HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2010-2 - CUP 09-236 - Omnipoint Communications, Inc. �r.....a�.serw.s _,� __.�. .. ..... . ,. . � ,..:-.re,9_. _ .. _ . . .
c� '� ...... ... _.._ .._..
": p •�: r F� ��--� � o�V�Ci�
Sx,?b.,� C :.s �n.,.-, ..�. ...: ............. .
.
x�� �s�s ;t� .��� �:�T�.-�'t� l�'—f 1��0-fQ!�:�1.�
CITY OF PALM DESERT ,
��.�� f E.���i��' ir� x� y?� �:=�°�ay.. . ��. _,. , _ _., ..�..
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DE ��,�.�������,:.,��.t���:.,
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A NEW
55' HIGH T-MOBILE MONO-PALM WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF SIX PANEL
ANTENNAS, TWO GPS ANTENNAS, ONE EMERGENCY
GENERATOR, ONE PARABOLIC ANTENNA, SIX BTS RADIO
CABINETS, COAXIAL CABLE RUNNING FROM THE ANTENNAS
TO THE BTS, POWER AND TELCO UTILITY CONNECTION TO
BE INSTALLED AT 47-900 PORTOLA AVENUE, APN: 630-250-045
SUBMITTED BY: Missy Grisa, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: Omnipoint Communications, Inc. °
A Subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.
3257 E. Guasti Road, Suite 200
Ontario, CA 91761
CASE NO.: CUP 09-236
DATE: January 14, 2010
CONTENTS: Draft Resolution
Legal Notice
Project Description Letter
Architectural Review Commission Meeting Minutes and Notice of
Action
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
One Full Size Set
Photo Simulation Package
Balloon Height Benchmark Photos
Alternative Site Analysis
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2010-2 , approving CUP
09-236, subject to conditions.
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 09-236
January 14, 2010
Page 2 of 7
Architectural Review Commission Recommendation
At its meetings of October 13, 2009, and November 10, 2009, the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project. The Commission granted approval
by minute motion on October 13, 2009. Motion carried 6-0, with the following
conditions:
• the mono-palm shall be a date palm with a maximum height of 55'; and
• the five complementary live palms shall be date palms with varied heights of 45',
35' 30' — with only one at 30' and the applicant to determine adequate heights for
the remaining two palms subject to staff review; and
• landscape plans shall be reviewed and receive preliminary approval by the
Landscape Specialist prior to Planning Commission submittal
After this approval, the applicant requested additional changes which were brought forth
for review on November 10, 2009. The Commission granted approval by minute motion
on November 10, 2009. Motion carried 6-0, with the following conditions:
• add one 30' palm tree on the northwest corner; and
• real palms should be Washingtonia hybrids and actual height should be
measured in brown trunk height; and
• the tower needs to match the appearance of the mono-palm at St. Margaret's
and the mono-palm should remain shown as a date palm; and
• accurate layout of the palms needs to be presented to staff for approval; and
• staff shall monitor the installation of the palms to ensure proper placement.
Planninq Commission Recommendation
At its meeting of December 15, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
mono-palm. The Commission granted approval by minute motion; motion carried 4-1,
with Commissioner Limont voting no. Part of the approval required the Planning
Commission to grant an exception relative to separation distances between residential
zoned lands and commercial communication towers as listed in Chapter 25.104 of the
Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Executive Summary
Approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit would allow the installation and
operation of a 55' tall mono-palm. Other locations within the general area of coverage
were considered prior to moving forward with the proposed location. Property owner
notices were mailed to residents within 300 feet of the structure and legal notices
placed in the Desert Sun; no letters or comments were received in favor of or
opposition to the proposed mono-palm.
G:\Planning\Missy Grisa\CUP\47-900 Portola Avenue\Council Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 09-236
January 14, 2010
Page 3 of 7
Backqround
A. Property Location:
The property is located inside The Living Desert located on Portola Avenue, west
of Indian Wells, immediately south of Haystack Road. The proposed mono-palm
would be located behind an access gate to The Living Desert adjacent to Portola
Avenue and immediately south of Haystack Road.
B. Zoning and General Plan Designation:
Zone: P, D Public Institution with a Drainage, Flood Plains,
and Watercourse zoning overlay district
General Plan: Public/ Quasi-Public Facilities
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: O.S. Open Space / Haystack Natural Area
South: P, D Public Institution with a Drainage, Flood Plains, and
Watercourse zoning overlay district/ The Reserve
East: Indian Wells
West: R-1 10,000, R-1, and P.R.-6, / Residential
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to install a 55' tall mono-palm in an area inside of The Living
Desert. The area the applicant is leasing is located just east of Portola Avenue sized 13'
by 34' totaling 442 square feet. The proposed mono-palm will coincide with six new live
palm trees; one of the live palms will be installed at a height of 45', one at 40', two at 35',
and two at 30'. The mono-palm will have all antennas concealed inside of the palm trunk,
but one microwave dish will be exposed on the exterior of the mono-palm orientated to
the south away from the public right-of-way view. The antennas are stacked vertically,
with the upper antennas mounted at 49' above ground level and the lower antennas
mounted at 43' above ground level. There is existing mature landscape located on the
property that will remain with the addition of the six live palm trees to be planted around
the mono-palm to help disguise the height and facility. The equipment cabinets will be
located inside of an 8' concrete masonry wall enclosure that will be finished in stucco and
painted to match the adjacent buildings on-site. No utility apparatus will be located above
ground. All utilities for the project will be routed underground. The proposed site provides
for easy maintenance access from Portola and just south of Vista Del Sol to the Living
Desert's entrance for maintenance. The emergency generator will only be used during
the times of a black-out, and will not be permanently located on site.
G:\Planning\Missy Grisa\CUP\47-900 Portola Avenue\Council Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 09-236
January 14, 2010
Page 4 of 7
Analvsis
Initially, a mono-palm of 65' in height was proposed. Staff was concerned with the
height due to its proximity to residential areas and the ability to disguise the height of
the mono-palm with the existing and proposed landscaping. Staff requested that the
applicant's representative place balloon benchmarks at 55' and 65' to visualize the two
heights on the site. Photos of these height benchmarks are included in the packet. Staff
determined the 65' height was unacceptable and that an approval of that height would
not be supported. The applicant agreed to lower the mono-palm to the 55' height as
shown surrounded by six live palms ranging from 45' to 30' in height. With the proposed
modification, staff believes this would be an acceptable visual aesthetic in the proposed
neighborhood. The 55' height meets the standards in Municipal Code Chapter 25.104
Commercial Communication Tower and Commercial Antenna Regulations.
The City of Indian Wells was given advance notice to view the balloons white they were
in place at the heights of 55' and 65'. Planning Director Corrie Kates viewed the
balloons and reported zero visual impact to Indian Wells.
Staff determined that the proposed mono-palm would be compatible with adjacent
properties with the approval by the Planning Commission to grant an exception relative
to the separation requirement of 300' between residential zoned lands and
communication towers. Currently the mono-palm is roughly 268'-1" from the nearest
residence, is visually consistent with adjacent landscaping, and would create no
adverse visual impact on adjacent properties, including visual access of adjacent
properties to sunlight. The Planning Commission granted this exception upon their
approval of the project on December 15, 2009.
With regard to landscape requirements, the City's Landscape Specialist has reviewed
plans to meet all planting and irrigation design requirements during the review process. In
order to assure the most preferred and efficient outcome, plans will be required to receive
a final approval from the Landscape Specialist prior to obtaining building permits. In
addition to a landscape plan, grading and pad elevations for the proposed improvements
will be required to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works.
The following findings responding to Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.104
Commercial Communication Tower and Commercial Antennae Regulations explain the
rationale for granting the exception:
A. Findings of Approval:
In accordance with section 25.104.0408.2 and 25.104.050C, any reduction in the
300' separation distance requirements between commercial communication
towers and residentially zoned lands is prohibited unless an exception is granted.
Pursuant to Section 25.104.050E for separation distances between commercial
communication towers the City Council must find:
G:\Planning\Missy Grisa\CUP\47-900 Portola Avenue\Council StaH Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 09-236
January 14, 2010
Page 5 of 7
1. That there is a unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic
feature which resu/ts in a compelling technological need to /ocate the
commercial communication towers and/or commercial communication
antennas in the location and/or at the height proposed.
The land use that characterizes a compelling technological need to locate
at the height and location proposed is the existing inability to provide
sufficient coverage specific to the geographic site and the inability to
collocate with existing towers. The request for a 55' tall mono-palm is the
result of efforts by the applicant to locate alternative sites that determined
to be unsuccessful. Sector studies have demonstrated to the T-Mobile
Corporation that in order to provide service to this portion of customers
within the vicinity, the installation of six panels at the height of 55' is
necessary.
2. That the unique land use characteristics or geographic features mitigate
any negative aesthetic concerns.
The surrounding area is a developed residential area. The site itself is
landscaped with existing vegetation that will remain along with six new
palm trees to be planted around the facility to disguise the height of the
mono-palm. The location is along a private facility access road within The
Living Desert.
Additional findings for the approval of commercial communication towers
are stated in Municipal Code Section "25.104.030 Permitted Commercial
Communication Towers and Commercial Communication Antennas in
Zoning Districts of City." As such, new freestanding commercial
communication towers/commercial communication antennas shall not be
allowed unless the applicant substantiates to the satisfaction of the City
Council:
a. That existing towers and buildings do not techno/ogically afford the
applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the
applicant or service provider.
A project description letter has been submitted by the applicant and
attached to the staff report to provide documentation as to the
service need in the proposed service area. A propagation study
was undertaken to analyze the optimum placement for the cellular
panels. It was concluded that the area had low to no service and
the proposed facility was necessary to off-load congested sites.
