HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2013-19 - CUP 12-231 - 73-251 Hovley Ln WestCITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 12-231 ALLOWING A NEW
VERIZON 68-FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS MONO-
PALM AND NEW EQUIPMENT SHELTER LOCATED AT TEMPLE
SINAI AT 73251 HOVLEY LANE WEST
SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Ave, Bldg D104
Irvine, CA 92618
CASE NO: CUP 12-231
DATE: May 9, 2013
CONTENTS: 1. Draft Resolution
2. Legal Notice
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2013
4. Architectural Review Commission Minutes dated February 13, 2013
5. Letters in Opposition
6. Letters in Favor of the Mono-palm
7. Plans and Photo Exhibits
8. Project Description Letter and Coverage Map
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2013-19 , reaffirming the
Planning Commission's action approving Conditional Use Permit 12-231.
Planninq Commission Action
The project was reviewed and discussed at the March 19, 2013, Planning Commission
meeting. After staff and the applicant presented the project, members of the public spoke in
opposition to the proposed mono-palm location. Residents to the east on Centennial Circle
stated that the mono-palm would be an eyesore, and would bring down their property
values. The residents requested that the applicant find another location on site or off site.
After the public hearing was conducted, the Planning Commission approved the location of
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 12-231, Verizon Mono-palm
Page 2 of 7
May 9, 2013
Resolution No. 2013-19
the 68-foot mono-palm on a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Limont absent, but required that
more palm trees be added to better screen the view of residents on Centennial Circle.
Architectural Review Commission Action
On February 13, 2013, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed and approved
the project on an 8-0 vote. The ARC supported the location of the 68-foot tall mono-palm and
equipment shelter, since it should not impact the adjacent homes, and it will be surrounded by
existing 27-foot to 55-foot tall palm trees. The ARC placed the following conditions on the
project:
• The roof and outside walls of the equipment shelter must match the existing building.
• The equipment shelter building pad must be raised six inches to match top of parking
lot curb.
• A landscape planter must be added around the equipment shelter. The landscape
plans must be approved by the Landscape Specialist before issuance of building
permits.
• The construction drawings must come back to the ARC for final approval. The air
conditioning units must be shown on the construction plans.
Executive Summary
Approval of staff's recommendation would reaffirm the Planning Commission's action
approving CUP 12-231. On April 2, 2013, a resident to the east of the mono-palm location
filed an appeal on behalf of himself and approximately 24 adjacent residents. The residents
are requesting that the applicant reconsider a new location that would be approximately 100
feet to the west and approximately 40 feet to the south from the location approved by the
Planning Commission. Staff and the applicant believe the approved location by the Planning
Commission is well suited for the 68-foot mono-palm.
Backqround
A. Property Description:
The subject properry is located on the south side of Hovley Lane West, 1,000 feet east
of Monterey Avenue, and west of the Portola Avenue. The property consists of two
four-acre parcels surrounded by residential properties.
In June of 1991, the Planning Commission approved CUP 91-8 allowing a sanctuary
and Sunday school classrooms for Southwest Community Church.
On September 21, 1999, the Planning Commission approved CUP 99-7 allowing
Temple Sinai to occupy the church, a 1,000 square foot addition to the sanctuary, a 12-
500 square foot religious school, and conversion of a temporary structure into a multi-
purpose room. The site provides a total of 348 off-street parking spaces.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�CUP's\CUP 12•231 Verizon Mono-Palm Temple Sinai\CC appeal StaH Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 12-231, Verizon Mono-palm
Page 3 of 7
May 9, 2013
B. General Plan Designation and Zoning:
The property is zoned Planned Residential (P.R.-5), and the General Plan
designation is Low Density Residential (R-L).
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North: Planned Residential (P.R.-5) / Single Family Residential Homes
South: Planned Residential (P.R.-5) / Monterey Country Club
East: Planned Residential (P.R.-5) / Single Family Residential Homes
West: Planned Residential (P.R.-5) / Single Family Residential Homes
D. Ordinance Requirements (Chapter 25.104):
Zoning Ordinance development and performance standards include the following:
1. Height: Maximum height of the tower shall not exceed 75 feet to the top of the
artificial vegetation, 65 feet to the top of the antennas.
2. Fencing: A fence or wall shall be installed to screen the equipment shelter.
3. Landscaping: At a minimum, the applicant must provide sufficient landscaping
to minimize visual impacts to nearby viewers to the satisfaction of the ARC.
E. Telecommunications Act:
The Telecommunications Act requires that local governments approve wireless
facilities where significant gaps in coverage prevent adequate service. Cities are not
obligated to provide parallel coverage for every wireless provider. When a significant
gap in coverage exists, wireless providers must use the least intrusive means to
provide the service.
Adequate service is a function of two factors:
1. Signal coverage for a particular location.
2. Capacity of the antennas to handle the volume of calls.
Signal Coverage: Antennas 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 antennas for a particular area must, therefore, be matched to the call demand.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-231 Verizon Mono-Palm Temple Sinai\CC appeal Staff Report.dx
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 12-231, Verizon Mono-palm
Page 4 of 7
May 9, 2013
Proiect Description
On March 19, 2013, the Planning Commission approved CUP 12-231 allowing Verizon
Wireless to construct a 68-foot tall wireless cell tower disguised as an artificial palm tree. The
mono-palm was proposed with 12-panel antennas located on the outside of the tree. The
antennas are located 60 feet above grade, and screened by artificial palm fronds. When
constructed, the mono-palm would be located in an existing landscaped area directly in front of
the Temple Sinai sanctuary building. The mono-palm is surrounded by six existing live palm
trees ranging in size from 27 feet to 55 feet in height. The Planning Commission conditioned
the project to add three to five live palm trees east of the mono-palm ranging in size from 35
feet to 50 feet.
The approval also included a 414-square-foot equipment shelter made out of masonry block,
with a mansard roof located in the parking lot. The equipment shelter would occupy four
existing parking spaces, and would house the equipment cabinets, generator, GPS
antennas, and cable tray. The building is 13 feet in height, and would be located on a new
concrete pad. The concrete pad would be flush with the existing landscape curb, within the
parking lot. The applicant will construct an eight-foot block wall around th� equipment
shelter painted to match the building, and will plant vines around the eight-foot block wall.
