercial opportunities were to the east about a mile and a half away, as well as to the west about a mile and a half away at Cook and Country Club. As Mr. Urbina pointed out earlier, there was also a commercial opportunity over by Washington just a little bit south of the 10. Those fell well outside their coverage objectives, so they really had to try to isolate any opportunity to locate in the area they were looking for as dictated to them by the search rings by the Cingular Wireless RF engineer. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNINS COMMISSION MARCH 2.2004 Going back to the substation, it is zoned residentially, but was obviously more of a utility type of use. They Teamed that there had been a prior approval made for Sprint PCS, as well as a subsequent co -location approval made for Verizon to locate on that same monopine prior to them making their submittals to the City. When they approached SCE, they also learned that Nextel shared an interest in doing something at that location. So that is when Nextel and Cingular more or less matched up their needs and they did a joint site design walk whereby the RF engineers, the construction managers and everybody involved identified the different heights they needed to be at in order to accomplish the coverage objectives for their individual carrier. As had been said before, height is everything. The higher they are the greater the coverage. They didn't necessarily want to go with a structure 150 feet high, because while that might accommodate four or five carriers at a time on the same vertical structure, that was not what they were after since they already had one structure there providing for two carriers. Realizing the heights they are located at, they went about staggering their heights to not be in conflict with theirs. They placed their monopine somewhat to the southwest to also maintain a minimum amount of horizontal separation required by their industry and the way the antennas receive and transmit their signals. He stated that there was an intermodel study done by their engineers to better insure there will be no cross talking or interference between the antennas and the carriers. He also suggested to the commission that in working with SCE, it is a part of their lease language to all new carriers that no new carrier coming in behind any of the others can have any negative impact or influence on a previous carrier who is already there and operating. So while the other carriers might not have been notified of their request, he was quite certain through SCE that SCE has advised them of their intentions and he provided SCE plans showing their heights, their location, their frequencies and things of that nature, so he would like to think that Sprint PCS as well as Verizon are informed of their proposal. Having said that, they finally located here because upon further investigation there were simply no further windows of opportunity. This substation was almost like an island or an oasis in the desert in that it is the only pocket of opportunity in this entire sea of residential area. So this is why they actually located at this spot, having no other opportunities to place something that would provide the coverage that 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 Cingular was needing, as well as Nextel. In providing for that at this location, the heights they were seeking were the minimum heights required to accomplish the coverage objective that Cingular is after. They needed a minimum height that in turn triggered the height that Nextel needed to go at so that they could maintain their vertical stagger or separation between the same carriers going on the same monopine. Their tree/monopine is a little taller, but that was to provide that vertical stagger to minimize or prevent any interferences between all four carriers once all four are operational. The propagation maps provided demonstrated what gap in coverage there currently is for Cingular and the fact that being able to place this facility at this location provides coverage for what would be approximately a mile in diameter in this residential area. They have an existing site to the northeast of this location up toward the 10 at Washington and they have a site more west but somewhat southwest at Hovley and Cook. This site, because of its location, will fill a major gap that Cingular presently has in its coverage for this area. He didn't know about the commission or about anyone in the audience, but generally more and more people are using cell phones in their work and personal use and certainly in times of emergency when something has occurred and they are needing to reach out and call someone quickly and a land line is simply not convenient. Being able to serve Cingular's subscribing clientele is obviously something that is mandated to them by the FCC license upon its issuance. Cingular is simply trying to set about to provide coverage to their subscribing clientele as provided by their license and as dictated by simply fulfilling their obligation to the FCC. Because of the legal issues and because if anything should come from this he wanted to make sure all the salient points were presented. Having located here, part of it was that there was precedent. Sprint was approved and is already up and operating. They tried to go where previous approval has been accomplished along with the other reasons he mentioned. He also stated that there is language in the 1996 Telecom Act that also speaks to the fact that what state and local jurisdictions can and cannot do relative to their actions taken on carriers and they could not preclude nor prevent fair competition amongst carriers at the same location from being able to operate and compete fairly. That is a paraphrase of Section 704, but nevertheless it was there for that reason. 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 He said he would like the opportunity to come back and speak, perhaps after Mr. Lee, upon any rebuttal that might be necessary. He asked for any questions. (There were none.) Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. MR. BARRY KEYS, 244 Whitehorse, said he lived right in front of the tree that was put up. He invited all of them to come and see what this looks like from all the residences there. He said it is an eyesore and was put in a place where a lot of the residents were unhappy about it. Unfortunately, more of them weren't present tonight. He was in business himself and he didn't want to stop progress, so he recognized the need as these gentlemen eloquently put out to the commission, but there were possibly other locations on that property. If they put it closer to the street, he didn't believe it would be an eyesore to a lot of the homes. The tree itself is a different type of pine tree than what is there now. It looked odd compared to the other trees that are there. Looking at the height of it, he said it is pretty tall. Now they were talking about another tree that will be even taller than that which he thought would look out of place. He also understood there was going to be a third or a fourth tree put in eventually into the site. He didn't know if that was true or not, but understood it was a possibility. So they were going to have a kind of forest there that would be out of place and he thought the possibility of having it closer to the street may not be as much an eyesore as it is today. Unfortunately they, himself included, fell asleep at the wheel when this came around because he didn't think the residents recognized what actually was going to be up there before the planning committee approved this. He just heard about this one a couple of days ago that they were putting up a second tree. So he wasn't as prepared as he would like to be. If they see this and look at it from the perspective of the homes that are there, it is definitely an eyesore. He didn't think anything could be done about it at this point, but to stop future ones is what they were looking to do. Only at that property or that site. He didn't know if Indian Ridge, because he hadn't talked to them, if perhaps they might have some property there this could go up at. Closer to the street 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 there is property that the electric company has and they could possibly put them there. He spoke to Mr. Lee this evening and asked him if there was some other way or some other possibility and he indicated that he would try to look at it, but doubted it. Mr. Keys invited them to look at this property and see what this is. Obviously, it was in their hands. He thanked the commission for letting him speak, but they could see all the residents that are there in that circle and around that are looking at that site. He said his home is also up for sale and he has lost two potential buyers because of it and he had to reduce the price of it. He said he's going to be moving into the same area, but not at that particular property. So it is a problem for him. He would appreciate it if they would look at it and evaluate it. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the applicants had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Lee informed commission that he spoke to Mr. Keys before the meeting and they talked about possibly relocating the pole. He noted that it was unfortunate that SCE has determined the spot for them. They are planning for future expansion inside the SCE substation, therefore, it would be difficult for them to go any where else on the property. He said he did mention when they reconned the site to get it closer to the street, however, according to the new relevation that they are going to expand it for future development, his hands are tied. He also mentioned that there could be another location at Indian Ridge; however, he did get a letter complaining about their proposal, so it wasn't likely that they would entertain any sort of expansion on their property. Mr. Stackhouse addressed the commission. He stated that Mr. Lee was correct. When they did the site walk SCE representatives were very firm about where they could locate on this property and it was only to the rear of it because of future expansion or the prospect of future expansion in the vacant area to the northeast corner and to the east. They were pretty much dictated to only locate in the southeast corner of the property. To address the issue of Mr. Keys' home and it being for sale, he knew that was a very difficult situation to be able to lock in on. He knows several realtors, and his wife is a realtor, and he actually understood more times than not people are wanting to know if cell service is in a given location where they are looking to purchase a home because of 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CQMMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 the interest in being able to have that sort of reception rather than having it be a deterrent. He didn't know the circumstances of Mr. Keys' transactions, but he knew that it seemed that more and more people are wanting to have cell service and having a facility close by would ensure that. He thought that would be more of a benefit than a detriment. He thanked the commission for their consideration. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for comments. Commissioner Lopez said he had a question for staff. He said the proposed tree looked different from the existing tree and asked if they took into consideration the need to have trees that look similar so they look compatible or have the same type of pine tree. Mr. Urbina said that language could be added to one of the Community Development Department conditions that the same construction company be used as was used for the existing Sprint monopine. Commissioner Campbell said she looked at the area and it took her a while to find the pine tree because.there were so many trees clustered around it. She said she changed from Cingular to Verizon because of the service and while she doesn't use her cell phone much, she could understand why service would be necessary in that area. Also, she liked the condition that staff added for additional branches on this tree. She thought it was a better antenna then some of the other ones in the city and she was in favor. Commissioner Lopez said he struggled with the height, although he went out and took a look at the location. It is protected from the main thoroughfares and based on the photographs received tonight, it looked like it was there when they are looking out their homesites at Indian Ridge. That was why he wanted to make sure that there is some type of adaptability to the existing tree or bring the existing tree up to the standards now set as it pertained to the proposed monopine. It was unfortunate that it was situated in a location that has little flexibility on movement, but it seemed to work in this location and allowed them to provide for additional service to the community. He was in favor. Chairperson Jonathan stated that he went by and looked at the existing monopine and thought it was pretty well done. He did not look at the view from the homes and they may have a different perspective. He said he had a few concerns. 1) The dish was a modification that ARC didn't know about or 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COJIIMISSION MARCH 2, 2004 review; 2) We don't know if the existing monopine users, Sprint and Verizon, were notified of this application, and 3) there is a possibility that with some pressure Southem California Edison might at least consider the possibility of an alternative location on the property. His personal preference, and he respected the wishes of the commission, but his personal preference would be to send this back to ARC to get their opinion about the dish. He was kind of concerned about it and wanted to make sure that if it is going to happen, that the design be to their satisfaction. During the time it goes back to ARC, he thought they then had the opportunity to notify Sprint and Verizon and to give the applicant an opportunity to discuss the matter with Southern Califomia Edison and indicate there is some potential desire from the neighborhood, from the City, to at least examine alternative locations within the SCE property. That would be his personal preference, but he would respect the wishes of the majority. Commissioner Campbell said that regarding the dish, with the addition of more branches on the trunk it would be very well camouflaged, so she didn't think it would be sitting out like a sore thumb. Mr. Urbina suggested adding to Condition No. 9 that the dish be painted a green color to match the branches or a brown color to match the artificial pine trunk, if that was okay with the applicant's representative. He asked if they could accommodate painting the dish either a brown or a dark green color. (Mr. Stackhouse said yes.) Commissioner Campbell said she would stand with her motion for approval. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Tschopp abstained). Chairperson Jonathan asked for and received clarification that the motion included amendment of Community Development Department Condition No. 9. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2251, approving CUP 04-01, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 2-1-1 (Chairperson Jonathan voted no, Commissioner Tschopp abstained). B. Zas - = . • ' -79 Amendment - i - - i CORPORATION, INC., AND S. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2251 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 75-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND EASTERLY OF EL DORADO DRIVE. CASE NO. CUP 04-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 2nd day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS and CINGULAR WIRELESS; for the above noted conditional use permit; 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. 02-60, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a Class 32 categorical exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further documentation is necessary; 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 granting of said conditional use permit: 1. That the existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider; and 2. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna at the height proposed; and 3. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 04-01 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2251 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on the 2nd day of March 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ NOES: JONATHAN. ABSENT: FINERTY ABSTAIN: TSCHOPP ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert Pla ning Commission SABBY "+ AT Chairperson 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2251 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 04-01 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file to 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. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicants shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission 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. 