G:\Planning\Missy Grisa\CUP\47•900 Portola Avenue\Council Staff Report.dx
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 09-236
January 14, 2010
Page 6 of 7
b. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area
cannot techno/ogically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a
freesfanding tower/antenna at the height proposed.
Site selection and antenna height are the result of a computer
analysis of service coverage requirements for Southern California
and the United States. Topography (both natural and man made)
and vegetation characteristics of the valley make it difficult to cover
even with multiple sites.
c. That the applicant shows compe/ling techno/ogica/ or economic
reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility.
The technological and economic reasons are stated in the project
description letter submitted for the Council's review and attached
for the record. Existing coverage in the area is inadequate for
existing customers. The proposed communication tower will allow
for better service and create a larger network leading to increased
clientele. The applicant has enclosed a copy of their existing
coverage map and a new coverage map based on the new wireless
site.
The City Council has the ability to approve exceptions based on `unique land
characteristics or geographic features that result in a compelling technological reason to
locate a commercial communications tower in the location and/or at the height
proposed.' The Council can also make the finding that characteristics of the proposed
site mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns.
The proposed mono-palm tower meets all development standards excluding the
requested exception. The proposed wireless communications mono-palm is located in a
cluster of existing mature palm trees immediately adjacent the site, as seen in the
submitted photo-simulation. The ARC approved this request based on the surrounding
terrain of existing landscaping, the addition of the six live palm trees, and the proposed
equipment has been designed to not interfere with circulation or visual continuity of the
grounds.
With regard to landscape requirements, a condition of approval has been placed upon
the project that the landscape plans will be approved and will meet all planting and
irrigation design requirements prior to obtaining construction permits.
G:\Planning\Missy Grisa\CUP\47-900 Portola Avenue\Council Staft Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 09-236
January 14, 2010
Page 7 of 7
Environmental Review
The project is a Class 3 Categorical Exemption for the purposes of CEQA and no
further review is necessary.
Conclusion
Staff has determined that the proposed mono-palm would be compatible with adjacent
properties, is visually consistent with the site, and would create no adverse visual
impact on area as conditioned by the Architectural Review Committee. The proposed
55' height meets the standards in Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 Commercial
Communication Tower and Commercial Antenna Regulations. The Planning
Commission granted approval of the proposed project in addition to the exception
regarding separation distance requirements between commercial communication
towers and residentially zoned lands.
The approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a 55' high mono-
palm and a 442 square foot equipment area would allow T-Mobile to expand its network
of telecommunications facilities in a manner consistent with current market demand.
Fiscal Analvsis �
There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the approval of this project.
Submitted by: Department Head:
�� � �
� �
Mi sy Grisa, Assistant Planner Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community
Development
Approval:
G�
J n M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
G:\Planning\Missy Grisa\CUP\47-900 Portola Avenue\Council Staff Report.doc
�_�_� CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
� �
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
DECISION OF THE: Planning Commission
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. CUP 09-236 Date of Decision: 12/15/09
N C
Project Proponent: Omnipoint Communications, Inc. � �
� �.:_.
Address: 47-900 Portola Avenue N ��;
_ ��:..
�: .
r-; _
_ �::,.
Description of -�� �
N �-.'
Application or Matter Considered: N �.� ;
� p ,
Request for approval to construct, operate and maintain a new 55' high T-Mobile mono-
palm wireless telecommunication facility consisting of six panel antennas, two GPS antennas,
one emergency generator, one parabolic antenna, six BTS radio cabinets, coaxial cable running
from the antennas to the BTS, power and Telco utility connection to be installed at above
address.
0
COPY TO
DATE — Ia��
Member of the � y Council
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Filed: �� — 1 -- Received by: �`I����
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
W:\City Templates\City WordPerfect Templates\cncl req for review-no lines.wpd 5/21/03
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0.2ol0-2
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A
NEW 55-FOOT HIGH MONOPALM T-MOBILE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF SIX
PANEL ANTENNAS, TWO GPS ANTENNAS, ONE EMERGENCY
GENERATOR, ONE PARABOLIC ANTENNA, SIX BTS RADIO
CABINETS, COAXIAL CABLE RUNNING FROM THE
ANTENNAS TO THE BTS, POWER AND TELCO UTILITY
CONNECTION TO BE INSTALLED AT 47-900 PORTOLA
AVENUE, APN: 630-250-045
CASE NO. CUP 09-236
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of
January, 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Omnipoint
Communications / A Subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc., 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. 06-78, in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project is a
Class 3 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 City Council did find the
following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request.
In accordance with section 25.104.040B.2 and 25.104.050C, any reduction in the 300'
separation distance requirements between commercial communication towers and
residentially zoned lands is prohibited unless an exception is granted. Pursuant to
Section 25.104.050E for separation distances between commercial communication
towers the City council must find:
1. That there is a unique land use characteristic or nearby geographic feature
which resu/ts in a compelling techno/ogica/ need to /ocate the commercial
communication towers and/or commercial communication antennas in the
location and/or at the height proposed.
The land use that characterizes a compelling technological need to locate at
the height and location proposed is the existing inability to provide sufficient
coverage specific to the geographic site and the inability to collocate with
existing towers. The request for a 55' tall mono-palm is the result of efforts by
the applicant to locate alternative sites that determined to be unsuccessful.
Sector studies have demonstrated to the T-Mobile Corporation that in order to
provide service to this portion of customers within the vicinity, the installation of
six panels at the height of 55' is necessary.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION N0.2ol0-2
2. That the unique /and use characteristics or geographic features mitigate any
negative aesthetic concerns.
The surrounding area is a developed residential area. The site itself is
landscaped with existing vegetation that will remain along with six new palm
trees to be planted around the facility to disguise the height of the mono-palm.
The location is along a private facility access road within The Living Desert.
Additional findings for the approval of commercial communication towers are
stated in Municipal Code Section "25.104.030 Permitted Commercial
Communication Towers and Commercial Communication Antennas in Zoning
Districts of City." As such, new freestanding commercial communication
towers/commercial communication antennas shall not be allowed unless the
applicant substantiates to the satisfaction of the planning commission:
a. That existing towers and buildings do not techno/ogically afford the
applicant the ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant
or service provider.
A project description letter has been submitted by the applicant and
attached to the staff report to provide documentation as to the service
need in the proposed service area. A propagation study was undertaken
to analyze the optimum placement for the cellular panels. It was
concluded that the area had low to no service and the proposed facility
was necessary to off-load congested sites.
b. That the geographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot
techno/ogically be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding
tower/antenna at the height proposed.
Site selection and antenna height are the result of a computer analysis
of service coverage requirements for Southern California and the United
States. Topography (both natural and man-made) and vegetation
characteristics of the valley make it difficult to cover even with multiple
sites.
c. That the applicant shows compelling techno/ogical or economic
reason(s) for requiring a new freestanding facility.
The technological and economic reasons are stated in the project description letter submitted
for the Council's review and attached for the record. Existing coverage in the area is
inadequate for existing customers. The proposed communication tower will allow for better
service and create a larger network leading to increased clientele. The applicant has
enclosed a copy of their existing coverage map and a new coverage map based on the new
wireless site.
2
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2010-2
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
Commission in this case.
2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 09-236 is hereby granted, subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on the 14th day of January, 2010, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CINDY FINERTY, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2010-2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. CUP 09-236
Department of Communitv 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 applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Planning Department
Fire Department
Public Works Department
Landscape Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
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.
6. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these
conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping 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 final landscape plan shall include a long-
term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times,
fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be
planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the
Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape
plan.
4
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2oio-2
Department of Public Works:
1. Grading and pad elevations for the proposed development are subject to review and
approval in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. The plan
shall be submitted concurrently with a landscape plan.
2. Any landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved concurrently with construction
plans ad no permits shall be issued prior to Landscape plan approval.
3. Existing landscape that has been significantly damaged by construction or installation,
above ground or below ground, will be required to be replace with like species and
size.
Department of Buildina and Safetv:
1. Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of
plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time:
2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 2006 IBC)
2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2006 UMC)
2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2006 UPC)
2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2005 NEC)
2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2. All contractors and subcontractors shal� have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License prior to perm.it issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5.
3. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's
Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per
California Labor Code, Section 3700.
5
�� CITY OF P`��L �l DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESEftT,GflLIFOlwlfl9bb60—b51�
TEL:]60 346—o6u
Fn>c:76o 34t-7oq8
in�oC�palm-deser�.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. CUP 09-236
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a
conditional use permit by OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATION INC., A SUBSIDIARY OF T-
MOBILE USA, to construct, operate, and maintain a 55' high mono-palm wireless
telecommunications facility consisting of six panel antennas, finro GPS antennas, one
emergency generator, one parabolic antenna, six BTS radio cabinets, coaxial cable
running from the antennas to the BTS, power and Telco utility connection. The property is
located at 47-900 Portola Avenue.
« � � � ,�., ,� �
��, � � � �` �
�
�, ; .
��� � .f y� � � � ,
�r..
�`, „ �, ' `� ,�
�h�AY�TACKRIf ` ���
. �� '�`� �
�,
,, � �
,
' ��
. �
,
, �. e�4 a; �.�.h
„ "
�
•s '. s��' W�
,;�.'.: ,�� v.,
� � ?'�,. ������J�'�� ,'` m
r � r`:; r,`q :�,:
nr-
e5`��'iw �,.-� , � �a� y�t<,. „<„ ��6iCc
� o.� �,� � ��.��' ��
, � ,�,:�;�
� � a�y.,
� �y*# •w�#� r k .
k �° ��� �
f�3�"� �
1�*ata�� � tli ty�", 'ql��� �
�F, #
,} �I��t ���g��•'W
' ' � `a'Vtr '
.i�.� . i y� �, {.; . .
�
, , � � trr�.r • � �"�,,��,, � P�,I
TF �
� 51f4Y��. �R �,.. �
e�r.
f 4:'„
Y
� � I '...�.�.