Analvsis
The project required Planning Commission approval of CUP 12-231 since the proposed
mono-palm is located within a residential zone. The Planning Commission approved CUP
12-231 based on unique land characteristics and geographic features that resulted in
compelling technological reasons to locate the 68-foot mono-palm at this location. The
Planning Commission also made the finding that characteristics of the site mitigate any
negative aesthetic concerns.
The day of the public hearing, Mr. Eitan HedRam, a resident who lives on Centennial Circle,
which is east of the cell site, submitted a petition opposing the project and signed by 24
residents to staff. At the meeting, staff presented the petition to the Planning
Commissioners. Mr. HedRam stated he has concerns with the obstruction of the view, and
believes the mono-palm would lower their property values. He displayed photos of the north
elevation and east elevation. He stated there are no trees nearby the 68-foot mono-palm,
and suggested that they relocate the mono-palm.
Mr. Kroll, who lives on Palm Court north of the cell site, stated that after seeing staff's
presentation he was mislead when he signed the petition. Mr. Kroll also stated that he has
no objections and supports the location of the mono-palm. Ms. Moloshco, who lives east of
the mono-palm location, had concerns that the mono-palm would be an eyesore.
Staff stated that when the applicant originally submitted an application for the CUP, the
mono-palm was proposed to be located closer to Hovley Lane West, which is closer to the
residential homes to the west. Staff and the ARC expressed concerns with the original
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-231 Verizon Mono-Palm Temple Sinai\CC appeal Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 12-231, Verizon Mono-palm
Page 5 of 7
May 9, 2013
location because it was closer to residents, and there was insufficient landscaping to
mitigate the mono-palm. Staff worked with the applicant to find an alternative location.
The proposed location is approximately 226 feet from the residents to the east, 480 feet
from the residents to the west, 400 feet from residents to the south, and 410 feet from
residents to the north. Typically, when staff reviews CUP's for mono-palms they are
noticeable. In this case, the proposed 68-foot tall mono-palm is screened by six existing
palm trees that vary in height between 27 feet and 55 feet tall, with smaller olive trees in the
area. Staff agreed with Mr. HedRam that the mono-palm would stick out to the residents to
the east. Staff recommended adding a condition of approval to place three to five live palm
trees either in front or in line with the mono-palm to the east. The applicant agreed to the
condition, and the Planning Commission added the condition to their motion of approval.
The proposed 68-foot mono-palm and the 414-square-foot equipment shelter meet all
development standards. The following findings responding to the Telecommunications Act
and the Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.104 Commercial Communication Tower
Regulations explain the rationale for granting approval:
A. Findings for Approval:
Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act, wireless facility applications are evaluated
based on two fundamental questions.
1. Is there a significant gap in coverage?
2. Is the proposed location and design the least intrusive available solution?
Is there a Significant Gap in Coverage?
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility is located within a Planned
Residential zone. The proposed 68-foot tall mono-palm is to enhance wireless
telecommunications services within the general vicinity. Coverage areas must be
improved and network capacity expanded to handle the growing number of calls and
wireless data usage. The coverage map illustrates that there is a significant gap in
coverage in this vicinity.
Is this Design and Location the Least Intrusive Available Solution?
Throughout the City of Palm Desert there are a number of mono-palms ranging in size from 60
to 75 feet in height, especially in south Palm Desert. The site itself is landscaped and located
226 to 480 feet away from any residential homes. The 68-foot tall mono-palm design, with
existing palm trees will adequately camouflage the mono-palm to mitigate any negative
aesthetic concerns. The applicant originally proposed the mono-palm closer to Hovley Lane
West, which is closer to the residential homes to the west. Staff expressed concerns with
the original location because it would have been more visually intrusive to the residents,
and motorists. The Planning Commission believes that this is the least intrusive location at
this property.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word�CUP's\CUP 12-231 Verizon Mono-Palm Temple Sinai\CC appeal Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 12-231, Verizon Mono-palm
Page 6 of 7
May 9, 2013
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 technologically 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 statf report to provide documentation as to the service needed in the
proposed service area. A propagation study was undertaken to analyze the
optimum placement for the 12 cellular panels. It was concluded that the area
had low service and the proposed facility was necessary to off-load
congested sites, to provide phone service for users within the area, and to
provide carriers with expanded services.
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.
Site selection and the 68-foot mono-palm height is 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 Coachella Valley make it difficult to cover the proposed
service area even with mu/tiple sites.
c. That the applicant shows compelling technological 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 Planning Commission's review and attached for the
record. Existing coverage in the area is inadequate for existing customers.
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility disguised as a 68-foot tall
mono-palm would allow for better service, and provide expanded services.
The applicant has enclosed a copy of their existing coverage map based on
the new wire/ess site, along with a/etter of site justification.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\CUP's\CUP 12-231 Verizon Mono-Palm Temple Sinai\CC appeal Staff Report.doc
Staff Report
Case No. CUP 12-231, Verizon Mono-palm
Page 7 of 7
May 9, 2013
Environmental Review
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine
whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA,
staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project
is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is
necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative
Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the
environment.
In this case, the proposed project is a Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures (15303) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review is
necessary
Submitted By:
Kevin Swartz, Assistant�Planner
Department Head:
�-%
�� �
Laur"�ylaian, Director of Community Developmer�t
M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
COUNCILACTIOI�1
APPROVED_�� DENiED
RECEIVED OTHER
MEETING DATE .�.,..,�5 - �l - � 1 � �
AYES: -��� •,� �• � , Tanr► ,�������
NOES: �,,....��62�.
ABSEN'I: N� . �
ABSTAIN: �Q�'1`�- �
VERIFIED BY: �;h K r+�
Originai on Fite with Ci�jr Clerk'a ftice
*Adopted Res. No. 2013-19,as
amended, to include Applicant's
relocation of one existing
50-foot palm tree in the group
where the mono-palm will be
installed, workign with staff and
the residents for addition of
three to five live palm trees
around the mono-palm for visual
relief.
G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\VJord�CUP's\CUP 12431 Verizon Mono-Palm Temple Sinai\CC appeal StaN Report.doc
RESOLUTION NO. �
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PALM DESERT,�`'�
CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNII�G
COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
12-231 ALLOWING A NEW VERIZON 68-FOOT WIR ESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MONO-PALM AND NEW EQUIPMENT S LTER
LOCATED AT TEMPLE SINAI AT 73251 HOVLEY LANE WEST. ;
CASE NO: CUP 12-231 /�
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, Calif�r'nia, did on the 9th day
of May 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the rec�est by Verizon Wireless
for approval of the above noted; and /
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of P,�Im Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of March 2013, hold a duly noticed public he ing to consider the request by
Verizon Wireless for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, according to the California Enviro�'mental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
must determine whether a proposed activity is a pr�ject subject to CEQA. If the project is
subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary,. assessment of the project to determine
whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further
environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result
in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant
impact on the environment. The said application has complied with the requirements of the
"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act," Resolution No. 2012-20, in the Director of Community Development has determined
that the proposed project is a Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures (15303) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review 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 approve the said request:
Findings for Approval:
Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act, wireless faciliry applications are evaluated
based on two fundamental questions.