5. That where co -location may effectively be accomplished without violation of the provisions of proposed Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 and without reasonable interference with applicant's existing use, applicant shall allow third party co -location onto the tower erected under this permit. Applicant may charge a reasonable rental fee for such co -located use to the extent allowed by law. 6. That the communication tower shall comply with all provision of the City's Zoning Ordinance including but not limited to Section 25.104.040, Commercial Communication Tower Ordinance. 7 Applicants agree to maintain the artificial pine tree. Applicants will enter into an agreement to maintain said monopalm for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The site shall comply with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801). 8. The applicants shall comply with abandonment requirements set forth in Section 25.104.040 (o) of the City's Commercial Communication Tower/Antenna Ordinance. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2251 9. The artificial pine tree shall be designed to include a rounded pole trunk with artificial pine bark and shall include the installation of additional artificial branches so that the height of the lowest branches are 20' above ground level. The metal "arms" or "sectors" on which the cellular communications antennas will be mounted and the antennas themselves shall be painted a green color to match the green color of the artificial pine branches. The paint shall be a matte finish to avoid sunlight reflection and glare. The microwave dish shall be painted a green color to match the branches or brown to match the tree trunk. The construction of the new pine tree shall be of a similar design as the existing pine tree. 10. New perimeter fencing to be constructed around the proposed equipment shelter shall be 8' high wrought iron fencing painted in a gray color to match the existing wrought iron fence to the south and east. The proposed access gates shall also be wrought iron. 11. Operation of the wireless facility shall comply with sound level specified in Chapter 9.24 (Noise Control) of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. Department of Public Works: 1. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 2. Proposed building and equipment pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 3. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. 4. Applicant comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12 Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2251 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of: 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1/2" x2-1/2", located not Tess than 25 feet nor more than: 150 feet from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not les than one 2A110BC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 7. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be Tess than 24 feet of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36 feet wide, and 32 feet wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with a minimum 45-foot radius turn -around, 55 foot in industrial developments. 8. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'-6". 9. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency. To facilitate plan review, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. 10. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Francisco Urbina FROM: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer SUBJECT: CUP 4-1, Celltower on Country Club Drive DATE: January 23, 2004 The following shall be considered conditions of approval for the above -referenced project. (1) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 27, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. (2) Proposed building and equipment pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (3) Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review concurrently with grading plans. (4) Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. Mark Greenwood, P.E. G:\PubWorks\Conditions of Approval\CUP\cup 4-1 celltower CC Dr. Indian Ridge.wpd �a►uuwlN�driod AESTLI Tom Tisdale Fire Chief Proudly serving the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and the titles of: Banning fi Beaumont si Calimesa fi Canyon Lake Coachella Desert Hot Springs { Indian Wells Indio Lake Elsinore •La Oulnla fi Moreno Valley fi Palm Desert fi Perris Rancho Mirage San Jacinto Temecula Board of Supervisors Bob Buster District 1 John Tavaglione District 2 Jim Venable District 3 Roy Wilson District 4 Tom Mullen District 5 RIVERSIDIi C 'NTY FIRE DEPARTMENT In cooperation n with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 210 West San Jncinlo Avenue • Perris. California 92570 • (900) 940-6900 • FAX (909) 940-6910 Cove Fire Marshal's Office 73710 Fred Waring Drive lt222 Palm Desert CA 92260 (760)346-1870 •ro: �- Cam•.... REF: %Uf 0(40/ If circled, conditions apply to project RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT DATE: // )C z y.-03/ With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CIO or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing :I gpm flow of: 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings 3000 gpm for commercial buildings The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4"x 21/2" x 2'h", located not less than 25' nor more than: 6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 11. install a complete NFI'A 13 fire sprinkler system. 'Phis af►Itlic s to :ill buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. •I•hc Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all lust 111(1kator v:►Iv('s and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall out he less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprit' kler -systems and Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 13. Install a fire alarm system as required by the U11C Chapter Install portable fire extinguishers per NFI'A 10, but dot less than one 2AIOBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' wathing distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 15. Install a Ilood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing; system her 4)( in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 16. Install a dust collecting system per UPC Chapter 76 if conductin�� :tn operation that produces airborne particles. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather- roadway e trotting to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed witllh and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel Parking; is rcquircel on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide :tnd 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall In provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in intlristrial developments. Whenever access into private property is controlled throrr;',h rise nl• gates, barriers or other means provisions shall he made In install :r "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for. emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shalt he 1(" with a Minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a seconcl:tr•N accr•ss. sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the 1•'irr• Marshal. Under no circumstance shall :t dead end over I inn' accepted. at. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposal usage and occupancy type. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 22. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 23. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm' plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits arc not obtained within twelve months. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870. in Palm Desert. Location: 73710 Fred Warine Drive 11222, Palm Desert CA 92260 Other: /7/Y/ Sincerely, David A. Avila Fire Marshal WON Indian lidge COUNTRY CLUB February 25, 2004 City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92270 Dear Commissioners; RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT This letter concerns the unanimous opposition of the Board of Directors of Indian Ridge Country Club concerning the installation of an additional monopine tower at the Edison Company Concho station located adjacent to the club's maintenance facility. The overall aesthetics of a new 75' high monopine tower would have a negative impact on the views from the 10th, 11th, and 12th holes of the Grove course on Indian Ridge Country Club property, would greatly impact the views of the homes located across the fairways, and would negatively affect the value of real estate in the adjacent area. For the above reasons, we strongly request that the application be denied. Sincerely William Buzz Gill CEO/General Manager Cc: Indian Ridge Country Club Board of Directors HOA of Indian Ridge PUD of Indian Ridge 76-375 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia 92211 Telephone (760) 772-7272 • FAX (760) 772-7287 Website: www.indianridgecc.com A Development of Sunrise Colony Company — Builder of America's Finest Country Club Communities MAN Indian lidge RE PPTITI7T) .'0MML!NITYcc',. CITY Y 0i, PALM DiE6ERT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION "Indian Ridge Homeowners Association is dedicated to preserving our condominium community through effective use of resources, protecting our investment through prudent fiscal policies and enhancing our services and amenities for maximum enjoyment of all homeowners." City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission And Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA. 92260-2578 February 27, 2004 RE: Case # CUP 04-01 - Nextel Monopine - Telecommunication Tower - Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Dear City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: The Indian Ridge Homeowners Association recently received the plans for the proposed 75' Nextel Monopine telecommunication tower. The plans were received after the February 10, 2004, City of Palm Desert, Architectural Review Commission meeting. The Indian Ridge Homeowners Association's, received numerous complaints from homeowners within the community, when the first original 63' Sprint, Monopine telecommunication tower was installed, and is now receiving new complaints from homeowners on the proposed 75' Nextel, Monopine telecommunication tower. The Indian Ridge Homeowners Associations, Board of Directors, therefore request that the City of Palm Desert, Planning Commission, deny the application to install a 75' Nextel, Monopine telecommunication tower at Indian Ridge. Indian Ridge is a high end prestigious gated community, with home sales ranging over $1,000,000.00. The new proposed 75' Monopine telecommunication tower would be detrimental to the aesthetics of the community, the view of the golf course fairways and would more importantly be detrimental to -future home resale values at Indian Ridge. Thank you for your assistance in the above matter. Please respond to our request in writing after the City of Palm Desert, Planning Commission meets on March 2, 2004. Sincerely, Dana Brown, Association Manager On Behalf of the Indian Ridge HOA, Board of Directors (760) 772-7234 • (760) FAX 772-7239 173 Rainbird Circle, Palm Desert, California 92211 Chapter 25.104 COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION TOWER AND COMMERCIAL ANTENNA REGULATIONS Sections: 25.104.010 25.104.020 25.104.030 25.104.040 25.104.050 25.104.060 Purpose and intent. Applicability. Permitted commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas in zoning districts of city. Performance and construction standards for commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas. Exception process. Stealth installation of commercial communication towers and antennas. 25.104.010 Purpose and intent. The regulations and requirements set forth herein are adopted for the following purposes: A. To provide for the location of commercial communi- cation towers and commercial communication antennas in the city of Palm Desert; B. To protect land uses from potential adverse impacts of commercial communication towers and antennas; C. To minimize adverse visual impacts of conunercial communication towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques; D. To accommodate the growing need for commercial communication towers and antennas; E. To promote and encourage shared use/collocation of existing and new commercial communication towers as a primary option rather than construction of additional single -use towers; F. To protect the public health, safety and welfare; G. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of tower structures. (Ord. 817 § 9 (part), 1996) 25.104.020 Applicability. A. All new commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas in Palrn Desert shall be subject to these regulations and all other applicable regulations. For purposes of measurement, communication tower setbacks and separation distances, as delineated in 25.104.010 Section 25.104.040(E)(3), shall be calculated and applied irrespective of municipal and county jurisdictional bound- aries. B. All commercial communication towers and commer- cial communication antenna facilities existing on October 10, 1996 (the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter) shall be considered permitted uses, and allowed to continue their usage as they presently exist; provided however, that anything other than routine maintenance, including without limitation, structural modifications includ- ing provisions for additional antennas or additional providers and/or new construction on an existing commercial commu- nication tower, shall comply with the requirements of Section 25.104.040(E)(3). Routine maintenance shall be permitted on such existing towers. (Ord. 817 § 9 (part), 1996) 25.104.030 Permitted commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas in zoning districts of city. A. 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)- B. Commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas may be approved in any of the following zone districts: 1. C 1 general commercial; 2. PC planned commercial; 3. SI service industrial; 4_ P public/institutional; 5. OS open space; 6. PI planned industrial. C. Commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas may locate on existing towers or buildings. 1. When located on buildings, commercial communica- tion towers and commercial communication antennas shall be architecturally integrated into building design so as to be as unobtrusive as possible in context with the adjacent environment and architecturally compatible with existing structures in terms of design, color and materials as deter- mined by the architectural review commission; 2. Shall not exceed fifty percent of the building height D. Requests for building -mounted commercial communi- cation antennas in excess of fifty percent of the building height shall be processed pursuant to the requirements of subsection (E) of this section. 484-1 (Palm Desen 8-00 ir4/41)444.4))).001**00060.0•0100•000•01100* 25.104.030 E. New freestanding commercial communication towers/commercial communication antennas shall not be allowed unless the applicant: 1. Substantiates to the satisfaction of the planning commission: a. That existing towers and buildings do not tedmologi- cally afford the applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider, and b. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot technologically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding tower/antenna at the height proposed, and c. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility; 2. Obtains a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.72 of the code. (Ord. 817 § 9 (part). 1996) 25.104.040 Performance and construction standards for commercial communication towers and commercial communication antennas. A. Setbacks. Ca nmacial communication tower/anterma setbacks shall be measured from the base of the tow- er/antenna to the property line of the parcel on which it is located. Accessory structures shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the district in which they are located. B. Separation From Off -Site Uses. 1. Commercial communication tower separation shall be measured from the base of the tower to the closest point of off -site uses and/or designated areas as specified in subsection (B)(2) of this section. 2. Separation requirements for commercial commuraca- tion towers shall comply with the following minimum standards: Off -Site Use Separation Distance Residentially zoned lands A minimum of 300 feet or residential uses C. Separation Distances Between Commercial Commu- nication Towers. 1. Separation distances between commercial conrnuurui- cation towers shall be applicable for and measured between the proposed tower and those towers that are existing and/or have received land use or building permit approval from the city of Palm Desert after October 10,1996 (the effective date of this chapter). 