J{`` 3
. (�,� ,:�''� "
�w
xe'0 `ti'-�°�' j � ro',^ -
8� I�� �
�`• �� y . �i..
" �.
.i.� .�4 F {:..�:
� � { ¢.'�
� �
.. .. '�.. �'Y".3
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, January 14, 2010 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 concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice
shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed
project is available for review in the Department of Community Development 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 D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
January 3, 2010 Palm Desert City Council
, � C _
�
� �.
Monica Moretta
Applicant Representative
One Venture, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Authorized Agent for T-Mobile, USA
T-Mobile Project Number: IE04752-G
T-Mobile Project Name: Living Desert-Access Rd
City of Palm Desert
Application for a Conditional Use Permit Application
Project Information and Justification
Omnipoint Communications, Inc., a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is requesting approval of a
Conditional Use Application and Architectural Review for the construction and operation of an unmanned
wireless telecommunications facility (cell site), and presents the following project information for your
consideration.
Project Location
Address: 47-900 Portola Ave
APN:.630-250-045
Zoning: Public Institution-Drainage Flood Plains Watercourse(P-D)
Project Representative
Name : Monica Moretta
Address: One Venture, Suite 200- Irvine, CA 92618
Contact Information: Cell Phone: (949)241-0175
Fax : (949) 753-7203
E-mail: monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com
T-Mobile Contact
Linda Paul,Real Estate and Zoning Manager
3257 E. Guasti Rd. #200
Ontario, CA 91761
909-975-3698
Project Description
Omnipoint Communications, Inc., a subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") is proposing a 65-ft
antenna support structure disguised as a palm tree (Monopalm) with a three (3) sector antenna array consisting
of one (1) panel antennas each, for a total of six (6) antennas; six (6) radio equipment cabinets installed within a
22' x 26' CMU wall enclosure; and supporting cables and utilities, i.e. Telco pedestals and electrical panels.
The tree foliage designed to mimic palm fronds will help to disguise the facility along the existing palm trees
found in the property. The antennas are enclosed inside of the palm tree trunk. Access will be via an existing
12-ft. wide gravel road. One unassigned parking space will be provided, but no existing parking will be
impacted or deleted.
Project Objectives
There are several reasons that a wireless carrier has the need to install a cell site at a specific location:
F � �(
�. ,, � , .. ..
Coverage—No service, or insufficient service, currently existing in the vicinity
Capacity — Service exists, but is currently overloaded or approaching overload, preventing successful call
completion during times of high usage.
Quality—Service exists,but signal strength is inadequate or inconsistent.
E911 — Effective site geornetry within the overall network is needed to achieve accurate location information
for mobile users through triangulation with active cell sites. (Half of all 911 ca11s are made using mobile
phones.)
Enhanced Voice and Data services — Current service does not provide adequate radio-support for advanced
services.
This location was selected because T-Mobile's radio-frequency engineers (RF)have identified a significant gap
in radio-signal in the vicinity of the intersection of Portola Road and Haystack Road, and further north along
Portola Road and Marrakesh Road. Further, an existing T-Mobile facility, located approximately two-miles to
the southwest and to northeast, is approaching capacity due to heavy ca11 volume from residential uses and
regular traffic call from major arterial roads. This new facility will off-load that congested sites and improve
call efficiency in that azea.
Alternative Site Analysis
T-Mobile representatives assess the target area for properties with suitable conditions for the proposed facility
within the target area. Therefore,the following locations were evaluated as possible locations for the facility:
• Marrakesh Country Club located at 47-001 Portola Drive - Upon investigating the use of the roof of the
existing building, it was determined that it would not be structurally capable of supporting the
installation.
• Marrakesh Mainte�ance Yazd located south of the club house - was rejected after the property owners
decided not to proceed with the project.
• The Living desert Hospital Maintenance Yard located in the City of Indian Wells - a ground build
facility will not be allowed under current city codes in the existing zone.
Automatically eliminated from consideration were any locations where unfavorable zoning exists, there is no
suitable space ava.ilable, development standards cannot be met, or are owned by parties that are uninterested in
entering into a lease agreement with T-Mobile.
FindingsBurden of Proof
The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape.
The installation will only require the use of 583 sq. ft., and there is adequate space for the
installation to accommodate the equipment required for the facility and meet all development
standards of the zoning district. The facility is located in an area that will not interfere with point
of ingress and egress to the property and designed to blend with the existing environment.
The proposed location has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement
type to carry the quantity and quality of traff c generated by the proposed use.
The proposed project will be unoccupied, only requires a single maintenance visit per month and
utilize existing roads for access.
The proposed us will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties.
% � � _
+ ' � r�
;
�
Y
Wireless facilities are passive in nature and have been located in permitted zoning districts
without impacting adjacent or abutting properties. The facility is located as far complies with
separation requirernents mandated by Section 25.140.10 of the City of Palm Desert wireless
code.
The proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience or welfare.
The propose facility is dammed essential and desirable to the public convenience and welfare.
T-Mobile Company Information
T-Mobile is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate in the 1950.2-1964.8,
1965.2-1969.8 MHz and 1870.2-1884.8-1889.8 MHz frequencies, and is a state-regulated Public Utility subject
to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). T-Mobile is one of the fastest growing nationwide
service providers offer all digital voice, messaging and high-speed data services to nearly 30 million customers
in the United States.
T-Mobile will operate this facility in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the
FCC, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the CPUC, as governed by the Telecommunications Act of
1996, and other applicable laws.
The enclosed application is presented for your consideration, and T-Mobile request a favorable determination
and approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design Review application to build the proposed
facility. Please contact me at(949) 241-0175 for any questions or requests for additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
- �
�-
y .
onica Moretta
Authorized Agent for T-Mobile
�
ARCHITECTURAL REG.�W COMMISSION
� MINUTES October 13, 2009
2. CASE NO: CUP 09-236
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATION
INC (T-Mobile USA), 3257 E. Guasti Road, Ste 200, Ontario, CA
91761
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to
construct a 55' high monopalm wireless telecommunication facility.
LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue
ZONE: PD
Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report.
Initialty, a proposed monopalm of 65' was submitted. Staff was
concerned with the height due to its proximity to residential areas
and the ability of the height of the monopalm to blend in with the
existing natural environment. Staff requested that the applicant
representative place balloon benchmarks at 55' and 65' to visualize
the two heights on the site. Photos of these height benchmarks
were included in the packet. Staff determined the 65' height was
unacceptable and would not support an approval of that height. The
applicant agreed to lower the monopalm to the 55' height
surrounded by five live palms at 25' and 30' in height. With the
proposed modification, staff believes this will be an acceptable
visual aesthetic in the proposed neighborhood. The 55' height
meets the standards in Municipal Code Chapter 25.104
Commercial Communication Tower and Commercial Antenna
Regulations. The City of Indian Wells was given advance notice to
view the balloons while they were in place at the heights of 55' and
65'. The Planning Director viewed the balloons and reported zero
visual impact to the City of Indian Wells.
Staff has determined that the proposed monopalm would be
compatible with adjacent properties with the approval by the
Planning Commission to waive the separation requirement of 300'.
Currently the monopalm is roughly 268'-1" from the nearest
residence, is visually consistent with adjacent landscaping, and
would create no adverse visual impact on adjacent properties;
including visual access of adjacent properties to sunlight. With
regard to landscape requirements, the City's Landscape Specialist
has not given preliminarily approval of the landscape plant
materials, but recommends that the plans meet all planting and
irrigation design requirements prior to obtaining construction
permits. In order to assure the most preferred and efficient outcome
G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word Files�l Minutes�2009WR091013min.docx Page 3 of 15
ARCHITECTURAL REVr..JV COMMISSION � �
� MINUTES October 13, 2009
plans should receive preliminary approval from the City's
Landscape Specialist prior to the Planning Commission hearing. In
addition to a landscape plan, grading and pad elevations for the
proposed improvements will be required to be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Ms. Monica Morreta, representative said the reason they had
originally submitted the height of 65' was because the design has
the antennas stacked and the typical design is with the antennas
exposed. They are stacking because the code requires that the
only way you can request a reduction in the setback is to hide the
antennas completely and the planning commission will make that
determination. She also pointed out that by reducing the height by
10' it also lowers the height of the antennas, however the radio
frequency engineers determined that 55' will work. Commissioner
Lambell asked if the antennas would be completely hidden. Ms.
Morreta stated that was correct and explained that they would be
located inside the trunk of the palm tree; the only thing you will see
is the micro-wave dish.
The Commission discussed the height of the monopalm and the
height and species of the live palms. It was suggested that they
plant date palms, which are slow growing. Ms. Grisa stated that
she had previously explained to the representative that higher palm
trees would blend in better, but the representative informed her that
it would interfere with the frequency transmission. Ms. Morreta
explained that once you have antennas stacked, the line of sight
cannot be obstructed in any way. That is the reason they
requested live palm trees below the antennas so there is no
interference and by increasing the height of the live palm trees to
45', 40', 35' it will interfere. The Commission stated that was the
first time they had heard that information.
Commissioner Lambell asked what the maximum height of the live
palms that were being planted and Ms. Morreta said that it would
be 30'. Commissioner Lambell stated that the 30' palm tree would
be 25' below the monopalm and said it would look odd. The
Commission discussed the height of the monopalm and the live
palms and suggested relocating one of the trees to the backside
near the mountain to create a stepping of tree heights.
Commissioner Touschner stated that in the city there are other
taller groupings but none that have a 10' difference between the
live trees and the base of the antennas. Ms. Morreta stated that
other carriers have different frequencies that shoot through
landscaping better and others that have higher frequency; T-Mobile
G:1PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009WR091013min.docx Page 4 of 15
�
ARCHITECTURAL REV��W COMMISSION
' MINUTES October 13, 2009
cannot do that. The engineering department has a lot of strict
restrictions to not allow any landscaping to interfere with antennas
because it is no longer transmitting the signal to the donor side.