1. Is tfiere a significant gap in coverage?
2. ,Js the proposed location and design the least intrusive available solution?
p�
�
i
i
J
r
�
RESOLUTION NO.
Is there a Significant Gap in Coverage?
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility is located within a Planned
Residential zone. The proposed 68-foot tall mono-palm is to enhance wireless
telecommunications services within the general vicinity. Coverage areas must be
improved and network capacity expanded to handle the growing num�ier of calls and
wireless data usage. The coverage map illustrates that there is a significant gap in
coverage in this vicinity.
Is this Design and Location the Least Intrusive Available Solution?
Throughout the City of Palm Desert there are a number of mono-palms ranging in
size from 60 to 75 feet in height, especially in south Palm Desert. The site itself is
landscaped and located 226 to 480 feet away from any residential homes. The 68-
foot tall mono-palm design, with existing palm trees will adequately camouflage the
mono-palm to mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. The applicant originally
proposed the mono-palm closer to Hovley Lane West, which is closer to the
residential homes to the west. Staff expressed concerns with the original location
because it would have been more visually intri.r�ive to the residents, and motorists.
The Planning Commission believes that thi�-�is the least intrusive location at this
property. �
Additional findings for the approval of co�mercial communication towers are stated
in Municipal Code Section 25.104.030 Permitted Commercial Communication
Towers and Commercial Communica�ion Antennas in Zoning Districts of City, "As
such, new freestanding commercial communication towers/commercial
communication antennas shall not �e allowed unless the applicant substantiates to
the satisfaction of the Planning Ca'mmission:"
a. That existing towers and buiidings do not technologically afford the applicant the
ability to provide service ta the service area of the applicant or service provider.
A project description le�'ter has been submitted by the applicant and attached to
the staff report to provide documentation as to the service needed in the
proposed service a�ea. A propagation study was undertaken to analyze the
optimum placemerJ,� for the 12 cellular panels. It was concluded that the area
had low service d the proposed facility was necessary to off-load congested
sites, to provide hone service for users within the area, and to provide carriers
with expanded ervices.
b. That the eographical boundaries of the proposed service area cannot
technolo 'cally be bifurcated to avoid the necessity for a freestanding
tower/antenna at the height proposed.
Site selection and the 68-foot mono-palm height is the resu/t of a computer
analysis of service coverage requirements for Southern California and the
C:\Documents and Settings\moreilly\Local Settings\Temporary lntemet Files\Content.0utlook\SFJXXF28\Final CC Res Verizon Monopalm.doc
2
RESOLUTION NO.
United States. Topography (both natural and man-made) and vegetation
characteristics of the Coachella Valley make it difficu/t to cover the proposed
service area even with multiple sites.
c. That the applicant shows compelling technological 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 Planning Commission's review ,and attached for the
record. Existing coverage in the area is inadequate for existing customers. The
proposed wireless telecommunication facility disguised as a 68-foot tall mono-
palm would allow for better service, and provide expanded services. The
applicant has enclosed a copy of their existing coverage map based on the new
wireless site, along with a letter of site justification.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby recommend approval of CUP 12-231, subject
to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND AD4PTED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 9th day of Mav 2013, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
JAN C. HARNICK, MAYOR
C:\�ocuments and Settings\moreilly\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\5FJXXF28\Final CC Res Verizon Monopalm.doc
3
RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO: CUP 12-231
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. 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.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from #he above agencies shall be presented to
the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the
use contemplated herewith.
4. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office
before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to
the Department of Community DevelopmentlPlanning.
5. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city against any third party
legal challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the city at applicant's
expense.
6. Any proposed change of fhis Conditional Use Permit will require an amendment, which
will result in a new public hearing.
7. Improvements that are not on the approved site plan may be subject to additional
requirements and p-Can submittals by the Public Works Department.
8. The lease agreeJ�ient for the 68-foot mono-palm must be in place prior to installation.
9. The applicant�nust install three to five live palm trees that vary in height from 35 feet to
45 feet. The palm trees must be in line and/or in front of the mono-palm, in order to
provide visual relief for the residents to the east.
10.The roof and outside walls of the equipment shelter must match the existing building.
C.\Documents and Settings\moreilly\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\SFJXXF28\Final CC Res Verizon Monopalm.doc
0
RESOLUTION NO.
11.The equipment shelter building pad must be raised six inches to match top of parking
lot curb.
12. A landscape planter must be added around the equipment shelter. The landscape
plans must be approved by the Landscape Specialist before issuance of building
permits.
13.The construction drawings must come back to the ARC for final approval. The air
conditioning units must be shown on the construction plans.
14.This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes:
A. 2010 California Building Code and its appendices,�nd standards.
B. 2010 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards.
C. 2010 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards.
D. 2010 California Electrical Code.
E. 2010 California Energy Code.
F. 2010 California Green Building Standards Code
G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations.
H. 2010 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards.
15. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5.
16.A11 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 37(�0.
17.Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1217 (Palm Desert
Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1217 regarding street address
location, dimension, stroke o� line, distance from street, height from grade, height from
street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible
obstructions, shadows, li�hting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may
render the building ad¢fess unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review
process. You may requ'est a copy of Ordinance 1217 or Municipal Code Section 15.28
from the Department eif Building and Safety counter staff.
,
18. Please contact Ch,erie Williams, Building and Safety Technician, at the Department of
Building and Saf,�ty (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or
suites.
C:\Oocuments and Settings\moreilly\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.0utlook\SFJXXF28\Final CC Res Verizon Monopalm.doc
5
C11Y �F P�ll��l ������
73-5io F2eo W,�kiNc Dk�vF
PALM DESERI', C.4LIPORNIA Oz26o—z578
TEL: �GO 346-06��
F,�x: 760 34i-7o9a
in(oC�palm-dcsert. org `
l�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. CUP 12-231
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
City Council to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission action approving
Conditional Use Permit 12-231 allowing a new wireless 68-foot mono-palm with 12
antennas, and an equipment shelter located at Temple Sinai. The property is located at
73251 Hovley Lane West.
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers 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 �a't the above address
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge
the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
April 29, 2013 Palm Desert City Councii
� : : �, ,: .