2. The separation distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line between the base of (Palm Deur 8-01) the existing tower and the proposed base, pursuant to a site plan, of the proposed tower. 3. The separation distances (listed in linear feet) shall be as follows: Separation Towers -Types Distance Monopole greater than 50 1,000 feet feet in height Monopole 50 feet or less 500 feet in height Guyed tower at any height 1,000 feet D. Fencing. A fence or wall not less than eight feet in height from finished grade shall be provided around each commercial communication tower except those in- stalled on rooftops. Access to the tower shall be through a locked gate. E. Landscaping. The visual impacts of a commercial eommmication tower shall be mitigated for nearby viewers through landscaping or other screening materials at the base of the tower and ancillary structures. Landscaping and buffering of commercial communication towers shall be required around the perimeter of the tower and accessory structures to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Further, the use of existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable and may be used as a substitute of, or in supplement towards, meeting landscaping requirements. F. Height 1. No freestanding commercial communication tow- er/antenna shall exceed eighty-five feet in height from ground level. 2. Where installed on top of a building, no commercial communication tower/antenna shall extend greater than fifty percent over the building height. G. Type of Construction. Commercial communication towers shall be monopole construction; provided, however, that guyed construction may be approved by the planning commission upon consideration of the following factors: 1. Compatibility with adjacent properties; 2. Architectural consistency with adjacent properties; and 3. Visual impact on adjacent properties. including visual access of adjacent properties to sunlight. H. Development Criteria. Commercial corntmunication towers/antennas shall comply with the minimum develop- ment criteria of the district in which they are located, pertaining to minimum lot size and open space. I. Illumination. Commercial communication tow- ers/antennas shall not be artificially lighted except to assure 484-2 4 4 human safety or as required by the Federal Aviation Admin- istration. J. Collocation_ 1. Proposed commercial communication antennas may, and are encouraged to, collocate onto existing commercial communication towers; provided, such collocation is accom- plished in a manner consistent with this section. Such collocation is permitted without amendment of the existing conditional use permit if no additional modification to the tower is proposed. 2. Any request to collocate a new antenna within the required separation radius of an existing tower shall be required to collocate on the existing tower. Any modification of that existing tower is subject to the conditional use permit process and Section 25.104.030. 3. If determined by the city that the proposed commer- cial tower is situated in a location which will benefit the city's telecommunication systems, then the tower shall be engineered d tructed mmodate the additional telecomanunicating equipment beneficial to the public system at a cost to the city no greater than the actual expense of the provider in so engineering and constructing the tower to meet the city's needs. 4. Where collocation may effectively be accomplished without violation of the provisions of this chapter and without reasonable interference with the applicant's existing use, the applicant shall allow third party collocation on any tower erected under this chapter. Applicant may charge a reasonable rental fee for such collocated use to the extent allowed by law. K. Noninterference. No commercial communication tower or antenna shall interfere with public safety communi- cation. Frequency coordination is required to ensure nonin- terference with public safety system and/or public safety entities. L. Exceptions. Any request to deviate from any of the requirements of this section shall require approval of an exception pursuant to Section 25.104.050. , M. Documentation_ Documentation to demonstrate conformance with the requirements of this section shall be submitted by the applicant with all requests to construct, locate or modify a commercial communication tower/ antenna. N. Signs and Advertising. The use of any portion of a commercial communication tower for signs or advertising purposes including, without limitation, company name, banners, or streamers, is prohibited. O. Abandonment. In the event the use of any commer- cial communication tower has been discontinued for a period of one hundred eighty consecutive days, the tower shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Upon such abandon- ment, the owner/operator of the tower shall have an addi- 25.104-040 tional one hundred eighty days within which to: (1) reacti- vate the use of the tower or transfer the tower to another owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower; or (2) dismantle and remove the tower. At the earlier of one hundred eighty-one days from the date of abandonment without reactivation or upon completion of dismantling and removal, any variance approval for the tower shall automatically expire. (Ord. 817 § 9 (part). 1996) 25.104.050 Exception process. The planning commission may approve exceptions relative to: A. Zoning districts on which commercial c nrmunication towers and commercial communication antennas may be located; B. Height of building mounted commercial communication antennas; C. Separation distances between residential zoned lands or residential uses and commercial communication towers; D. Separation distances between commercial communi- cation towers; upon affirmation of the following findings: E. 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; and F. That the unique land use characteristics or geograph- ic features mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. (Ord. 817 § 9 (part), 1996) 25.104.060 Stealth installation of commercial communication towers and antennas. Stealth installation of commercial communication towers and antennas are those determined by the architectural review commission and the planning commission to be designed to blend in with their existing natural environment (i.e. monopoles designed as artificial palm trees), creating a cluster effect through the use of a mix of artificial and natural vegetation. In addition to the aforementioned sec- tions, stealth installations shall be subject to the following development standards: A. Height No stealth commercial communication tower or antenna shall exceed sixty-five feet in height as measured from ground level to top of the antenna. Frond or artificial vegetation height shall not exceed more than ten feet from the top of the antenna. B. Separation From Off -Site Uses and Other Commer- cial Communication Towers. 1. The planning commission may waive the separation requirements from residential zoned properties and residen- 484-3 (Palm Desert 8-0t) 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 00 00 ell "11 liO " 3 Aga. f g ih 1114 ij 4 N r;.• ,-.: pai., .811 1434 .13lo !.ia i gglig N A __ Asin• ! !. !. Ampr. AR, a& Ir. AD. .l, !\ ION — !►. I,.. LS. __ AK ®k !A AK Ilk Aft I .,Zs..Aoo-A— ,00,tet A CA-8574 Sweetwater 76-088 Country Club Drive <, (De (,?) /1'(. • f2L31 12 9 ) / • OAK' grin iCguinop 880-9L JolgmPol'AS tLS8-VO CGMMti,vtCh.:CtL.oL. CELL Pffoni " C`'lL7A1OP/NC Propagation Map Green = good indoor/outdoor coverage Yellow = fair in car coverage Red = poor in car coverage .III .,„ . _ . .. cup 4-q :;(,. ci ng u a ra 5 B _ 3 7 7 _ 0 1 - P 1 CONCHO SUBSTATION 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 WIRELESS LOCATION VIEW 1 , • c"r CIR '~ g • PLC __._..�i _ ____ _.... .. ._.. _.... • c4 .rWEE f;_ pR: •. �S�iII�I ry ..- Qoz, I _ _.....--. of .:................ USE - r •' V. - • PROPOSED MONOPINE - -- ; g; : ©2004 Thomas Bros.Maps ::. ",,,.. •J! y --- ti 1 • ' e • IR ,► s - : C .,: t , i • F ! • M. EXISTING PROPOSED - LOOKING NORTH FROM GOLF COURSE A, II, .f, .4. ENGINEERING (714)680-3905 ACCURACY OF PHOTO SIMULATION BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PROJECT APPLICANT. V ::: cingularS B - 3 7 7 - 0 1 - P 1 CONCHO SUBSTATION 76-055 COUNTRY C LUB DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 WIRELESS LOCATION VIEW 2 y '' 7... '.,,..,;, ...•s:s•, V IR fit. ,f�� 1 hf w q u'� ) w _ iFy .. s ` N /t : . N YfE \ \ ) r /0 \ Q• -- \ t ' , -L.;':, . . . -\\\ ///) 1 ,443rt: ‘,/... t• 4 • o ---2-.. ....