They would have to cut the trees to make sure that the facility is
functioning correctly.
Commissioner Gregory stated that when they have these criteria it
is probably based upon palms that grow more rapidly. He said that
if they use a date palm which is a slower growing palm and planted
it taller the City could get the look they desire. The Commission is
� trying to detract from one lone palm tree sticking out in the center of
a grove of trees. He suggested having a taller palm on the
backside near the mountain to help create a look of hierarchy. Ms.
Morreta stated that in that area they could probably do one palm at
40' between the two sectors, but she would have to check with the
radio frequency engineer. Commissioner Lambell stated that there
is a residential area close to it so it would need to be mitigated as
much as possible. Commissioner Van Vliet agreed and stated that
this is a highly visual area near the Living Desert Reserve which is
one of the biggest attractions in town and it has to look good. Ms.
Morreta stated that one of the obstacles with this project was to find
a location at the Living Desert where they were comfortable placing
the facility.
The Commission and the applicant discussed the heights of the
patm trees and Ms. Morreta asked if the Commission would
consider having a 40' palm on one side and palms ranging from 30'
and 25' on the other side. Commissioner Gregory said that the
Commission would want to see more reasonable spacing, which
would be taller than 40'. He suggested 45' and 35' for instance,
where there are 10' increments with a slow growing palm. The
Commission and the applicant discussed having a grove of trees
ranging from 45' to 35' to 30' so there are different heights. Ms.
Morreta said she would check with the engineer. Commissioner
Lambell suggested that Ms. Morreta take a look at the grove on
Highway 74 and Haystack at St. Margaret's Church. She thought
there was three monopalms with several live palms and stated that
they have done a good job with that grove.
Commissioner Vuksic made a motion to approve the project with
the condition that the complimentary palms are date palms in varied
heights ranging from 45' to 35' to 30' to create a good composition
of trees and the maximum height of the monopalm will be 55'.
Commissioner Levin made the second. Commissioner Gregory
asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner
G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�20091AR091013min.docx Page 5 of 15
ARCHITECTURAL RE1��_JV COMMISSION '
� MINUTES October 13, 2009
Touschner felt that the Commission should limit the number of
palms at 30'. Commissioner Lambell agreed and stated that there
should be only one at 30'. Commissioner Vuksic added to his
motion that there be a variety of heights with final approval by the
Landscape Specialist.
Commissioner Gr�gory asked if there were any further comments.
Ms. Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist pointed out that the
applicant stated earlier that they would do everything they can to
make sure that the antennas are clear and she asked Ms. Morreta
what will they do when the palms reach a height where they start to
interfere. Ms. Morreta said they would have to perform some
maintenance to cut the fronds as much as they can. Ms. Hollinger
suggested they replace the palm tree at that point because all the
palm trees at the Living Desert have their skirts on and the City
. does not allow that type of pruning. Ms. Morreta wanted to make it
clear that all the trees would be date palms. Commissioner
� Gregory wanted to make it clear that the monopalm be a date palm
so that it doesn't get changed and mentioned that the date palm
species should be Phoenix dactylifera.
Commissioner Gregory asked Commissioner Vuksic if he was
comfortable with all the addenda to the motion and Commissioner
Vuksic stated that he was and the motion carried 6-0.
ACTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner
Levin, to grant approval subject to: 1) the monopalm being a date palm
with a maximum height of 55'; 2) the complimentary palms to be dafe
palms with varied heights of 45', 35' 30' — with only one at 30'; 3)
landscape plans to be reviewed and receive preliminary approval by the
Landscape Specialist prior to Planning Commission submittal. Motion
carried 6-0.
3. CASE NO: MISC 09-404
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ABDOUL SALEHI, 10 Audalucia,
Irvine, CA 92614
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of
a fa�ade remodel; Best Buy.
LOCATION: 72-369 Highway 111
� ZONE: P.C. 3 (SP)
G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Wwd FilesW Minutes�2W9�AR091013min.docx Page 6 of 15
October 14, 2009
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO: CUP 09-236
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATION INC (T-Mobile
USA), 3257 E. Guasti Road, Ste 200, Ontario, CA 91761
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to construct a
55' high monopalm wireless telecommunication facility.
LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue
ZONE: PD
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission�granted approval subject to:
1) the monopalm being a date palm with a maximum height of 55'; 2) the
complimentary palms to be date palms with varied heights of 45', 35' 30' — with
only one at 30'; 4) landscape plans to be reviewed and receive preliminary
approval by the Landscape Specialist prior to Planning Commission submittal. .
Date of Action: October 13, 2009
Vote: Motion carried 6-0
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved
by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building
and Safety.
� ARCHITECTURAL RE4��W COMMISSION
� MINUTES November 10, 2009
make the changes to the parapet and put roof drains on each of the
corners to make it more uniform all the way around.
The Commission reviewed and discussed the enclosure screen
around the parapet and suggested that it be removed because it
wasn't aligning with anything. Commissioner Vuksic was looking at
the right side elevation and all three forms and said that the
architect may want to integrate that form into the roof line.
Commissioner Vuksic asked how the ducting would get from one
side of the house to another. Mr. Mendoza said that there are drop
offs in the soffits inside the building. Commissioner Touschner
asked the architect to consider other options, for instance having
the HVAC more centrally located. Commissioner Vuksic explained
to Mr. Mendoza that the ducts cannot go on the roof and Mr.
Mendoza stated that everything would be concealed.
ACTION:
,
It was moved by Commissioner Vuksic and seconded by Commissioner Van
Vliet, to grant approval subject to: 1) parapet detail be carried around to all
four sides with internal roof drains to enclose the form; 2) plaster fascia; 3)
integrate mechanical equipment into the tallest mass of the house and be
finished with plaster rather than metal; 4) access door for roof finished the
same with plaster and flush with the plaster; and 5) staff to approve
construction drawings. Motion carried 6-0.
3. CASE NO: CUP 09-236
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS)• OMNIPOINT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A Subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
3257 E. Guasti Road Suite 200, Ontario, CA 91761
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approvat of
a new 55' high monopalm T-Mobile telecommunications facility
consisting of six panel antennas, two GPS antennas, one emergency
generator, one parabolic antenna, six BTS radio cabinets, coaxial
cable running from the antennas to the BTS, power and telco utility
connection.
LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue
ZONE: P.D.
G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word FilesW Minutea�20091Ap0g1110min.doc PagQ 'rj Qf 1 4
ARCHITECTURAL REV��JV COMMISSION `j '
' MINUTES November 10, 2009
Ms. Grisa presented the project and summarized the staff report.
She stated that this application was presented at the last ARC
meeting for a 55' tall monopalm in an area inside of The Living
Desert. The area the applicant is leasing is located just east of
Portola Avenue sized at 13' by 34' totaling 442 square feet
surrounded by a block wall covered in stucco to match the adjacent
buildings. The applicant is proposing the new monopalm to
coincide with five new live palm trees at the heights and quantities
of one at 30', two at 35', one at 40', and one at 45'. The 45' tree
and one 35' tree would be immediately adjacent the proposed
mono-palm with the other trees located across the dirt road
adjacent to the proposed facility. This project was approved with
conditions at the last Architectural Review Commission (ARC)
meeting and is now returning for review due to the fact that the tree
arrangement did not meet the applicant's objectives regarding
cellular signal. .
Staff's main concern with the height of this mono-palm is the ability
to disguise the structure due to its proximity to residential areas and
the ability to blend the mono-palm in with the existing natural
environment. The new layout proposed illustrates two trees near
the mono-palm and three trees on the other side of the dirt road
adjacent the facility. This layout disguises the mono-palm as one
would view it from the west, but staff still has concerns regarding
the views and ability to disguise the mono-palm driving north or
south on Portola with such a large spacing between the proposed
live trees. Staff has noted several discrepancies in the noted
heights of these live mono-palms between the working drawings,
landscape plans, and photo simulations. These would all need to
coincide correctly before moving on to Planning Commission. Staff
has confirmed the heights of these trees with the owner's
representative; the five live palms are at the heights of 45', 35', 40',
35', and 30'. The last concern with this new set, along with the
previous drawn elevations of the mono-palm, is how the palm frond
head relates to the trunk of the tree. The mono-palm frond head
appears to be dropped below the top of the tree trunk. Staff is
concerned with how the antennae height that needs to be achieved
will relate to the palm frond head as it appears on the drawings.
The owner's representative confirmed that this detail will need to be
modified, but in turn it appears as though the antennae would need
to be moved further down or the palm frond may go beyond the
approved 55' height.
G:�PlanningUanine Judy\Word FilesVl Minutes�2009WR091110min.doc Page 6 of 14
� ARCHITECTURAL REV�cW COMMISSION �
� MINUTES November 10, 2009
Staff has determined that the proposed monopalm wouid be
compatible with adjacent properties with the approval by the
Planning Commission to waive the separation requirement of 300'.
Currently the monopalm is roughly 268'-1" from the nearest
residence. The 55' height meets the standards in Municipal Code
Chapter 25.104 Commercial Communication Tower and
Commercial Antenna Regulations. With regard to landscape
requirements, the City's Landscape Specialist has not given
preliminarily approval of the landscape plant materials, but
recommends that the plans meet all planting and irrigation design
requirements prior to obtaining construction permits. In order to
assure the most preferred and efficient outcome plans should
receive preliminary approval from the City's Landscape Specialist
prior to the Planning Commission hearing. In addition to a
landscape plan, grading and pad elevations for the proposed
improvements will be required to be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works.