, ,.�ao
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
APPLICATION TO APPEAL
�'C�F�'N'I1�G ��//1`'':l��S'S/o�
DECISION OF THE ���� ��✓��2� _ - .
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. C� f � 2� 2� � Date of Decision: 3� ��` �^ 13
Name of Appellant � � r� N��.���� Phone �6� --2�� r 8y �3
Address `� �1��� C�lt�/��/'�/'�/t� L- C�l%�C L�
city, state, zip ��-LM �J�.S �,QT �'�1 �`�22(a� E-mai� �N�.D�'�1/►?
. ��R��G���� �r
Description of
Application or Matter Considered:�if 11yl�iU� ��li('l�'� �} T��/l�l�'L �,�'%/1�i4 �
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary): � 1�� CK� �� ��S f��
/
�w —
��e�
���
�
oQ��
W
�► c/� w %L'
�� �
Uwo �
WJ=
�V� �
�
d- a
w �
Date Appeal Filed
Treasurer's Receipt No. �_��t� � Received by: �\ l'��-�'; -.
Date of Consideration by City Council or City O�cial- ��(�77—�
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY �
t-�'-> �-- �r�� ,'� Fee Received: � �—� �, ^
���G
`'�Sigr�ature of Appeilant)
Action Taken:
Date:
COPY
�. Klassen, City Clerk
'J,�f�
H:\WPdataIWPDOCS�FORMS�app1 to appeal-jun 201 t.wpd
Rev 6/16/71
APPEAL TO: Palm Desert City Council
REF: CASE NO. CUP 12-231
On 3-19-13, at a hearing before the Planning Commission we (24 residents of
Centennial Circle and Palm Court, the adjacent streets to the Temple Sinai)
submitted our objection to the PROPOSED construction of the Verizon Wireless
mono-palm 12 antennas on the Temple property.
Our main concern was the obstruction of an unappealing structure that will
disturb our view of the mountains.
We were never invited to participate at the initial planning stage of this proposed
antenna, where we could have raised our objections, if any, or propose an
alternative solution.
Instead, we were served with a 10-day notification for a hearing, where we only
had 3 minutes to respond, and to propose an alternative which could have been
agreed upon amicably (myself, Eitan Hedram, was granted 5 additional minutes to
present my alternative location for the antenna, which was struck down by the
Planning Commission).
We are hereby, appealing to the City Council to reconsider a new location for the
antenna which will be approximately 100 Ft. to the west and about 40 Ft. to the
south from the location authorized at the Planning Commission's 3-19-13 hearing
(please see attached plan, page 2).
In a brief ineeting with Mr. Jack Olshansky today, 4-2-13, he was agreeable to the
�It��'11atIVe IpGa�jQn a� a�p��red o� tkle �ttached �lan.
Pag� �.
a oe,u�e aaw.a comanecrs
� �� 9
, o � �� �
� o d
M � �
A
� } b \\� 0 Cz9
����5 � �� \ H
�- s��da r �
C � �'� ,
�
��n � � �
� � � � � W
�
� �� �
.� �v A � � ^"T��,S
� � �„�...,m. .. ' `
�
i �
��
i
,..., .. � , ry�,_..,, ....,.r�
.., �/"�� . .
�� � � �
���
�
1
�
�
� �
l
�
3*
�
���
___ �
�
`��`'
�\�
�
�
�
�
Ci7
d
�
Z �
c
� �.
m �
����� ��,,,,�,���d�,W�:,,�.���,
--� ...., r_+ r�'
Q • N� ci� ��'7
�.�� �
�. :�,
V: �a ..a� �:
� � .
r
� � �
� ro ✓
�`
�
�
d
,.� �.
r. ��
..;v -�., .-«
a., ± ,1.
���
r
Z /
Z \
ci
m ,
0
m �
v
a �
�
�
m
z
�
c
�
m
0
r��''�/
�
6�
O
�
�
m
n
m
<
m
�
�
�
�
�
_
m
C)
�
�
-�
�
m
D
�
C
�l
m
�
PAYOft
� 70 ->.
, � n '�1;,
ii' " `- � `
m ; �- "T�';,�
� m �� ,
0
�
1 70 <'' �
�.. � �n �
� o�
�
.. � �
� "� m �
0
. v � - rn D `�o
� � ��
,�
�� � o�
,'� ` m �;° �
�� � � � �
r �h( iV � �
� m `�
m �
• � c� o
m -+
�
� �
( � D
' � N
� �' N
�
0
•_•-�
��,
,.�,
�
��
�
�/
D
�
O p
�,�
� �
� �
�� V
i�
fV
W
O
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Klassen, Rachelle
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:23 PM
To: Aylaian, Lauri; Bagato, Tony; Swartz, Kevin
Subject: Appeal - Case No. 12-231-Monopalm
Attachments: PC Appeal-Case CUP 12-231-Monopalm.pdf
Importance: High
A copy of an Appeal just submitted from the March 19, 2013, Planning Commission decision is attached.
na�aaeea n. KeassaH, nanle
City Clerk, City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
(760) 346-0611, Ext. 304
Fax: (760) 340-0574
e-mail: rklassenC�citvofaalmdesert.or�
MINUTES � �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2013
V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2013.
Rec: By Minute Motion, approve as presented.
Upon a motion by Dash, second by Campbell, and 4-0 vote of the Planning
Commission, the Consent Calendar was approved as amended with Commissioner
Limont ABSENT.
VII. CONSENT �TEMS HELD OVER
None
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a
fitness & gym facility within an existing office professional building located at
44-651 Village Court. Case No. CUP 12-385 (Five Star Fitness & Gym, LLC,
73-585 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 201, Palm Desert, CA, Applicant).
Commissioner Stendell recused himself from participating due to a potential
conflict of interest.
Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, reported that on March 6, staff met with the
applicant regarding concerns outlined in the staff report. He said the applicant
requested additional time, and staff recommended continuing the public hearing
to April 16.
Chair DeLuna asked if the applicant would be ready by April 16.
Mr. Swartz replied yes.
Commissioner Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to continue Item A(Case No.