-...-,. •,•oF - 4n i ry t 1,1y'• '�'•, lr 4 ^;'W`; '-,.a 'a ' - rt ; _ _ , r m c f n , tt" ' 4 • t a j .l .-..-.. .zQ, ti" -«TM)Fy• ..,,, }1)iY1t1 yy N�I =�: ,, yw.6c ,..ce r '.. _. f :,bDIAtV RIDGE %< \ y 1' +, _ , - ,,-_ .-a- �v x'f'Jlw. 4 otr.57 CL •i ,- 'I, Y. r�4 1 4 • (a1 h.....CE .- :" ©2004d ;„ .;... , •t',. /,. �, _ r .,,A•, MONOPINE. iv.- ,,�.• g Thomas Bros.Maps , t; •iJ , ��PROPOSED, a • y x i • ti • ''" 1 1 t 4, ," f �. z mot. v i j. _-i x _ .,, elik i ,�_ lr t, - tr- ty•F �, `` f !, ter (' } a l� t� '._,� ::11.: "a Y . i t. •-•',A 44. ... -. V- :': ' ": • l' 4111141/4, � p r - 4 '415,1",c.t.:.'7'0;4' *' x!,, a d. i r: - i ' '..s Al.'.) .. • • \1\A\ t tik t • 4-,,-,...:4::::,..„,...:,,,,,.,„, . ...,4„. i. ..i, 0.,..,s.k-,, ...,.,4,.4,I,t • .,..,,s., t..1 . t.-i, .. ,,,''‘'.' ..... • .4:4.,• .•.,,•...- , ...,„ ,...N, ....I.., .. . '_,„, • aii . ' .-i'., � - .\...,..\ i' .,._f./i•f .- 1 'T eit"'.,", „..t Or � , -'It. . 1 \\\,.:' • .i*1 jR y'fir =.yG-• . y%1 _f + ,- 'P �s r *..4 z• ..,,,,. yr t " +„" .-1 yrr: ,a..,-:.: fix.';' "` „ OVA .• _ t, , r -fi " 'P_a 'f_ K `} i 1a Pr f • EXISTING PROPOSED - LOOKING WEST FROM INDIAN RIDGE Al ti!t 1 i z 6 ENGINEERING (7 14)680 a39O5 ACCURACY OF PHOTO SIMULATION BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PROJECT APPLICANT. . , . .. 44:A* cingular S B - 377 - 0 1 — P1 CONCHO SUBSTATION 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 WIRELESS •-,,ti alk%, AW''LOCATION VIEW 3 g ,--10011Ww- -•91! '' •rt:1.1i1;it kill'•,..1 : '' f ' 1::,,, • - t• _, , . i.-,, •7-' •,,c,- •i \fr ' ••-------' CIA ..r,„..., -, -.- ,,, - ' • ------.... - , f •te' ;•' d 8,* • • ;' •46 : . Ar.';',.. 1.' ••,,F,:, •,,,, - -. ; ..... ... • : -',`-',`*:':. 'g .. ..............., I,- , .,.-1 ..' . ''. :.• ,Ik" : ,-• . f .. s,... . fJ' ' -•- _ • ,. '",• : ' . -• 1 . -›- .'.*4, • -:' ' , , V IVEE - , ,,-.- ; f- --•-....... ,..,.4 S k ' 't iCi.41•:.•41"',s . ' --• : Lr - -- -''' ::-4 , P ' -' ' ' ' A"..t.*-_,A.:1 4? 114'''.: ' .4".1 •-w. . sr.410, 1 , ..-- -•, . ". ' . 4,' ' .....•:!'1'-',.-4\4.4,..;•':r1r. , * -... '..s'" 4 .• 7 ;Li, * . •' I : -V 3 4". ' ,. ; • -,„.........i k, _......... . ,ii, .. .1/4- -." • -'' ' .. .......... , • -. t.01- -- --..- s ir 4 P t j a• C ' - - - — 4,... o . ...„.... t v ••. ON VIEW rs,-..-,i. .....- < •" - "1R-. '. •' .. . -"-i v.44A, it "4" r.1 • . ' IX..... Ad . ' 4.,Xe•..t...s. - 0-,. . • AI • 114.1r .:4-01 - 4. 1 •..1 .',, ,.i'''•••• "If*1.1 ''..!' ' , . .„ •-"'..'....• ..1 il '141411iS..;..• - W :. '''''. .. .e'. . . . ''..k.f.‘.•.. - '`-NV,,, tw,./,. ''' .• - Ia.411 ' tr ,..rp , ......• 4,,,,.CMYON j;ki . fe 1,,,• , _ ,..,. ,, , tf).)El ,r- . ,,, •s- . s4- my . • . -- 4A-a._•.f•-,v.i.- 44,"....1... ,.,v..r , , .g,„_.......•"--.... ,..,.- : .,. , . ....:......_.....-' . ............ ,, ' ......... -,, A, t •.0 . , .:. zfk ,,,- , ",, „..v„ek..'.**. ..'.--' .`'., ' 0.,', • -` AIL ,. 0, •.. e ..., r. -.0...:1510-.A. .,-;,44 ,.. -=.1.-..:,-,. ..1,4 ot.‘.01 vm4t, .n. 4-€.• •.. 'LW- "4, '' - ' 1 --''-'-'31ki 07% *. 'or's' -..e$ • 1**9. --' • - eek*,•...4."4. i - at Ne '•' * ,' • •• * . • 0 , ,.,.1 .,,,,,. ..,.., 0-1 J•...., . •*.,-,. . * '',,o• t .,•::•._ ,...-' A i - ,f,' - , v w ••:: *i-.,-..............'... .,, • ., , .., 1 .,,,' :.44,-*:.017-r/).'%:4.••6,,,k.\4* ',024„,. ' •••-. ,...16-7T I., ...-1'7-4..*.'144-7::;-;_v. -••- :‘,..,74weellir.-."44W;j14:- ! -.:` *.„, Att.•,,0: -: ' --- 71.4"1"C.4;• ..p '1,' ' • .-' ' • nir •: • ' . -.• . ''...;,:-'-., i - ''' . r. — d: 4 : - .1. '• ,... .,... W ,...-v• • :, 5, •• (i•l. t • *V- '''''" ,.s ' ' -1- 'II *A - - iltt: ;it_ . ,.. • -,,,. iiii,4.44,.,ettk,„,31.. .....,,,,* ,....tiv. :::.. „v....:-,.4 -..., ;;;.,• .., .... • le.: „..., , .1, , .„...,.. v,. . i D.,. •:.•._• . ___ _ :trUSE • ;--- .:-......' .. "" 'i ' 4r- ..4 ,., ..- ,, - ' 4..a.-..t . ,• yot, t. •., . - . ...-4 ;..t.'`..., ' . ,. .•' ............ .-. ..T.41----- • -. .. :.'' ......* a g r a., .,.. .-- ‘ ... .' .... ; ...-- . . . 1 • ' .......-------- .. .r.t=" 1 -it'41,;*4- ---, -7- 0." _. ....................... 1.1'. .•' .- . ': ©2004 Thomas Bros Maps 4, at ...":";.. oir..104.01....., •• m •' 1. ,okisp... '' PROPOSED MONOPINE '.7 ' '4. • 7111, . . - wif lic"-1 " - !Al' Nk, •..: r.i.',- -. r* ,,,, ; . • ..... - .,e . ,- • .4r, , „,0,•• .qc vr; ::•„„.11‘:,e- . .. ':.'„: 1 •k 's _,„..... ,., . - it, - .4, ,.. „ , . . . . .. • . '...4,f,`, ' 1,..1 P 1 tk y, ,il, • ..24.0.1- ' • 6 • A.f 41 .. . ‘ ‘4.I! • 1113.r 1:'' it _.......... .:.pt.C. ' :-.VP''. i- ' V' Ai% ._ ' 1.40 ff *7;'* Zki,•• ,'" ' l'is i • \ii, g • 1- •i•-• • 4 t.• ts 4,-..iet,- 4-1,1 ,'-- '0,‘„, 64'4A, 4' --; . • .,1 . .......\,. --it. ilk,-:. .5. ., J Of, 4.. . , .._„. , • -4 ,..4.; r, . 44 4.,. ) ,^i:Ve' '''.. ../ , ,. •6 ..14'4.4:;.' ;fro " ' ^ . ' _ . 4y1'. :, • ...--,--. '4.11'''4"4110, , . . i. - ;:e• ilit GrOKe.,.. 4,: ,..,,,, r, ' f yr v s. ,.4.fX• .".: - '4—• -• ..'w'I' '''•),' ^ -- ili4,"-44,140. or...4 4.,!.. -:,. (,, , 7,tt - - '.:*- o ' '; ..,V614,.'","0,Sig':.. 4- ,•-141 '-2,--- "2"i......--t*7 .r., 1114 a 'm I': `?C... of P' Z- *..P.' • •. • ' -•• • ',A • : V*- ,,‘44/0*1..0 <'` -, * ;'''' '.`t.'*444f.fi'.,i-,- '-‘f• 1--4/. _ 0. t C44._.:.,* s" .‘; • • '4t." .• ml..N 4-,,,,--".4...I. -,. - •.-`.'"' ,t " :Y:** ‘ ----__ ,04 " •••rv---,5 -n. , i -4„, ,..i.V. .,,, . 0. ; „.. • , a. . U. ',Ire •' =:t., ' _ 40 ill ••••—It • _,iii, ' =.4,• .,....*4-1,17,- - ., , -•:-.. , lo 41i:,,,z4.40..e. Oltil,i.,,,,,,„_.10, .'4 ' •., ii_ i or , i. 1 1..4'. , , -••• • 7.- ,4 .,,,..Y 14 , . 410' , . , . 1 Fe ,, I 14 ••& I' , ' ......................---- , I b. 1 . ‘, lo.kii,.. k P ,I1 ,. * IIII - • ,il • • , __ill k' V t••• ik 4' ' i imp A . 1 .. 611111141 1 t Ilk% , , i ..... 4 _. _ , --- mow- [ A k Ilk'%14s.11 44( IF 1 \ ihili AOC EXISTING PROPOSED - LOOKING NORTHEAST FROM MAINTENANCE YARD ENGINEERING vISUALIZATION SOLUTIONS (714)680-3905 ACCURACY OF PHOTO SIMULATION BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PROJECT APPLICANT. ° c i n g u a r • � y S B - 3 7 7 - ❑ - P C O N C H O SUBSTATION 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 WIRELESS LOCATION VIEW 4 : '', . •• IR • . cJ. E,E E twAZE- li- _ i i � ••F pLC�N.YiEV £'-•.•;!. • «tom &0 t ET `•r `.,7 CANYON (c O : y Y f ` "4"s. fit•. „��.• , a W x 1 cG`UBht)t/SE 1.: ,' _._._.— -- PROPOSED MDNOPINE ..•1 1�1I- ... FIOtENCE iN }. � ©2004 Thomas Bros.Maps • y�,.�+ _ � - • ktf . yv� Ar-s 2. -_-_ �' .` �...,.,_.` �•' . -+s'F �G. `�= _ nr c? • • �� ; sy c;b ',. lire I 44 .ems' �.!el t '�^� .': Ir ,• 4. ,. ti y � -� ` fit'/f. "�� ' NW ri r Y `n G m° Y1. - ray d , . J _ : y +l • ' -' ,'ta .04V 9 • t � ` - ill , . iormpimo is . F f EXISTING PROPOSED - LOOKING SOUTH FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE A....— fl, .1" t. ENGINEERING (714)680-3905 ACCURACY OF PHOTO SIMULATION BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY PROJECT APPLICANT. • SI. 0 tr F N Ot v c° m` A E s Cove`ra "y a Plot For N@8 [D IoT [n ) Sites nninog SB-3V77=011 Um og Ali II an g Ill. e co INCalle Tosca MO!so O41a o'ra,Ct r U Gatcho 3 w • ,,b ay c o _ ■ L \tea a, o :I 77 ■ II lei 9 y,. 0 II t . ■ 2 ' r MPS k . Sweet Dr N. • MI 0- L T Sagebrush ns F i 0erd ` eon 1111 /ra/a /C.0e 1 1 9algviilea� 4 0, .,,,, ■ ,, m 0 Tangerine C G X $ @Se,?1� vi 0+63 B1pomlh9mom/ �i <f �., o y d V.N. \ O Gr IIJJ Cry m of 03 ' i 0% MI 12" Q g d3s� �6�V\e �. oaJO °/% Dahlia Clr 3 N. , ® J V _. `ac 2 A 0. Firestone rrJ Os' a_ C Q CI (� (( ( links or Ct Qni _. . . �0? Begonia Ln Abby Ct afr � bb/ V , a si ® c� d Bishop(?� = Golden Reed Dr o m itea. ■ a Market PI • h ,0") ,0' Pc phrYsanthemum_Way fntrek1& G ngham Ct s . B 0 m ■ YIn Yill ti ` A ��c° arcetona In ae0 Honeysuckle Dr r"J,1/ ' ti��' d = 'km Q Q View Cir • 3 �° Q � ya SB377 0 \tea, ,..._ Barons Cir �z o •s'�o a O r" �aeto s QRwT:vnc,r • Y -73 I R Chandler Way.: 5 rn `}' '. � 'T`/1 r . of Paume Ln Appaloosa lsv o • vQ� '., > . a`+ m "1 A Bonita LlO / t v ` tnn\sprO°K O` 3 41Str/ -"uWlo c ■ alto=Et? m U 73. °f? Ashberry Ct is. �}� �*yizEriQ m w r m U ti i3 °s c 0 ❑` � Po �t t ok A cuTh 'tl 1. i d°� G dI Woodha{*n Cc ' �( e/�Q arc Q aC...0 o r yay A° ^ r I £ m Savanna U ,Z7�1 ■ p ❑ tu. ■ a° �'� y o East Haven Rd > • g Armour Way APO 1 Ngli m _� ngel Camp IX ,-. g Dempsey ' 4-3I Turendot St. -\�8542 5� 3_0 42nd,A'v�e7- 0 0 tit. (4� C m �z Minnesota Ave Saar a tI F The g tell Darrell Dr ��aF Gr7 n O ■ o Avenue of •4 Paws Ln Caracas PI m `� Faber Cir i � � Edinborough St� �L o Hidden River Rd Discovery Bay Dr a b Co B D e Delaware PI Clifton Forge St c > • OC �/ U a `Fo ■ I a� 0 'i°� i • ... DarbyR ' U Pia a �i, oi. 10esertQ 'az U . O 't`° AD 1 , �° 111 p`��a `a0st g _.. • m Galaxy D ir- F KelseH `ca E U �_ u° m a Aurora red Waring °� Jy��tn �� ��44th,Ave _ Q� c cr 0) U ° o" f�� O .yam° �.