The Commission reviewed the plans and discussed the height and
the separation of the palms. Ms. Grisa presented photos of another
monopalm grove and stated that the trees are all directly in line with
the palm fronds and antennae, which don't seem to be a problem.
T-Mobile thinks that these trees located immediately adjacent to
their monopalm is going to obstruct the signal and decrease
coverage area.
Commissioner Touschner stated that she drove by St. Margaret's
and said that it is successful because there is such a medley and
they are all over the place, but the two monopoles are clearly
higher than everything else but because there is so much variation
there that it just blends in and you don't notice it. She felt that using
that approach, having something around even if it's short is better
than not having anything.
Commissioner Vuksic stated that having one in the northwest
corner would give the transition back from the high tower, back
down towards the ground; whether you are going north or south.
Commissioner Lambell felt that two of the palms looked very much
disconnected from the monopalm and thought there must be a way
for those two not to be so far away. Commissioner Gregory
suggested that one more 30' palm be added to the northwest
corner because there is a concern with the disconnect and at the
G:\PlanningUanine JudylWord FilesW Minutes�2009WR091110min.doc Page 7 of 14
ARCHITECTURAL REV�►_N COMMISSION ' � �
" MINUTES November 10, 2009
time they are planted we can have the City's Landscape Specialists
observe the work and adjust a little bit.
Ms. Grisa had a concern with how something was drawn a couple
of times. She explained that the trunk of the tree goes up to the top
of the monopalm and the fronds have been dropped below it so it
has a odd because they are trying to get the top antennae as high
as they can and I'm afraid either they are going to have to lower the
antennas to make that look correct or they are going to actually
have it built this way.
Ms. Monica Morreta, representative stated their engineers
confirmed that they can place another tree at the height of 30'
closer to the site. In regards to the elevation views, they will be
changed and the actual height of the pole, will be lower to 45' with a
separation of 5' between the pole and the fronds. Commissioner
Gregory asked if the separation of the poles being tal�er and Ms.
Morrato explained it is the highest point of the pole and the fronds
of the tree. Commissioner Lambell asked if the correct height of
the pole is 43' and Ms. Morreto said that it would be 45' between
the pole and the fronds and the antennas will be at 43' because the
antennas are inside the pole. The trunk of the palm will end at 45'
and the fronds will be 10' above the tallest point of the pole; which
is 55'. Her engineer stated that he wanted to have at least a 5'
separation so the antennas would be placed at the highest point
which will be 50'. The overall height of the monopalm is 55' and the
overall height of the pole is 50'; which is an overall separation of 5'.
Commissioner Vuksic asked if there were other monopalms in the
City like the one being proposed and Ms. Morreto stated that the
sample they are using is the monopalm grove located at St.
Margaret's that was suggested at the last meeting.
Mr. Spencer Knight, Landscape Manager stated that one of the
keys at St. Margaret's is that they didn't use all date palms. The
only date palm there is the cell tower and the rest are fan palms.
The mass of the fan palms pull your eyes away from the cell tower
because it creates a heavy mass below it. One of the difficulties
with other cell tower installations that use date palm leaves is when
they use other date palms, it just doesn't carry the same aesthetic
value that St. Margaret's does. That is probably the best installation
the City has ever done and the difference is that all the other live
palms are fan palms. Commissioner Gregory said if the lower live
palms were date palms he didn't think it would make any difference
G:\PlanningWanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009�,4H09111Umin.doc Page 8 of 14
`' �
;
y ARCHITECTURAL REVicW COMMISSION �
� MINUTES November 10, 2009
because they would still get all the massing. Everything they had
tried before is to have similar types of palms clumped together,
whatever the faux palm is would be the same species and thought
that if the smaller live palms where date palms it might look even
better. Mr. Knight stated that the other places where they have
used date palms for live trees the installations do not come off very
well. Commissioner Gregory had a concern as to where the trees
are purchased from because there are too many opportunities to
put in a poor quality ones out of date groves and Mr. Knight said
that if they put in fan palms in, which is more consistent with the
Living Desert we have a better chance of getting a better quality
palm and create a mix palm species.
Commissioner Gregory said to Mr. Knight that if he felt that the
Washingtonian provides a better plant in a situation like this then it
is fine, provided they are all the same. Mr. Knight stated that he
didn't want to set precedent and wanted the Commission to select
_ whatever they,want. Commissioner Gregory stated that what was
important was that it distracts people's attention and he didn't have
a problem going with hybrids.
ACTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Gregory and seconded by Commissioner
Vuksic, to grant approval subject to: 1) add one additional 30' palm tree on
the NW corner; 2) real palms should be Washingtonian hybrids and actual
height should be brown trunk foot; 3) tower needs to match the appearance
of the monopalm at St. Margaret's and monopalm should remain shown as
a date palm; 4) accurate layout of the palms need to be presented to staff
for approval; and 5) staff to monitor the installation of the palms to ensure
proper placement. Motion carried 6-0.
4. CASE NO: SA 09-400
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT,
9777 Wilshire Blvd Suite 918, Beverly Hills, CA 90212
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval to
construct four entry monument signs; Vineyards.
LOCATION: 37-600 College Avenue
ZONE: PR-5
G:\Planningl,lanine Judy\Word FilesW Minutes�2009WR091110min.doc Page 9 of 14
�� ��
November 24, 2009
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO: CUP 09-236
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A
Subsidiary of T-Mobile USA, Inc., 3257 E. Guasti Road Suite 200, Ontario, CA
91761
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of a new 55'
high monopalm T-Mobile telecommunications facility consisting of six panel
antennas, two GPS antennas, one emergency generator, one parabolic antenna,
six BTS radio cabinets, coaxial cable running from the antennas to the BTS, power
and telco utility connection.
LOCATION: 47-900 Portola Avenue
ZONE: P.D.
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval subject to: 1)
add one additional 30' palm tree on the NW corner; 2) real palms should be
Washingtonian hybrids and actual height should be brown trunk foot; 3) tower
needs to match the appearance of the monopalm at St. Margaret's and monopalm
should remain shown as a date palm; 4) accurate layout of the palms need to be
presented to staff for approval; and 5) staff to monitor the installation of the palms
to ensure proper placement.
Date of Action: November 10, 2009
Vote: Motion carried 6-0
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved
by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building
and Safety.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15 2009
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Request for consideration of the November 17, 2009 meeting minutes.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner DeLuna,
approving the November 17, 2009 meeting minutes. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may b� `limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspandence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prit�r to,`the public hearing.
A. Case No. CUP 09-236 — OMNIPQINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Applicant
Request for a�proval to construct, vp�rate and maintain a new
55' high T-Mobile mono�palm vuireless telecommunications
facility cansisting of six ��n�l' antennas, two GPS antennas,
one emergency generator, one parabolic antenna, six BTS
r�dio cabinets, coaxial cable running from the antennas to the
BTS, power and Telco utility connection to be installed at 47-
90€} Portola Avenue (APN: 630-250-045).
Assistant Planner Missy Grisa reviewed the staff report. Staff
recommended adoption of the findings and the draft resolution approving
Gonditional Use Permit 09-236, subject to the conditions.
Commissianer DeLuna noted that under the original description, the staff
report indicated that the live palms would be 45', 35' and 30'. Then another
one was mentioned at a 30' height. She asked if that totaled five or six. Ms. -
Grisa clarified that it actually went through the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC) twice. It received approval twice. They originally had
five live palm trees around it. They came back and wanted some changes
made and went back through ARC and another live palm was added at the
request of the ARC for a total of six.
Chairperson Tanner asked in the event, and it would probably eventually,
the 45' tree will extend higher than the 55' tower. Would it in any way
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15 2009
impact the broadcast of that tower? Would it ever have to be raised to a
level higher than the palms aroundit? Secondly, in this conditional use, I
the event that one, two, three, or all of the live palm trees die, are they
replaced? Ms. Grisa replied that it was covered in the Landscape
Maintenance Agreement, which was one of the conditions on the staff
report. She deferred the first question to the applicant.
There were no other questions for staff. Chairperson Tanner opened the
public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission.
MS. MONICA MORETTA, of One Venture, �uite 200, in Irvine,
California, stated that she was present on k�ehalf of T-Mobile
Communications. She stated that T-Mobile Corpc�ration reviewed the
conditions of approval and they wpuld eomply with the conditions as
presented in the staff report without �ny changes. With regard to the
question, the facility as propos�d right rrow is 55 feet top of the
fronds. In the event that another carrier comes in, if the height didn't
work for them and they wanted to increase the height of the facility,
it would be up to them to go`tc� the staff and Planning Commission
for review. But as of right now the 55-foot height worked for T-
Mobile.
Chairperson Tanner asked when the height of the palm trees exceeds the
height of the 55-fvot tower, if th�t in any way interfered with their signal.
Ms. Maretta said it does. One of the things they discussed during
the Architectural Review Committee is that having live palms at a
c�rtain height can interfere with the signal. In that event, they would
try ta place the tal[er palm tree in the area between the two sectors
so that it would not interfere with the signal propagation. The shorter
ones at 30-.and 35-feet would face the other section, so when they
grow, they would take a little more time. The variety of tree is
Washin�tonian hybrids and they take a lot longer to grow. But if that
happens down the road, T-Mobile would probably have to look at the
possibility of pruning the trees so they wouldn't have any problems
with the propogation.
Commissioner Limont asked if this tower could be put back further into The
Living Desert so that it wouldn't be at the forefront of the property.
Ms. Moretta explained that unfortunately, one of the issues they
were having during the research of the placement of the facility, is
that they had to work really closely with the Living Desert. They
wanted the facility to be in this area because it has easy access
from the street for T-Mobile to maintain the facility. The other issue
3
MINUTES
LM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMB R 15 2009
was if they moved further back, there is a lot of landscaped area
which the Living Desert didn't want them to touch. That was a
special request that they not touch any of the living landscaped area
in the park so that there isn't interference with future development as
welL
Commissioner Limont confirmed that it could be moved back from T-
Mobile's standpoint.