CUP 12-385) to the April 16, 2013, Planning Commission meeting. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Campbell and carried by a 3-0 vote with Limont and
Stendell ABSENT.
B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
new Verizon 68-foot wireless telecommunications mono-palm and new
,,.,.�,�,► equipment shelter located at Temple Sinai at 73-251 Hovley Lane West. Case
No. CUP 12-231 (Verizon Wireless, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Bldg.
D104, Irvine, CA, Applicant).
2
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\3-19�13 min.docx
MINUTES ' �.
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2013
Mr. Swartz reported that a petition was delivered before 5:00 p.m. today from
residents in the surrounding area that have concerns with the proposed mono-
palm. He said he would address the petition after his presentation.
He stated the proposed mono-palm would be located in an existing landscape
area in front of the Temple Sinai building, and the equipment shelter would be
located within the parking lot. Mr. Swartz displayed photos of the proposed
mono-pa(m and its iocation. He noted that the mono-paim is approximately 200
feet away from the residents to the east, 385 feet away from residents to the
south, 465 feet away from residents to the west, and 400 feet away from
residents to the north. The property is zoned Planned Residential. He said the
68-foot mono-palm is proposed with 12 panef antennas located on the outside of
the tree. The antennas are 60 feet in height, and screened by the artificial palm
fronds. He added that the project includes a 414-square-foot equipment shelter
made out of masonry bfock with a mansard roof. The equipment she(ter would
occupy four existing parking spaces within the parking lot. Mr. Swartz said the
building would be 13 feet high, and located on a new concrete pad. He also said
that the utilities would be installed underground. He presented photos that
display the various heights of the palms, including the mono-pafm.
Mr. Swartz stated a notice of the public hearing was mailed to owners of property
within 300 feet. There were numerous residents to the north and to the east that
came in to talk to the City regarding the mono-palm. He then addressed the
concerns itemized in the petition. He referred to Item B of the petition, and stated
that the City does not get involved with any financial gain from the mono-palm.
He stated that Item C regarding the harmful radiation is governed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). He made clear that the Conditional Use
Permit is for the (and use. Mr. Swartz said that regarding Item A, staff agrees with
the residents from the east that the mono-palm would stick out. Staff
recommended adding a condition of approval to place three to four (ive palm
trees either in front or in line with the mono-palm, which the app(icant has agreed
to. Mr. Swartz stated staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions. He
offered to answer any questions.
Chair DeLuna inquired at what rate do the natural palm trees grow.
Ms. Aylaian responded that the palm trees grow approximate(y 6 to 12 inches a
year.
Chair DeLuna asked what the height of the added palm trees wou(d be.
Mr. Swartz replied that staff recommended 35 to 50 feet. He noted that he is not
sure if the applicant wouid be able to bring in a 50-foot tree.
Chair DeLuna asked if Temple Sinai approves of the proposed mono-palm.
Mr. Swartz answered yes. �
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\3-19-13 min.docx
�?
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2013
Commissioner Stendell inquired if there is a formal notice sent out during the
Architectural Review Commission process.
Mr. Swartz responded that a notice is not sent out during the Architectural
Review Commission process.
Commissioner Dash inquired if the appearance of the mono-palm (leaves and
trunk) would be much different from the natural palm trees.
Mr. Swartz replied that the mono-palm is artificial, but designed to blend in with
the existing palm trees.
Commissioner Campbell commented that there are quite a few mono-palms in
the City, and they seem to blend in well. She added that the mono-palms are
usually well maintained so they do not have to worry about the palm fronds
bleaching out.
Mr. Swartz interjected that maintenance of the mono-palm is a condition of
approval.
Commissioner Campbell asked how many trees are being planted around the
mono-palm.
Mr. Swartz responded that staff recommended three to four.
Commissioner Stendell inquired if the additional trees would be strategically
located to a specific or particular line of sight that might be worse than others.
Mr. Swartz said that staff would work with the applicant. He commented that the
additional palms would mainly screen the mono-palm from the east.
Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing o�en and invited the Applicant to address the
Commission on this matter, followed by any public testimony IN FAVOR or
OPPOSITION.
MR. MIKE HAYS, Spectrum Services, 8390 Maple Place, Suite 1, Rancho
Cucamonga, California, stated staff did a good job at presenting the proposed
mono-palm. He said they would diligently attempt to screen the mono-palm as
much as possible. He mentioned that finding this location has been a two-year
process. Mr. Hays feels they have acted in good faith, and have done the best
that they can to screen the mono-palm from the general public and still provide
the services that are required.
MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS KROLL, 40672 Palm Court, Palm Desert, California,
stated he was confused or mislead when he signed the petition. He said the
person that had him sign the petition showed the mono-palm to be located right
on the edge of Hovley Lane. Mr. Kroll said that after the presentation and seeing
4
G:\Planning\Monip OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\3-1313 min.dcex
MINUTES . ` �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2013
photos, he is now aware that the mono-palm is set back. He stated that he has
no objections and supports approval of the mono-palm.
MS. CAROLYN MOLOSHCO, 40840 Centennial Circle, Palm Desert, California,
stated she lives on the east side of Temple Sinai. She is concerned that the
mono-palm would be an eyesore to the residents in the area, specifically the
residents on Centennial Circle. She asked if there could be a better location for
the mono-palm, possibly between the temple and the temple school. This
location would impact Temple Sinai more than the residents since they (Temple
Sinai) would benefit financially. Ms. Moloshco asked how many mono-palms are
in Palm Desert.
Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, responded that he does not have an exact
number. In the past, they have processed approximately three to four CUP
applications for mono-palms a year. He said the requests for wireless
telecommunications have trickled down because they are as needed for
coverage and capacity needs. He stated there are approximately 20 that look like
mono-palms in the City, and there are also some that look like pine trees. He
also noted that in some service areas there are green poles, which are not
attractive.
MS. MOLOSHCO inquired if there is a commercially zoned property where the
mono-palm could be placed since they are in a residential area. She stated that it
is not fair to have something of this nature in their backyard.
Ms. Aylaian addressed Chair DeLuna that rather than entering into a dialogue
with the speakers, staff could address questions that speakers might have at the
end of the testimonies.
MS. MOLOSCHO mentioned that the additional trees would grow at a slower
pace, and she does not think the additional palm trees would be very helpful.