°s ve it' o o m ° Arapahoe pa n ( Way Venice Ct ii 14th Green Ct E m ��� Blackfoot Dr 4° c"lbso Q El m BadenCt Hav ❑ U Cam. . 4� v° aY III _ leas,'t l Riviera Or ' Cheyenne Dr iiix alum� O c Klamath Dr y- V .andro Dr o AEI D m � >. 'o Augusta Dr < c a Vista Del Rey m Highway 999 S Legend: N ? 0 . U c ° \ a . Gate Rd D 0���7777 U V �U� aS o 3 -a ❑ 0 r E b LISC2.7,8 � F7m °° Inbldg Coverage - Green"n°� d • 3 0 8 °�� �3 �,�y r _ Incar Coverage - Yello i m �� `�a�a<`Ga�� O`, Sfa�eC °,�6"°a • nstreet Coverage - Blu- o a v7 kg, R Poor Covera•e - Red d� g ol ° m �i ° °0 Get `� Yana C N o o ��, o pa cniocgr-i� ohs �� ° Q ¢tovE0.5 �° IM 91 �,0 . ig z miles �Pa.,� 5f 0,.. u� m m Cortez Ln �+�0 Cl/Vc06 -,- WI, ss PpP,46-4-770/v mig-/ i O° IS ° 2 A E co €overra "y a Plot For N@B � ® o � � bites 3MTNI=0'._ -Fri' ■ 111 M ill IA 'ia ■ - e, Cage Tosca ■ I MI Co, . f ■ 0\ Ci c -1 Ga4°h m 3 0 ® ea �dy u IN ■ ZZI caa u MI■ ma �c o . • ■ c re, ■ t "r' rn ■ ■ III 'S'0. d MI N'' ''Nu 0 r 11116 Sweet Dr 11. ■ ■ ■ �p ■ � ■ h Sagebrush a ■ Pao'/ 9. eO4 'Fd/.,,, aOeSP� ��,I 9e, ,,Qe� G (Li�G37 ' 'OPse O, r Tangerine C ?i 1O 'YO^ \ 63 0+6" Bt°omtn9 �7 , R. -t il III 11111 4- q Q II*1. oe.‘5% ' i 7.45A 1 III ° A El ■�� W ■ d P� o0 Firestone Dr �'� SDQ g % Fa 11s Gt :lb* p: ' cy tin Dr bb'f o • o�.3 Begonia P9 G FJ Desert Falls Ct Bishop FA Golden Reed Dr o r ■ o Market P\ ■ v °of C° Se ,_,ti /3,� R Ra Gingham Ct o roi ;� �� v aw C�^[ ""u1CI ,np _.g_____ �o r earsr cetoha� Honeysuckle 9 ^)o Q o v Gd w ((� 1 E� g U. .- 6 capiaRazuto g a=@a MailbiliV ' 1114:317:ThQj :-°'---- • Q tQ G c Q z ! rn Paume Ln < a\oosa� 8 CzplItauDa? g i 0 r- 0) Bonita lip Q Q ooK�IR � I ■ is ■ m co ,� ° °g? Ashberry Ct �c0 c aci Ill,tt .■ A To y°a 0 m© /� 'opeyn^Q F'pa^ Q c� �es� c ■ y.o'o� Woodhaven Cc P CM477 ao �ttJJ (�aJjCO 53 L�q] o°+ ° �''� o ha PP ^ r ° Savanna L< a 1:1 ■ d�0 ac c, Z c East Haven Rd n F Armour Way e n3542 ngehCamp l 1 x Tr Turendott f o �a� F m Minnesota Ave �a •E�a G➢ ® O II; Avenue of The States Darrell Dr tti c7 a�j y °t I •4 Paws Ln Caracas PI Faber Cir Edinborough St 3 �� Hidden River Rd Discovery Bay Dr Et474ta ig olo L� o Delaware�' rl Clifton F•orge St a a, 03, ■ ' �cp ° Ci17�Grz3 aoa�a �r '°u�J © N Darby R via ca ,ir Eo \owey� J O caa a Galaxy D ra i to 0 o ■ a Aurora red Qlhj°Q; e�m�m °py ' m _� a�a 44th,Ave FlorCM462 i c, �, C) U a o g E e‘,0 Q q�ve T o o Ei ° v Arapahoe . C., os e Venice Ct c P9 Way 10 14th Green Ct ° U Baden Ct c ° m Blackfoot CO Crj"son el N Haves m o vLq4)?4 (ti i Nay ra i 4`t 2 Riviera Dr ' oQp CM419 p l/ sandro Dr re Klamath Dr - T A Augusta Dr c, N Vista Del Rey m Highway 999 Legend: ` a as St ^��\ a.o �Gate Rd c °1 3 C) 255)5n`-- U a Q g' UattCh F Inbldg Covera•e - Green'`"� d �sc2as o � �,, �C m so, Incar Coverage - Yello 3 a°''° m a A �� �aaa�G s'O'fe /0(k �d6„ Onstreet Coverage Blu I a Q �� �a� � g Poor Covera•e - Red i., g o �"/ es �'% cP e5e` raga pe �s 11, 9 °wo.5pi 9 MCA cr delt miles ..rapwuv Tic ag CO�[iL j. dip 44 t ��evt h °a a°aa Tio az LE cCi Cortez Ln G e8 -a P • C/N6 U(3172 r ul e 55 C-� P vf/E" C�v -p9 6- CUP 04 _ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY BY rw,ORE nr1Y..SE ORD,,QOaJR! OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO CINGULAR WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. DATE: 12/29/03 >l< APPROVED BY: JO cingular a DRAWN BY: NJT xx / /) 1�J, l,{ �//`/eJ CHECK BY: JO /\/ � CLJ! l/"7 v/V/� 1�'��`� REV DATE:R DESCRIPTION: BY: / _ 1 1229/03 PRELIM.ZONING KIT WIRELESS ,, l�E E3$ cn MLA 6 (I) ccw Lil — L, N M § > N EN , < � C z 0 N 0 Lai rj S B-377-01 —P 1 •.v 0 o us CONCHO SUBSTATION xMN 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DR. PALM DESERT, CA 92211 ; Z a) O APPLICANT APPROVALS • 3 1 CINGULAR WIRELESS CI-IFFY INt1FX PRINT NAME SIGNATURE DATE '0 a U` CONTACT: SAUNDRA JACOBS T-1 TITLE SHEET • z uu_ W E p 3345 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100 A-1 SITE PLAN .22. IRVINE, CA 92612 A-2 ENLARGED PARTIAL SITE PLAN, ANTENNA CONFIGURATION ` w- (888) 212-1558 AND SHELTER PLAN CW MANAGER W A-3 NORTH ELEVATION AND SOUTH ELEVATION CONSULTANTS A-4 EAST ELEVATION AND WEST ELEVATION CONSTRUCTION 3 2 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE COORDINATOR CONTACT:JIMVELOCITFITEL, INC. — 10 11 18071 OSEA INTERCONNECT %� 18071 FITCH AVENUE, SUITE 200 9 IRVINE, CA 92614 ENGINEER FTIOJECT IAA ,p PHONE: (949) 809 4999 x 2716 O RF ENGINEER c FAX: (949) 553 3917 . - • . o 0 a SITE ACQUISITION SITEACQUISITION. D- CONTACT: BRIAN MEURS PLANNING o (949) 553 3917 PROPOSED PROJECT: • w PLANNER AEC CONTACT: STEVE STACKHOUSE, AICP - (949) 689 0134 AN UNMANNED, WIRELESS COMMUNICATION PCS LANDLORD —. OWNER EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PROJECT SUMMARY: SITE NUMBER: 2131 WALNUT GROVE AVE. SB-377-01-P1 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 INSTALLATION OF NEW CINGULAR EQUIPMENT SHELTER NEAR CONTACT: KEN TRETTIN THE PROPOSED NEXTEL EQUIPMENT SHELTER, AND THE EXISTING PHONE: (909) 826 5228 1. THIS EXHIBIT MAY BE REPLACED BY A LAND SURVEY OR SITE SPRINT/VERIZON POLE/EQUIPMENT LOCATION. SITE TYPE: PLAN OF THE PREMISES ONCE IT IS RECEIVED BY LESSEE. INSTALLATION OF ANTENNAS INTO NEXTEL PROPOSED MONOPINE MONOPINE DIRECTIONS TO SITE ADA COMPLIANCE WITH (3) SECTOR AND AND (4) ANTENNAS PER SECTOR. ANTENNA INSTALLATION FROM THE CINGULAR OFFICE LOCATED AT 3345 MICHELSON DR., IRVINE NOT APPLICABLE FOR UBC 1103.1.1-1 2. SETBACK OF THE PREMISES FROM THE LESSOR'S BOUNDARIES CA. TAKE THE 405 FWY NORTH TO THE 55 FWY NORTH TO THE 91 FWY SHALL BE THE DISTANCE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE INSTALLATION OF (1) 2'm MICROWAVE DISH SITE LOCATION: EAST TO 60 FWY EAST TO THE 10 FWY EAST. EXIT THE 10 FWY AT GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES. COOK ST. FOLLOW COOK ST. TO COUNTRY CLUB DR. THE SITE IS ASSESSOR'S IDENTIFICATION 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DR. LOCATED ON THE RIGHT(SOUTH) SIDE OF THE COUNTRY CLUB DR. YOU INSTALLATION OF GPS, LMU AND E91 1 ANTENNA PALM DESERT,CA 92211 WILL SEE THE SCE CONCHO SUBSTATION AFTER EL DORADO DR. AND 632-470-001 3. WIDTH OF THE ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE THE WIDTH REQUIRED RIVERSIDE COUNTY BEFORE INDIAN RIDGE. BY THE APPLICABLE AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING POLICE AND FIRE 200A ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO EQUIPMENT ZONING DEPARTMENTS. TITLE: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL-5,P.R. 4. THE TYPE, NUMBER AND MOUNTING POSITIONS AND LOCATIONS OF ANTENNA SCHEDULE TITLE SHEET -5(5000 S0. FT. MINIMUM) ANTENNAS AND TRANSMISSION LINES ARE ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY. ACTUAL TYPES, NUMBERS, AND MOUNTING POSITIONS MAY VARY SECTOR QUANTITY AZIMUTH EST. LENGTH COAX CENTER LINE R FROM WHAT IS SHOWN ABOVE. SHEET NUMBER: A 4 0' DEGREES 115'-0" FT (3) 7/8" 53'-0" Vicinity Map B 4 120' DEGREES 115'-0" FT (3) 7/8" 53'-0" T-1 SCALE: N.T.S. C 4 240' DEGREES 115'-0" FT (3) 7/8" 53'-0" } , PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY BY ivn 1 urtc.MY L,x vn uISCLOSuRE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO CINGULAR WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. DATE 12/29/03 APPROVED BY:JO DRAWN BY: NJT CHECK BY: JO REVISIONS REV.DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: — — COUNTRY CLUB DR. — _ — — 1 12/13b3 PREUM.ZONING NJT 7_ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- — — - - L ui I , c cn I O 0 O I J w cL cv EXISTING ACCESS DRIVEWAY f smio w Lc 1 \ EXISTING ACCESS GATE 1 Q I EXISTING ACCESS ROAD I z Z � ce o ■� w J I 0 V O U I I H L.i LnHw- z_ I I X Nt•M = - M N I I I I co I 1 •L gZI I 1 ••� 3 W <&=I Z V V q 1 f I �) ki ` g PROPOSED CINGULAR ^\ s 10'-0"x16'-0" W EQUIPMENT SHELTER I < I PROPOSED CINGULAR 2V-0 s.-0 I 1 W.I. FENCE TO MATCH r I IEXISTING 0 0 D I • • / EXISTING SPRINT SITE / EXISTING SHELTER PROPOSED NEXTEL SITE a \\ / EXISTING 63' HIGH I o I SPRINT MONOPINE PROPOSED 75' HIGH • • / NEXTEL MONOPINE WITH PROPOSED CINGULAR s -J/PROPOSED UNDERGROUND COLOCATION ANTENNAS I WITHCITHUNE POWER RUM JOINT I NEXTEL `\ ` -- -- -- -- _1 ---- -- � ___I - PROPOSED CINGULAR (E) 8' HIGH MAS. WALL 2'0MICROWAVE DISH SITE NUMBER MONTEDI TOE MATCH ' SB-377-01-PI SITE TYPE: MONOPINE ANTENNA INSTALLATION SITE LOCATION: 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DR. , PALM DESERT,CA 92211' RIVERSIDE COUNTY TITLE: NORTH SITE PLAN • SHEET NUMBER: SITE PLAN • SCALE A-1 U32•-r-O• _ _ PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ------ -- ---- ------- - - - THE INFORMATION CONiAMED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY BY 1f-0_)J - NATURE:-ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO PROPOSED CINGULAR WIRELESS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. WALL MOUNTED DATE: 12/29/03 \ .