Ms. Moretta said yes, but not from the Liuing Desert's standpoint.
Ms. Moretta showed an aerial of different lcrcations that they looked
at within the Living Desert and the surrounding area.
Commissioner Schmidt asked staff if any qf #he existing residents knew of
this and if they were contacted in the viciniiy. Ms. Grisa explainetf that legal
notices were sent out to residents 300 feet around the project site and no
letters were received, in opposition or in favor. Commissioner Schmidt
asked if 300 feet was from where the tower would b�. Ms. Grisa said yes;
it indicated it was noticed in the paper as well.
There were no other questkc►ns for staff. Chairperson Tanner asked if there
was any testimony in FAV�R of ar in OPPQStTION to the proposal. There
was no response. �hairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and
requested Commission comments or action'.
Commissioner C�rinpbell felt the applicant did their homework, thought it
was in a perfect location, and agreed with staff about the 55-feet. Since
there were no rernarks from any residents, yay or nay, she moved for
approval.
Action:
It was moved by 'Commissioner Campbell to approve the findings and
recommendativn as presented by staff.
Commissi€�ner Limont said she had a couple of comments before they
moved forward. Personally, she thought it should be tucked back,
regardless of what the Living Desert wants moved or not moved. She felt
that because it is the entrance to Silver Spur Ranch, and it was really a
beautiful corner, really gorgeous, and she knew they just had balloons right
now, but even though they brought it down to 55 feet, if they moved it back
she thought it would mitigate the look of the fake palm tree a little bit more.
One of her concerns as far as maintenance, she didn't think a good job had
been done maintaining St. Margaret's tree. It has needed fronds for eight
months now. As of this morning, they still hadn't been replaced. So as a
City, they have to do a better job if they are going to have these mono-
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15 2009
palms around, they have to do a better job making sure the folks in charge
keep them looking like palms; otherwise they look like towers. She had
trouble with this placement. She didn't have a difficulty with having a mono-
palm, just in that location front and center.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the 300-foot radius was a City ordinance.
Ms. Aylaian explained it is State Law, which was also replicated in the
Municipal Code. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it needed a state variance
at all. Ms. Aylaian said no.
Acting City Attorney Jill Tremblay suggeste�l thaf they get a second on the
motion by Commissioner Campbell �efore discussir�g it. Ms. Aylaian
indicated that typically they get a motior� and second befc�re comments.
Chairperson Tanner asked for a second tc� the:motion. He said he would
second the motion, but wanted to comment bef�re seconding the motion.
He thought they had come a long way in designing the mono-palms so that
they are eye-appealing from all ant�le�. He unders#c�od the concerns about
being too close to the street, but at the same time the design itself was
there and they have appraved them in the .past at other entrances that
have been affected both positively and pc�t�ntially negatively, so he
seconded the motion to approve it and asked for further comments.
Commissioner De�,una asked if the living palms being placed around it
would be between the mono-palm ar�� the entrance that Commissioner
Limc�nt had a con�ern about. Sh� �sked if it would be buffered by the live
palms rather than seeing the mono-palm first. Ms. Grisa displayed the site
plan. S�he pointed t�ut �► maintenance road and stated that there would be
live palm5 between th� mono-palm and Portola. Commissioner DeLuna
asked what 'fhe distanc� `would be between the mono-palm and the
intersection. Ms. Grisa didn't know. She showed the distance on the site
plan and guessed approximately 1,000 feet south.
There were nv other comments. Chairperson Tanner called for the vote.
Motian carried 4-1 with Commissioner Limont voting no.
It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Chairperson
Tanner, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2516, approving
Case No. CUP 09-236 subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-1 with
Commissioner Limont voting no.
5
ON E FU LL SIZE
PLAN SET IS LO AT
C ED IN
THE COUNCIL CHA
MBERS
CONFERENCE
ROO M FO R
REVIEW
• r i
� � � �������� T-Mobile West Corporation (T-Mobile)
Engineering Development- Inland Empire
3257 E. Guasti Rd. Suite 200
Ontario, CA 91761
Dec 21, 2009
Anna Hom
Consumer Protection and Safety Division
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: T-Mobile West Corporation,successor in interest to Omnipoint Communications Inc., (T-
Mobile) (Wireless ID#: U-3056-C)
Notification Letter for T-Mobile Site No. (Name): IE04752G- SC280 Living Desert-
Access Rd.
This letter provides the Commission with notice pursuant to the provisions of General Order No.
159A of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California(CPUC)that with regard to
the project described in Attachment A:
� (a) T-Mobile has obtained all requisite land use approval for the project described in
Attachment A.
❑ (b)No land use approval is required because
A copy of this notification letter is being sent to the local government agency identified below
for its information. Should there be any questions regarding this project, or if you disagree with
the information contained herein, please contact Ms. Linda Paul, Real Estate and Zoning Manager
for T-Mobile, at(909) 975-3698, or contact Ms. Anna Hom of the CPUC Consumer Protection
and Safety Division at 415-703-2699.
Sincerely,
�
c,z--
Real Estate and Zoning Manager
Enclosed: Attachment A
CC:
John,Wohlmuth,City Manager, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,CA 92260
Rachelle Klasse,City Clerk, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert, CA 92260
Lauri Aylaian,Planning Director, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,CA 92260
T-Mobile West Corporation (Wireless ID#: U-3056-C)
Notification Letter for T-Mobile Site No. (Name): IE04752G - SC280 Living Desert-Access
Rd.
Dec 21,2009
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
1. Proiect Location
Site Identification Number: IE04752G
Site Name: SC280 Living Desert-Access Rd.
Site Address: 47-900 Portola Ave, Palm Desert CA 92260
County: �iverside
Assessor's Parcel Number: 630-250-045
Latitude: 33* 42' 6.99"
Longitude: -116* 22'27.57"
2. Proiect Descrintion
Number of Antennas to be installed: Six antennas at the height of 46'-6" and 40'-6" (RAD)
and one microwave antenna at 32 feet(RAD).
Tower Design: Ground Build
Tower Appearance: Palm Tree
Tower Height: 55 feet
Size of Buildings: T-Mobile's lease area is approximately 442 sq. ft. Six
equipment cabinets inside of a 8 ft. CMU wall.
3. Business Addresses of all Governmental A encies
City of Palm Desert
73-5.10 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA, 92260
4. Land Use Anprovals
Date Zoning Approval Issued(Final): Dec 30, 2009
Case Number(s): CUP 09-236
.LR �. ��� . ...__r�� ��ru� -s�p�p �
�' � �a �..f yR _____
� � � .,a�'{;€, � ,��y`'dQ�''�`.+ .. 'nM. '
� � . .. s,'�T .w. �", �ni�.� � ,� .
¢�' � '`� ' -��-F+3""+'r+t. S,y ..
�� � � Q ,
x � ���R n
t . � H � ti a
� -i� � I, ` � �"` *�" � �' ,*";' o
� 4J �i �,s IR [. . � z
� m , ��� � - � ,�.t,;
< o � �o � � , � .y �,_ _
— � ���
,
N '� �.� 5 ��� . Y b,. � 'i
rn � � � �,�� . : r �,
.� V �. >
� � � ' - �� • �* •�i
� ��� ��' < W ,�� i. "►,��i��� �
� N , w �' �.� � ,�•
� � � v ' t � �� � -ir.
7 . +4 j
. v?l� 3'a 'o .
� � � �.N �; � ' � � ` � �
I�Y 111' ��: `�� 3 ' s���"" � �
� � � •a.. �� e '., i .
�Y � A pf "4 R`-� � � � 'r . �9i� + Y r � �:. 3
J� � ■ _ , �� ^+ -�'a'�3° y-� C . . ,:, .' .�' o
� � V � ;`5tT �. � ♦
�. 9� • . . O '��4� i :�. • . # • .� G
M � , �,r' w
' � .:r Z � � ��� �� � , . —
} y ♦ � . m
\
O } -
. i. � _��� . _ .
. b'�� � ' � A� � � �(� ° '�
r .ti . �` s,�F " � � ����;1�
» �
� �
a 5�
o g Y
o .� ��, � �., _
ra - ,
� � � w �� � � -
� d � 3 y w :w �� Y.� ' I �
o � y v � � ` . ' ' �."." O
fd � r p
� � C') c �-v. n " . � ` -� m
3 »: D � � D `.. <� . � � � �
o� om Z , ... ` ' �-' � .. �P�
'-A' a:_.. rD- r�
a � � �- . `, `. '�-. s . 3 C O —
`° a ,^��1+�� 3�r� �";_ '^ r^m
`„. w ��� ,' c 1�, .. p
� � � . _ .
mo � � •l � �, ' '$^•
�' a �� �,� � + F I
3 � � �r
� n YygM •, ,� , .. . _ � . ' " � 3a
, � _ O O O
� o N II� � At `." ` .. ♦-. Yf.iii�.� � � 0 Q
� )r4i��: 3 s' �vi I
n m O '.�- :1RL'^ .:� 1NY1i����� Z � o
� � � < � y I„'�,v, � 3 .
F' � � N � � O �O ��s� �
-� o g I '
o N n N d � Z . � �
� A `< —{
� � � � o � y i� «'', ;, ;y''� w �� '
d � O N � �p ^ f1 `�. -d y "'I ' .. --�'1 .
m
-i � 6: a � ,
aD v�i 'w o � m I '. i�_ � 6��� +,1''�' .
+ $ a � z. I�' - . �.
I ^ ' � � 1���� .-� �����p�{� +fF
y `.4. � iN`�TT�'��: .
g o �`��1 x "ti- '-�
m� � y" ` �
a r
d v :K�
o < ��L�.j... .., a.�(�r.
Q � .� +�.
m m � _ .