MS. EILEEN MENZEA, 40780 Centennial Circle, Palm Desert, California, stated
she is concerned with her view if the mono-palm is installed. She also
understands that the City has nothing to do with the FCC regulations, but is
concerned with the mono-palm being near a school. Ms. Menzea mentioned that
she believes that Temple Sinai already has a permit, and the City should not
continue granting permits. She believes the original Temple Sinai's permit is only
for the temple and the structures on the property. She does not think things
should be added that are not associated with the temple. She stated the
proposed location for the mono-palm is not the right place and believes it would
not blend in. Ms. Menzea thanked the Planning Commission for their time.
MR. EITAN HED-RAN, 40840 Centennial Circle, Palm Desert, California, stated
he has been discussing the mono-palm issue with the neighbors, and that he
circulated a petition with approximately 25 signatures. He requested additional
time to explain their objections to the proposed mono-palm.
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\3-1gt3 min.docx
5
MINUTES ` _
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMlSSION MARCH 19, 2013
Ms. Aylaian interjected that it is up to the Planning Commission to aAow extra
time, and suggested a five minute limit.
The Planning Commission granted Mr. Hed-Ran five additional minutes.
MR. HED-RAN stated that he is the oldest resident on Centennial Circle, and
was one of the subcontractors that buiit the street and the original church. He is
concerned with the obstruction of the view and deterioration of the property
value. Their intention is to eliminate the proposed antenna because it does not
belong in a residential zone. He mentioned that he believes Temple Sinai is
suffering financially, and that they are willing to sacrifice the quality of the
residents' views by imposing structures that are not natural. He displayed photos
of the north elevation. He noted he took a picture of a mono-palm in Indio, which
he is not sure if it is the same model being proposed by Verizon. Mr. Hed-Ran
said in his opinion the elevations Verizon presented are misleading. He stated
the structure to the top of the tempie is 30 feet, and the proposed 68-foot mono-
palm is going to be more than twice the height of the building in the picture. He
noted that there are no trees nearby the 68-foot tower. Mr. Hed-Ran referred to
additional photos to iilustrate how their views would be obstructed with the
proposed mono-palm. He suggested that they relocate the mono-palm to the
rose garden.
Mr. Swartz displayed a photo to show the location of the rose garden.
MR. HED-RAN believes a better location for the mono-palm would be the rose
garden or Monterey Avenue near the utilities. He thanked the Planning
Commission for giving him the opportunity to plead his case.
Chair DeLuna asked if there is a picture of the proposed mono-palm.
Mr. Swartz replied yes and displayed a photo.
Chair DeLuna noted that the proposed mono-paim has considerably more fronds
than the mono-palm depicted by Mr. Hed-Ran.
MR. HAYS commented on the suggestion from Mr. Hed-Ran to relocate the
mono-palm to the rose garden. He said the reason they chose the current
location is because the mono-palm would be surrounded by multiple palm trees.
If they were to place it in the rose garden, it would stick out. He said that they
looked at locating the mono-palm by the Coachella Valley Water District or on
Hovley. He believes they found the best location on the property. He also
addressed the comment made about the height of the additional palm trees to be
the height of the tower. He explained that having the palm trees the same height
of the tower would block the signal.
Mr. Swartz commented on the concern regarding the mono-palm being in a
residentiai zone. He said that they do have other mono-palms within residential
6
G:\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission�2013\Minutes\3-t&13 min.docx
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 19, 2013
zones. He stated there are two in Palm Valley Country Club, one within Indian
Ridge, two within Oasis Country Club, and three at St. MargareYs Church.
Mr. Bagato added that there is one in Bighorn, and one was just approved at
Presbyterian Church. He referred to the propagation map, and said a mono-palm
is determined and based on need for coverage. The map shows there is a gap
on the coverage; therefore, the mono-palm is being proposed.
Ms. Aylaian commented on the concern made by one of the speakers that 35
feet was not going to be effective. She communicated that typicat{y in the past
with the Architectural Review Commission, the conditions are set for a range of
heights because it is most effective if you have a staggered natural growth
looking cfuster of palm trees rather than having them in a uniform height except
for the mono-palm. She stated that the Planning Commission could require three
or four palm trees to be added, and that they are staggered in height from 35 to
50 feet.
With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Dash commented that the Planning Commission has been
advised of what would be a good approach to settling the problem in terms to the
concerns of the community. He noted that he does not know if it would settle the
problem; however, it would certainly move in that direction. He stated as it has
been communicated, the Commissioners are limited in terms of what they can
respond to on the list received from the opponents. Commissioner Dash moved
for approval.
Commissioner Dash moved, by Minute Motion, ta allow a new Verizon 68-foot
wireless telecommunications mono-pa{m and new equipment shelter located at Temple
Sinai with an addition to the conditions to add additional palm trees in staggered heights
on the east side of the monopalm. Motion was seconded by Stendelf and carried by a 4-
0 vote with Limont ABSENT.
Commissioner
adopt Resolution No.
with Limont ABSENT.
��
Dash moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and
2599. Motion was seconded by Stendell and carried by a 4-0 vote
Ms. Aylaian suggested that staff work with the applicant and residents, with the
actual positioning of the surrounding palm trees. She also suggested, if
acceptable with the neighbors, staff could visit their backyards to afign the palm
trees to minimize the impact of the residents' views.
MISCELLANEOUS
None
7
G:\Planning\Monica OReiIlylPlanning Commission�2013\Minutes\3-19-13 min.docx
•��.
••t
# �I 14� t
�
b!� ��;r ��
�'r?,����,�.:�. :{,�Y'i;.! :
��.,'�..r cit= �-
ti a-��a���:•'
February 13, 2013
'�.�
..�� h
� � � �
� � � � � ��
� � � � �� �
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTlON
CASE NO: CUP 12-231
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESSI: LOS ANGELES SMSA LP, dba Verizon Wireless, Attn:
Mike Hayes, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Building D104, Irvine, CA 92618
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a continued item to
find an alternative cell site location.
LOCATlON: 73-251 Hovley Lane
ZONE: PR-5:
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the applicant, the
Architectural Review Commission granted preliminary approval subject to: 1) the roof
materials shal! match existing buildings; 2) outside wa!! materials shall match existing
buildings; 3) building raised 6" above parking lot grade to match top of curb as indicated
on the plans; 4) a planter sha!! run around the building as indicated on the plans; 5)
submit a planting plan to the Landscape Specialist; 6) air conditioning units shall be on
the construction drawings; and 7) applicant to submit working drawings for final approval.