-/ LIGHT FIXTURE APPROVED BY:JO DRAWN BY: NJT CHECK BY: JO REVISIONS - - - - REV:DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: RBS BATTERY RBS BATTERY n - 2206 CABINET 2206 CABINET I 12l2803 PRELIM.ZONING NJT — T T PROPOSED CINGULAR �, 25'—O" f rn A REPOSED CINGULAR W.I. FENCE TO MATCH 0 T EMU, GPS/E911 ANTENNA I N CEILING MOUNTED I I EXISTING SimV) O o m W COAX CABLE TRAY o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v' ° W -1 ELECTRICAL PROPOSED CINGULAR (x "EXISTING M § W I PANEL -I- - O �_ 1 O'-0"x16'-O" ^'-0�� 1 6'-0" �4 -0 SPRINT SITE R /es BA ERY O O Z EQUIPMENT SHELTER O r a Z Z 2206 CABINET -- = ^-^ _ -74 ° = (I 0 TELCO BD. 66 BLOCK PROPOSED CINGULAR ° EXISTING Ci) " - " UNDERGROUND COAX _ _ ° 63' HIGH x TELCO CABINET N M ix EMERGENCY GENERAL CABLE RUN 0I 0I ° SPRINT "' `� - 200A METER 00 z o / ° MONOPINE ,�� SCALE II I ° /',,, EQUIPMENT SHELTER PLAN yr-r-0 2 PROPOSED NEXTEL SITE -• °I ----- I 1 i '_ ° \• ' /' �� ZaSg PROPOSED CINGULAR x �;' 1,- PROPOSED 75' HIGH ° •'�� �� �$s' � ANTENNAS (3) SECTORS o D (4) ANTENNAS PER SECTOR or- NEXTEL MONOPINE WITH I 0 I Q� �a PROPOSED CINGULAR o ° ,/ - - - - COLOCATION ANTENNAS I I �_ PROPOSED CINGULAR 2'0 O o I1\ PROPOSED 63.-0" HIGH PAINTEDA TO DMATCH V o PROPOSED U N D E R G R O U f MONOPINE WITH BARK MONOPINE PROPOSED CINGULAR FINISH AND COLOR TO , �� �� CINGULAR POWER RUN SIMULATE A REAL PINEI 2 OMICROWAVE DISH �`-� JOINT WITH NEXTEL TREE INCLUDING BRANCHES 0 w` ���;_ � PAINTED TO MATCH �, MONOPINE \N" !%, I PROPOSED PULL BOX •/ JOINT CINGULAR & •,14 E 8' HIGH MAS. WALL / NEXTEL � � SITE NUMBER •/ --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- --- SB-377-01-P1 SITE TYPE: .� PROPOSED CINGULAR MONOPINE F,G-J x N ` • s C AND NEXTEL COMMON ANTENNA INSTALLATION S^>l� / '9Zj r0 SITE LOCATION: P M�TR e, ACCESS W.I. GATF� �y ' ` 7L OC COUNTRY CLUB DR. 1,70, PALM DESERT,CA 92211 ` ' , ' , TITLE:RIVERSIDE COUNTY ENLARGED• •/ NORTH NORTH EQUPMENTSHELTEERPLAN &ANTENNA CONFIGURATION SHEET NUMBER: ANTENNA CONFIGURATION SCALE 3 ENLARGED SITE PLAN SCALE . 1 A-2 VT-T-0' 1N-T-0' PROPRIETARY INFORMATION TSET Of ROPRED IN THIS 4 SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY BY -- - - - - - - NATURE.ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO PROPOSED NEXTEL - CINGULAR WIRELESS IS STRICTLY ANTENNAS �r PROHIBITED. �� '�/ 1 ? DATE: 12/29/03 • og.• APPROVED BY: JO Ap''k - DRAWN BY: NJT 1 `� ,' I4'''iir',"?..1, �: CHECK BY: JO PROPOSED CINGULAR 1 w* (3) SECTOR PANEL v�q�,• _ 1( �• -� REVISIONS ANTENNAS WITH (4) . ' - I! ., ' I►A.� EXISTING SPRINT REV:DATE: DESCRIPTION: BY: ANTENNAS PER SECTOR '= I16 • _. # s � 63' HIGH MONOPINE t 1229A3 PRELIM.ZONING NJT PROPOSED 2'0 ' . a MICROWAVE DISH y r" . ¢ w � � � z r T•' I/'11 'L w z o �' PROPOSED 75' HIGH 1 .i�' Z w z :;'r ""i *z "~ NEXTEL MONOPINE WITH : ,, a I- 2CINGULAR ANTENNA COLOCATION. J a + z Ln BARK AND COLOR TO SIMULATE i g ! " ` w A REAL PINE TREE INCLUDING O L`I �" '+ Z Cl) ALL BRANCHES v Z O �~`l ' Z 1- o� Cti W PROPOSED - �`- .L o O O I - `r ... a a CINGULAR LMU, in �- Ln GPS/E911 zan ao N. z w , 6 (J .... > ANTENNA o O cc ` PROPOSED CINGULAR ....., z 0 > 0 EXISTING TREES •t - o CJ Z Z EQUIPMENT SHELTER O s ct BEYOND. PAINTED TO w ° o o' EXISTING SPRINT a -o v _J O FACILITY d�. a a ■ w MATCH NEXTEL SHELTER OI a • 2 p Q PROPOSED NEXTEL SHELTER •"n o EXISTING W.I. FENCE • 9 f o U AT FOREGROUND 1 BEYOND . .. in w z In EXISTING 8' HIGH I A a • �X M L=n CC CONC. BLK. WALL I'I'I'I'IilI'I'I'I'I I'I'I'I'1'1'1 I'1'1 I 1 1'P iiiiiiiiiiii11 uiiiiiIIIt Ii1' :Int.! 1 - I I I I I I I I I I I I I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 IA I I I I I I I I I I 1111 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I r I I i I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I " 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I l 1 1 1 L l Z I T I I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l i l l l l l ' 1I 1I 1I I I 1I 1 I I I 1I 1 I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1I I I I I I I II - l0) QNGRADE 11 1 1 1t1 1 , 1 1 1 , I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 \1 I .._,� , ,� , nRF SCALE SOUTH ELEVATION 1(B'_tO• 1 �� 21aa • �V = II `>�s,i� •ROPOSED NEXTEL 1 • Z U '1� ANTENNAS •0 w!i> R. a • 1 ....�...' ,M.' n` .I sigollb ;-141%34*' -ROPOSED CINGULAR '1' :y I"' �'11e•i"�r/,- (3) SECTOR PANEL EXISTING SPRINT '" i'' !Ik `"_ r -'r ' ANTENNAS WITH (4) 63' HIGH MONOPINE • 'r' -•ri )''•"Y, *�j1, �r j. ANTENNAS PER SECTOR -f A..V` L- - PROPOSED 2'0 \ •t;�••-t,1 Z QQ z t ..�i((1 `�, MICROWAVE DISH iIr,1i . Z . >(-' PROPOSED 75' HIGH < - ;� . .?+Y;F ' 1 '- m f < �' •�� NEXTEL MONOPINE WITH z '. !.- •L ;-• w ¢ D' CINGULAR ANTENNA COLOCATION. w O � 5 1 I BARK AND COLOR TO SIMULATE Z Q 1"JI..'').\ .". o X A REAL PINE TREE INCLUDING ,o" z : '•A -I,. f- w z ALL BRANCHES LLI cl Z t'`� •-, '>.- O w w PROPOSED - N < J:' ':Y� 0 0 CINGULAR LMU, SITE NUMBER: d �' D c9 Li In z GPS/E911 O NI .- ANTENNA SB-377-01-P1 bEXISTING TREES o w o W SITE TYPE: 4t.e I w PROPOSED CINGULAR EXISTING SPRINT L. �c O EQUIPMENT SHELTER MONOPINE d `O 6 m FACILITY ANTENNA INSTALLATION I PAINTED TO MATCH i- �I NEXTEL SHELTER SITE LOCATION: n P • EXISTING W.I. FENCE o PROPOSED CINGULAR 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DR. BEYONDI / WROUGHT IRON FENCE PALM DESERT,CA92211 ��\{ , TO MATCH EXISTING RIVERSIDE COUNTY _ TITLE: t r / \ ' NORTH&SOUTH ELEVATION III L (F) FIN. 9RAOF SHEET NUMBER: • { ' 0-0 REF. NORTH ELEVATION 2 A-3 , ! PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SET OF DRAWINGS IS PROPRIETARY BY NATURE.ANY USE OR DISCLOSURE OTHER THAN THAT WHICH RELATES TO CINGULAR WIRELESS IS STRICTLY � PROPOSED NEXTEL 'T''17, PROHIBITED. ANTENNAS �. , ; ,_.,'• DATE: 12/29/03 fir ~- APPROVED BY: JO 1 \' 't I'e r,: DRAWN BY: NJT \, rl v) ,,�''tI' sic CHECK BY: JO PROPOSED CINGULAR - ^ '.' lily + '' REVISIONS (3) SECTOR PANEL �� aI EXISTING SPRINT ` -1� . - I•'`''�,'- N' q '. 63' HIGH MONOPINE REV:DATE DESCRIPTION: BY: ANTENNAS WITH (4) �•� j;fu �. , ANTENNAS PER SECTOR to • =» i 1229/03 PRELIM.ZONING NJT PROPOSED 2'0 `�C dy' Z t` MICROWAVE DISH t� n _ �- z o • I,;•4n, ;,:: . y�1 w ��::._ 1. ., ; PROPOSED 75' HIGH m a �i�" 1+ ice' Z NEXTEL MONOPINE WITH g CINGULAR ANTENNA COLOCATION. �) D a ��;" 1K z BARK AND COLOR TO SIMULATE z w O '44t M \ 4 - . z z J A REAL PINE TREE INCLUDING 0 z t o 't.`L LLIF ALL BRANCHES o 0 0 >, z W .,r, a a w ;n Di — PROPOSED NEXTEL SHELTER z n oN z o CINGULAR ODLMU, N w - cT a GPS/E911 - m z 0I > 1- ANTENNA O C PROPOSED NEXTEL w n AND CINGULAR COMMON O o b PROPOSED CINGULAR 0 ACCESS GATE a I EQUIPMENT SHELTER ce to 0 J in ill- O PAINTED TO MATCH �� LA- = o Q� NEXTEL SHELTER o EXISTING 8' HIGH v 0 v EXISTING SPRINT MAS. BLK. WALL v CELLULAR FACILITY In w z vt- - Ill P 9� 111 II11111111111 hIIU1111IIIIIIIlIlIIIU X rn V7 II� I �___--= ---- ------- . ---- ------ R ---- -------r (0 c)N CRAPF \ Z 0-0 REF. n\ EAST ELEVATION SCALE W iir-r-o` 2§- \ 3 .,a Zl1; PROPOSED NEXTEL <�'> 1 •,' ANTENNAS 0 g& A) S K EXISTING SPRINT f ilti ••4, P x- •ROPOSED CINGULAR 63' HIGH MONOPINE .-,1.Imo:_ ` tlIg,7 "Ili ac. (3) SECTOR PANEL • 4' Ar+ ANTENNAS WITH (4) l-. e..-• At l _,)+, ,� L/ ? ANTENNAS PER SECTOR w Z�"e�.i z t'/i'''''0•4 �1 •i PROPOSED 2'0 tir7*�.' ,'. MICROWAVE DISH Z A ►- w ''e_4y. '. ¢ PROPOSED 75' HIGH I- ;- ,J 5 NEXTEL MONOPINE WITH z --�, :AK : a D III CINGULAR ANTENNA COLOCATION. c4A\ ��t, ,_ z v BARK AND COLOR TO SIMULATE z ►.. A REAL PINE TREE INCLUDING z ", "�72- I o O ALL BRANCHES a_ a �:� � PROPOSED - - LL z a LU z SITE NUMBER: CINGULAR LMU, 0 0 of . PROPOSED NEXTEL SHELTER IN ee GPS/E911 a I O SB-377-01-P1 ANTENNA ~ F I w SITE TYPE: PROPOSED CINGULAR -0o i O OPINE EQUIPMENT SHELTER I a p ANTENNAMO INSTALLATION STAAL ATION PAINTED TO MATCH ,^n o I EXISTING 8' HIGH NEXTEL SHELTER b. to SITE LOCATION: MAS. BLK. WALL I I 76-055 COUNTRY CLUB DR. in 1PALM DESERT,CA 92211 1 R RIVERSIDE COUNTY IIII I I I I r-- - _ TITLE: I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I '2Kt EAST 8 WEST ELEVATION 111111111 — fF) FIN GRAD 1 E , , 1 _ , - A - 0-0 REF. SHEET NUMBER: WEST ELEVATION SCAB 2 A-4 1/9'-r-0'