� �
� � � �
0 0 3� ,6``�
v � 3
� ��7'�
c
� a v 1�• �
� � � � � li 1f
2 » n T � '� �`i�']�%�
Fry � � I ��,.. .
m + � � - a�
; � N Ll � ' .. . . �i�." ■
� f o p� ip� t �._
g = v z ,
� � 3 a , 1��, ■
� � � � ,�� ��� -� _� y
„ � ; a � , r
? � � „�3 � `�' �' � ` � �"'� I
� � ""0 3 c c� „ Oo $ S - z �.�{ �
' m � .0 V n C � � r n �� a. . "� c� — `J
^° a A � `" F °' � m � 34 � � � o � �; � ■
;D A
m a a Py� �R �1 � ^ N � - . -ncd �� � ■
`^ a a � W (g � m � � a ' a ".R'4 n�A*"�� * � e ~ �
o N � a D � „� ��. ! � a o H
;� a m w ry m a n < � z ''�F E. �.�a�'� " o n'
°c � a � E N D � m < ��� ` +,3 , �
m A N .� �p .,, . iy � ,� ' �n �-z3
m � � N (�l0 N �'p � c .0 4'A 'i . . � �° � O
� (y�) �
� 9 : � 7 ND O mI� . .c : �J , . . � � V
J V1
"' � � f� '� � W �I �
F � � j Z N � :.'i � y �� •
. c �a � O �c; ��\
�� O �
v "' m � �'� C I 1
a ' � V
n m —
A o � -�: ■
» a o . . . _.. ��: _. _ .___ _. . . . ... ..
- _—_- ___. _._-__— __ __._.___-
I � h e y �^• v�q�
....���`�"`� ��'
'� t �s�� m .S:'ma r�p ` ��e��. * ..r.�.
y X P ,K' �,.• � .��/ On ��.
� N, I�"
ti D
�#
� -P _ �2 `�# . � Z �. �. �, .:: j .;�� O �.
� v , �.�+L'' �-f Z
� � m ,, .�a . ;: .
� y 4 . �.
C o " r0 ' � - ; � i> ;. _
� ` � � ��
rn � � ��-p � �u� ,.. � " � Y ` . '� _��
� � '� �V .. - F � _- �,• '�E�s_'.
, w 3 :. ��':/� �
�::
� � y �/ 1 s u � +�' �
N � �; �N � '� � °. Z ��r• ��,��
�., .,j � ' ,w•,, ' � � � , , ,�� :;4) `�3�
p�. . � �.Q. . ti �� �ti � b � � �� 3
r.{ o^ � 6 � � ��'� a
t � ' . . � .;�. .' � � • '�y �
� ,�a .
Z "_1� � n , •. . .�.f. � G
,l. � � !1 ��� �2 y� :�. �t d
� N � .'.. . r. m
_ �, r� �'� !.1 �. s � a
� .� ��+ :
�..ras z. � ` . _�F .. "7� ��� 1�
� _
� �
� � , } � � -� .. -- -
e, a bt ��.� � . � :� �
1
aa 1 . , -'7!k� .e.�n
Q o � a
m � � �� k
`0 d W * '��i�l`.. � � �
m .d, p=�+j � � 3 �:; a
� � N �1
a „ � � � � � �t;' O
f d d � g r I � *�,. �
�" � C � D �R � ��' �
v ^: y ' " � � .'
- �o � Z ' , �„� v
a� N N —1 + �M,
O. � J � ��'��� '}��. ��__ ' !Y� � fi- .. __.
a , r..
�p .�. F. T_;
c p� N_` �'.3�,
^ O u
> s
� O � Y
ry a �
9 � M e_�y ^ �..
o �
♦�- '
r3�
�Y�'.
a
ry d II .K � '� . ' 0 �O
� ? N ' a. � Q-G
C � 1 ��
3 n 'O J � ���4 9 P� � r T
' �° � p ? ; o o n � � � �p Z3�
_� � •� m c �. � 0 ', � - __ap"e3 3m'^
o = A � � � � Z = .,.. ;... .... �
am � Y (O3 D . _ .� ..
a n O � � � ] 1 ��I4f
SB � !
N Gf (n �
Vf � O N t.
° n � � _�
d n (j
`° o N �
� y �� ".
° ° r� �.. �
� � � � �' . . ,.
r: .
o < � �
Q �
m e o . �� i^-.,:±�'^ ��t_
�.
o m o
a � 3 �
„ � ^ �� :a
m
Q " ° O �+ .a. �
i » .°1, m � _ ...
o d }j
A ^ l N II,t
� � �
. � � I��l, � �
of � �a
� � Z � s,, ��� ' '�x ■
r. `< `g � rr:+ ,d
m � � � � �
N Q �
C „ o �
�,'c a ^ �� � Q p 'V W ^�i. � ■
�a � Av � � .N. A � � ' �(y .i. ■
c � 5 P A SQ '��1 � t�n^ mc � ',�.�R��;:•i . ■
a � a � V l�1 m � C m � �.
.. a Nw d D a F�
; � wiv � 6 nD � Z `'-: $ - �
°_ � Pa m `�° n �o m o ,, _ :;; r�
a `
N O
", � � m 7 N `° O 3 ' �'
rn D Q I� � �� - �
d 3 O m N J In � I: i
.a,. m r� � n � N l.
j .�i IO 7 W ..:Y�.'r i ."
� � Z N � . " �1� �
f � ^ ^ o :.i,.;` ` �+
� � = o �
� �
a � �
� � _._� '�, ■
n . _
�`L:``` .. �!��:�+y�,....-.f�y{wq�ps ..� T„�
.. .�x�, ;��- �
e .q, �J'r '�`��`..,,,�„C r» � +,
�,"�� :'� . -..._�r„'��� � --- II,
.:; . '� ,•,,,,���_�
yT!'z4E .y f 1�^._ � X � �`�'� .,. .\! ^ O �.
r. �
i ,a � .' �' ` �, � N w�:k �
-7 "� i
�'ik" , Z . - �r:.[
� -� � � ,�}� O �
�l Wl � �4. , � - � �x'., Z
� � r F� �` .. ' , ' `9.,�+..._
� a � •� � � �� � �s�
� ro .� <_ � ,�� �, L �
TVI G. 'r ! ' - �[
, ■ , � � � � � � � .. ' ,. . �., _.
`°,"• {� v� ^, ! }Lr.. � ..;
� ' p w/' .' 1
3 -� u �` .�.., '/'
� � v, � S r �•
m s
p7 � i �
W �.� � f �
� �N � . �.,�
/N� (U '► s�' t
V✓a.` � A J� L �� N '� �+ ' � . x � •,�:. 3
W` � ( , � p � } � o
C:5 Pb Y 1 � s
� - : � i =�� ' * • �
� : y i�'
�` Z� y � - '�'i'�" k ..� G
F� � �� . _ '_. �� -
y� N � � _ � � ��� . ���) a��,c � � S
�" � �� +/�� �. ,�� � .l J \wi'� 3
- ��.'L_ _ __ __ ..' ' iw
n � .
N � J
�� ' ��i
� o
v o L(' �F -� 4��� �'� 4•. ..
o ! r
� n � .,.-` � y, y.,ry� �� p�
m � i ) ` ��1
`°2 ` d W � �i 'g �>r�`.�.. � �'
d � y � v �
o� d N5� � t l'-�`'� . V � � �y�� ��. .'�.� �
� D � � ' .R���K �. '� �� KA^SuCT •,�` ' �
F. � d � 3 [ '��a �-.!2„ � A -Y } .� -c.� -' p
Q d � Q n x �A+�r" 'r,t�� � 1, q � m
3 �� � v `° Z .i' �' �' �� # �� F � �o�a I °
�� N m � --_�p�.`'4� ��� Ry�'�'�! . D�-�o I
n� v � r 1 ••�.� � ,,. � �+y-. +T� � m� I ._
� �
� o , . `��� o
�o ' �= � I
r. ,��
� a E . .
s � �
3 " r3�
o n = { �i,l' " ,,���i, � Z O
m' c� �� �Yaii1�YY�+'�' �E
� i � 0 v
« ° � ' � y �Q
n � � � ��y, � '.� ��' y�� � r m �
;� a � G ni �!: .'� {Fye... .�t Z 3 O
� `� J' � s
£ O ? �' � j 0 n '.;` . I tf r.
=Q J N C O
O w N � t'p N O Z I 1 . "
mx �' D � � � D � ♦,� Y ' t ;
w '.1 � N .. fD � � � , � . � iF� .
a � m m �,_ ,._ _
aa N � od � ..� .
9 a o z �a �t+''.. _ -
; o m . 3 j'
o O y L.tK ' _ '�� - _
}
� � i.
C C �:i.
p � i-
Q �
m ic
� �
m � o
o . o M
n ~ 3 W � 5
m
� S ^ ��
ry J
� � � Q �
x � n m �
F m � �
n � � ` �
� � � � ' �
£ � �y .
$ � � Z � a.. - ■
B
o� o � `�.-� .
� � � �� . y
� � � . _
; a � _
C : Y F �
� m � �pV (�� C y A W o ' $ � � � n�h �
c� � � A _ � yC m � - ' s F'y�y_,.:.
a 0' ? S� T � w m � a � „it... ■
v 6 ¢ � V V � N J � N �r . 1 ��y �
a ^+ u' _ °' n D a � ,.`
W �
�� m P A m � � � � � � �•y.. � � O
5 a � N �� N � � . � ".
v , � � D p Q g,.::-', : .,
» m N � V Vf � o'J.: � �
d � O m !D
o .'. r� � �' � w "r::.
' r ��
� = Z N �
F C ^ � O '�.
Q � � `
� � � � T
a � D " ` V
w N V S .