Date of Action: February '! 2, 2013
Vote: Motion carried 8-0
(An appea! of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of
Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this
approved plan would need to be re-submitted to the Commission for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building and Safety.
ARCHITECTURAL RE� � COMMISSION
MINUTES
Commissioner Gregory asked if there
further comments.
Commissioner Vuksic informed tj��applicant that one of the things the
Commission will be looking �s that the connectors are hidden.
Commissioner Col�r6ini made the second.
ACTION:
Commissiqner Stendell moved to grant conceptual approval subject to
applic r�submitting final working drawings for approval. Motion was seconded
b ommissioner Colombini and carried by an 8-0 vote.
2. CASE NO: CUP 12-231
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LOS ANGELES SMSA LP, dba
Verizon Wireless, Attn: Mike Hayes, 15505 Sand Canyon Avenue,
Building D104, Irvine, CA 92618
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Consideration of a
continued item to find an alternative ce11 site location.
LOCATION: 73-251 Hovley Lane
ZONE: PR-5:
Mr. Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner, said this item was continued from
September 25, 2012 for a 68' tall monopalm at Temple Sinai. He
presented a PowerPoint presentation of the property and the proposed
location of the monopalm. The Commission had some concerns with
the previous proposal because of the impact on the adjacent
neighborhood and lack of landscaping in that area. This was
continued to allow the applicant to find an alternative site for the
monopalm. The applicant is now proposing the monopalm to be
located directly in front of the building along with existing palm trees
that range in size from 48', 55', 51' 46' and 27 all the way to 44', 53',
55', and 34'. The equipment shelter will be located in the parking lot.
The biggest impact is that the monopalm will be directly in front of the
Temple Sinai building, which has been approved by them.
Commissioner Gregory said it appears that the equipment shelter is
plopped right on top of the asphalt. He asked if there would be
curbing around it to make it iooked finished.
MR. M{KE HAYES, Spectrum Surveying and Engineering, said this
structure wifl be a masonry building and the roof wiH match the existing
building.
February 12, 2013,_
s
%
G:�PlanninglJanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes\2013\t30212min.docx Page 8 of 11
ARCHITECTURAL R�:.,:a� W COMMISSION
MINUTES �
� '�
February 12, 2013
The Commission reviewed the equipment shelter and recommended
that it have at least a 24" perimeter around it along with landscaping and
wood-braced curbing to match the rest of the planters. They asked
where the conduit would be and MR. HAYES said it would all be
underground.
The Commission asked how tall the structure was and MR. HAYES said
it was 14'-8", which includes the top of the mansard roof. He indicated
the air conditioning unit will be on a raised 6" concrete pad.
The Commission discussed the roof and the air conditioning unit. It was
noted that there was a recessed area on the roaf plans which looks like
the A/C unit may be on the roof. They also pointed ouf fhat the existing
roof doesn't look like a mansard roof and thought the perimeter may be
mansard.
Commissioner Gregory said he would like to move this forward with
conditions. He said the roof materials would match the existing roof and
the equipment structure would sit on a 6" high slab. One of the plans
indicates planting around the building, so a planting plan should be
submitted to the staff for review and approval. He wasn't sure if the
CMU matches the building so he suggested that the face of the walls
match the existing building walls.
Commissioner Colombini still� had concerns with the height of the air
conditioning unit and asked again if they would be on the roof of the
building where the plans show a recess. He mentioned that this did not
appear on the plans.
MR. HAYES said the air conditioning units sit inside the building and
vent through the roof. It is not indicated on the plans because these are
not structural drawings.
Commissioner Colombini said if it will be on the outside on the roof well,
then the parapet has to be low enough to hide the unit.
MR. HAYES said the next set of drawings wili show the (ocations of all
the equipment.
Commissioner Vuksic said he was worried about a lot of stuff getting left
for final construction documents because sometimes it's a while before
those come back to this Commission. He was concerned that the
Commission wouldn't remember the project and what they were
supposed to be looking for in the working drawings. He asked how the
Commission can remember what was recommended.
G:1PlanningUanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes�2013\130212min.docac Page 9 of 11
ARCHITECTURAL RE� ��V COMMISSION -
MINUTES �" � February 12, 2013
Commissioner Gregory said by having a very complex motion.
Mr. Bagato pointed out that the CUP is mainly for the tower and staff will
move it on to Planning Commission, but staff could bring it back to the
Commission with the shelter design.
MR. HAYES said they normally do their construction drawings
concurrently with the zoning drawings so when he submits for planning
he can also submit a set of construction drawings.
ACTION:
Commissioner Gregory moved to grant preliminary approval subject to: 1) the
roof materials shall match existing buildings; 2) outside wall materials shall
match existing buildings; 3) building raised 6" above parking lot grade to match
top of curb as indicated on the plans; 4) a planter shall run around the building
as indicated on the plans; 5) submit a planting plan to the Landscape
Specialist; 6) air conditioning units shall be on the construction drawings; and
7) applicant to submit working drawings for final approval. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Stendell and carried by an 8-0 vote.
Miscellaneous Items:
None
VI. ART IN �BLIC PLACES UPDATE — Commissioner John Vuksic
Commissione Vuksic reported on the last Art in Public Places (AIPP) meeting. He
discussed upco 'ng events: Modernism Week starts February 15; Tour of Sand
Piper and Marrake Country Club, February 19; Fashion Week starts March 15; an
art party will be hel at the Palm Springs Art MuseumJPalm Desert, April 27;
Chamber mixer, May 15, tudent tours will take place every Wednesday starting at
the museum. Three artists re added to the pre-approved list for the museum. New
appointments were made to th �PP Commission. Palm Desert Community Gallery
will open a new exhibit, "My Ame �'can Idol" on February 14. Desertscapes will run
the entire month of April featuring fii7�s, workshops, and exhibits. The new website
for AIPP is up and running and the Steelroots sculpture by Steve Tobin has been
placed on the east end of the civic center complex on Fred Waring.
VII. COMMENTS
None
�
G:\PlanningWanineJudy\Word Files\1 ARC\1Minutes�201 311 30 21 2min.docx Page 10 of 11
�
��,; .