� ? _ , ,�i .j.M. . ■
� +
P. w � ... _ . . . .,y• .. .:: . .,.._ _ '
,
:
� � �
�._ �, t .�#
�
e .,
q � .� ,r,�:;�` � �`� �° '��-'
„�!r'' � h: ' '�
` ��a , , � ' . .
�, ��
.:�'�' �*�,;r � , � �� �'`
rr � .,• � . �r Y
:"�*
� ,,r. ,. �� . ➢.._..el�A_1. . .. .. � - �- .�...
-
r. . ��.:�y `
w .—' .
,�- �� �
� _ �`" � � .MY"S!. . . ..
L . , i . �.:� _ . .. '� .
!YF " ` �yy ' .+„p
. . � �a . YF` � ....
` ' �wYSi,RfV "
K__ '.'�" �'w
�Iii '�"�`:.. :Y � �
'_�`i�� �_.-�'�"�'' ' ��'�"'Apw ��6�� s _ " w` .
4�' ,R�"` "r'"�' �
" ^p ��-:
� a i .� .
�4 � r
t �� ��� �+� e,�i.�.:
� � ��� I �� � � ,� �7//` �S ,r �i t.
�
i � .K:.. `ts�pg .t. �
i � . �� �i�yin`� � I�� � '4P" �� Mr� '>>
, ' �"'��`� ,� � �� � '.� ` f� I �:. �
t + y�ry n f„
� � �'��� t'�v�" '�;�b,,a s�� > t,�'.� ��
��K �A' �
M
•�
t {�.
♦ L`?� rY.
� � `
�','`�� Y � �.�a ';
,� s� ��
;
���� � �'�
� � ' "` ' "� �` ,
a� �` �, i - �'�t ,'�
� :, , i, �,. � _r- - �.
` 't
( �, �� $
i r�::'�
���" '
' � .
� �+�i. �,.;:. . ._ _.
, �
� � �:, :,.. . .< .
i,��y�w- . . : �
`�``�'� '�'��i' I i ..;,
� ..., ,Y �. . . .
i v��:i• ,
,,,:a . .. _ -
, . aa': �
J � .2.�,
',r � a�+f .
� .+�. . , aar `.�`�.� � '. �. x�p a"�;�'v'.
a Rr .
�. . .. � . .. ' �,;.� . . �
*i
��"� °�'�� - ,� ,� �� : r =�� �� .� � 4
�
���� `:���` � � � �� � � � ���} � � � � ��
>.
' "_� �' s e
��+ .;,�. .�
�"' � m.��.�"' � , �
� '�� .� � z�
,�+� r i;,�'-., � �,tiy, -d r �r � � �
, ��' o. p :
3
�w . ` � ��� . .��=
� ' '�i» � ...'� .,. . ����;� ,.. _ . � �:.'--
.
,:t.-.-.,�. . -�.er{,, . . . c ...,s .��...,:..�vi.
.,. #
_ �,`"e'° _ .�.: �.,.. . �- .
..
�,. � :, � �
� s.
— � .�.� �
��� � �
�`�� _ �: g��
�;
n.
�"
� � /
�k"'
A
f �
s
,� '�
�1�.
- :: I.r.,., ,
. "...
4 �4y
'
� F,
� �,
�._x .
. r�s
µ ��
✓ w.�
:.
.
- ` (=„ ", 5 3` -
�p�Yt V/k x+ 3^
t'.�f�t49^{�{�'�'! ��le�+. i
. �k. ..� . . 4 ua . c._ . . .
• ,�r k..� �i , �I�I
. ' � °.�� �i°m-,�
• �
.;� a ��
y
rz �
�
<.�
�?n� f. �
� r�;, +" s °��
'� t� , �. ' . . ..', 'f SF r��, , s�'�"� a�"°�;.a'��',+y ✓,�' .
M ���� �'.��9�
i � qf
�
4 gq ",
4 � �e va.. ., �.� . � .�; � ��,, , �,
� `�� '
,+�V�"y, ��y,,C ��� .. :. t�� _ �_v �PC.�` � _
�
. a. � -. _ . --
, . _-.... . . w... .. ._
� ... ... ,_ — .
.. . ... e=�.. � . - ..
z F^'� � �
, "
d � ... i r�' k»if' ,-�
J11i � ' r� �� ��i� � � �
, .
. �
. , � � �
. , .; �, - ., � ,
. I .�
m.-
..W ' . � � •" ' ����4 '�'�';: v�"�b.� �
- « _ ' ,
.:_"' I
m � .,
�. � .,��,: - . � � _ .
.. . . ..__ . .. {*s�,� ,..
". .. .s�. . �e � :. � �-,..
��"" ._ � ,,:-. . . . .� ..
•
x ;. . ... � _ ,�.z� �- .. -�,.... ,...: ... ..' . _...
.. .. ..,�,. �. i
� ��; -
'"7' d � .. � n .�
,.. �����{-• �... . .. _st � s��
s 8 ,,.�.„ _ �... '"!, �. :.a'Y�• i:5�
.,:,c... — �
�� .. t �' y���
� ::;a ,� 'Yd.'� '# s �` i`e` � ��
�. . _
�i
J
��
f"
1Y
1� I � %R��
, � 5�
ilA ,�'t:j 9,Ct,
a
. ��. . ' " .:. -
- �:+e ,v.q.l � .
- . q' � �" •�.
k tp � N
� � � .
.3nW � «>lyj��� �y '1' y� � .
"*" aKi+,a,.r
> I
„ ,. c�,....s <. ,.. ..: .�;,1., .., g
�.. _<'f :e. .. �� . . .. !� � ..�.
„ _ � ".. _.. ` ..ri. �. . � . ,��...�
.. � . . � . 'h r� .
. , . �k�t�� . �
r i
y
s=.
- � ..Q � ,.
�#�1 .i� � f
� � . �M1..i-�i.'
�� � �r � � 'j. � s ��Y �
_ `�`�,t" Sv-�'r� F�y'h .H ` �t � !,'h•s .
� 'F
yN'�= #N i.�Y .�a� _ ` .
3 � '�'. ".�� a � , �. !
... � ._ .-,:
� � � . f\ � -. - . .
. . .:_� P � � \ . . �..
V i +
+;_ Tt
_�y� Z� ']�1� / � """..i+�����r�`'�
� � a K
- . � _ _ _ - -- - - -
_..
�
r—� � y a �
a .� . G T: � L,18f '��."� ��
� � � j !�j'. � i F4l 'j'1 .c.. � �����,,,. 9L. C- "*'�yC� � ! d o
an� a ° � � �! �Y . C� _ �1� C I '< ,"�
iv s � :��'WtY� t `t� � � ��' � ` �
v° '�i' - 1 �..t - �+1 F� / ! m^ m
�."Z .. �r la.. . '��-. qi �� . ` � a
a< � � �rYi � � : d �
ao � , �„ ; , _ �:. ,: , � �
� � ;� i ��� *a� , . �� ,` ' y „ �
p a � T "t.q; . r ,. . 's.
mn � � 1 f- {��- � � \�� ' - � w'
n£ 1 o k:f R . o • :ti 4 : o
n�' i � i - � a � r"In4.y� �
o R � �='y �: �� , , r �- h
. . : � : �
- y � , �, �
° n S Ld � i� „.. � . �. ^
7 l.` ..T' � { � � • , .3-kn� ' ' a
, R , NF , �1,,�,� '�� � �Ls f�
d v S i � , � •' ir d; "`..• '� {}�`�'. � � �-r �r �
& A " � �' ' �'�j k � � {�^} < =` y` i '�T �'. IC�.,�-,, .
d a s r � � -�:� ;-�.,•: , ,
m 3.$ o s +.i-. '�i �.'�. «:Fr+R•. � .
°, � ia yt
� a 3'< c T ..,�'��.,-�}� ` � ' � 4� � � .
n
° .. � c" Y_ � j` O 1 � ` '��• �. ..� �
� � � , �3 �� , - ' �
w � x � � ��� 4,�. � , i
� o� � � � �I.
Nowwo '�-� ,., r �� 3` .
dvs °: :: ' . , � .
^H �w a .3. . . R. ..
,��� � M1
� �w �� : � _ . � ,
� o � � ,7Zy �• +�;
`G N O O � � . µ �• r �•
� � $ � r
N5: 'o �] � ;'i�p�rv�� ?� , ' y! et �j+
� w o Fa y(4_��� �'i.,_'}!,� ♦ � � ^ ♦ . .! a " i .T3i16��ry� � �_� i I
;rrf �
�`8. Sf {� �s.'}. t5 ' � �M si� ..
� ,� ua , '•?�S: � , , . � , ;
� � �� . � ��^v4 i�i ! �r + �N
M
^ a i � � i •
g � ' � ♦
. � a y`ll � �I � $._ + � }v '
m 1 ` �f � ^
F ' n � �. 1 ., � � .
� ', � �°a `. . �G :
' ,� `"
� �� ' - ' �. y f� } h i� �:�
a � � �� �'� ���.�
� � •Y �� � .' ., �';� � ' ,
� • y r � � . -- ! � o-'�.
�� , � ... I , � t e � 1_
� ��� . � �: �y � �/. +ti... �� '
x �wo � x-� - '�y •
� � ° c aa " s b -�� , . S �" a yt�� 44 �1 r . ,�• �1
m � ��d ;, ,r•, , . . ' �y� � : t�y V`:
Q� R —� ,;'� � �f • ` - -
` • „'. , + �'
� a £a�n�w �t , �� �� :�\ e > .. '+. ����,,�., . .
m n^ '^ ' S .'l � �et�.:�� � >�F 4 ! :e�y�
T > �
> ;,< ro � � -. �� ,....;s �'. y ..It� �� �, t '7i�
., n� n� �^ . . . +f . � eS�,��}.
m'`° — Q ^m � .f i . ,.�. . � . N i.TM T1. r1. 'f'8\'3[-�- . �.