CITY UF PA1.M DESERT, CALi�ORNIA
APPL1C�iTlt�►�1 iU APPEA�
� �r�`� �'� ,��ssf��'
DECISIC?N C}F THE �'��� ���'��� �`� ° °"`-�—
{Name of Determining Bady)
Case No. � � � � � { � � � Date of Decision: `" � � �" � �
Name of Appellant � �'� � �/� Phone ��� ""-�-��' 8� �-�
Add ress � t� ��L� � �jr t�l�'j/� �--- � 1 �C �. �-
City, State, Zip ��'�--/� .� � t� � �jt� � �� �. �al� E-maii �r��.��'`�1�
�'f4�i�,�,�`�r �7�
Descripfian of
Applica�ion or Matter Gonsidered: Ati�.I�t'V`1�� �� 1'� �� ..�'f/�� i
Reason for Appeai (attach additional sheefs if necessary): � 17,.� ��� �,� ��� ��.�
w ..—
�
wt� �� �
t��i�t � ti _ ./'��
v� t� a�.,
� �"�'�' N j� � G
cY w
cswt�
� ` ' (Sig #ure of AppelEant)
o�G�= ,�
� � ��� ��
a �
FOR OFFIClAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: �''-��--�-'�-r�`�{;�, Fee Received: ��`�� ^�
-�
Treasurers Receipt No. .°�` t"� � Received by: ,�.c� �.
� �
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: �
�
Action Taken:
Date:
COPY�� �.acheHe D. Klassen, City Cierk
_ „�, � � � ,
DATE __.��� �"
H:\WPdata�WPDOCSIFORMSIeppl W �peslyun 2071.wpd � Rev &16117
�
APPEAL TO: Palm Desert City Counci{
REF: CASE N0. CUP 12-231
�
On 3-19-13, at a hearing before the Planning Commission we (24 residents of
Centennial Circle and Palm Court, the adjacent streets to the Temple Sinai)
submitted our objection to the PRfJPOSED construction of the Verizon Wireless
mono-palm 12 antennas on the Temple property.
�ur main concern was the obstruction of an unappealing structure that will
disturb our view of the mountains.
We were never invited to participate at the initial planning stage of this proposed
antenna, where we could have raised our objections, if any, or propose an
alternative solution.
Instead, we were served with a 10-day notification for a hearing, where we only
had 3 minutes to respond, and to propose an alternative which could have been
agreed upon amicably (myseif, Eitan Hedram, was granted 5 additional minutes to
present my alternative Iocation for the antenna, which was struck down by the
Planning Commission).
We are hereby, appealing to the City Council to reconsider a new location for the
antenna which will be approximately 100 Ft. to the west and about 40 Ft. to the
south from the location authorized at the P{anning Commission's 3-19-13 hearing
(please see attached plan, page 2).
In a brief ineeting with Mr. Jack Olshansky today, 4-2-13, he was agreeable to the
alt�1'rla�iye (pc��iQn as �ppe�red o� the �ttached �lan.
Pag� �
: / �- •, , �s�`• �
TO: Palm Desert Planning�; �mmission
SUBJECT: Proposed construction of wireless mono-palm at the Temple Sinai at
73251 Hovley Lane West, Palm Desert, CA. CASE NO. CUP 12-231
We, the undersigned homeowners of Paim Desert, who reside near Hovley Lane West,
in the vicinity of the above mentioned temple, are strongly opposed to the construction
of the proposed mono-palm antennas tree and equipment, and asking the Commission
to deny construction permit of this project for the following reasons:
A. We want to preserve the natural beauty views from our properties as we originafly
had. The proposed unnatural and unattractive structure will become an eyesore and
will degrade such views and property values.
B. We feel that Temple Sinai, being a non-profit organization, located within a
designated residential zone, should not take advantage of its property for a financial
gain at the expense of the homeowners.
C. We are concerned that the proposed antennas-tree could possibly produce harmful
radiation to residents nearby, as well as to children that attend school at the
Temple.
NA E ,
� ��� `���-�
� ��n� «ED�,�-„/1
� , �:,-� ��'v i 1_
�.�rtn Y<<. �tJ , �� �
/1-'� r:r I`�� �� �� r 7 .
� i�%-,�il�Y� D ���+�u d�7
�" + , , �' 1 �( .
li � 1�`�-�1�-`t,f1 �� U�' 1..�=���
��' �_�,ac \ L���1
, �/ �
/l�r� '`� ' ^` % � %a /\ K I'..�
��- �� U� rRL� � K�'�o�-L
�I�NA�'�� i���?
� :� �u�`�►-
��r�-��n �tA ���� . ���,
C'� � /,��% ��r�'5,.��,�1,
' � �%'�( ��,iy ,�� r•;,t.� L'�j?
J� %
��rL�LI;/�. � �, � l7 _� �,.\
��� � � ������
ADDRESS
4 07�� ��.:���.,���� c� � ���z .
� 0 �' ��U �,�r� l�nNri�L �I/�,G�
�i' �`> � S c'_ � 1v T� tiJ��' !� L C i/2C.L �
�' Ci �� ��� o�l� W l�' 1�1Z--C"i► l�t.
�iJ � �C� � �i�J`�"e.✓�v i n l C % �
� yo �.s� c'�- �: ,�� ,; � ti� � < <� -�
�tti� � d �=�„��, �, ,�� c r r;� f N
C� �1 t-'`O �� �}t'_ i'1 nic� � C.s' -,
j� �� z�/�,4 G,-_, �`�'
L'( � � "� Z ,�� � %� C \ �QszrnoJ �c� bJ�
�t � L y H J'/� � �t C i.
/�,Cr� .� �� . �- �l�L ..� � r
`�l� -IV� 1 � ���R-� ( �
� �-� � , _� �'J �/=a C .. � r
,
�� 5 S� `9 I:� �v (�
/ ) U `"/ < %� y �`. �n..� c ( .
�
��-i�� j �� �<�---i��Ni��l 7 L�;����.�
L
Date
�-i�--13
3 /�--/ �
�-i4-f,3
�z� I<� � i3
� -%(,�-- /,�
��/��,r�
,�_�7�,j
3--i���3
_,�' i 7 %�
3 '� — I 3�
3-1�--f3
.3/��//3
� //�/��
�/ > ��/.�
(
3�i7 i:
�� �
, /? 1,���
7 � �rj �%
� � 1
, ,�
TO: Paim Desert Piannin �=:bmmission . _ � ,
�_
SUBJECT: Proposed construction of wireless mono-palm at the Temple Sinai at
73251 Hovley Lane West, Palm Desert, CA. CASE NO. CUP 12-231
We, the undersigned homeowners of Palm Desert, who reside near Hovley Lane West,
in the vicinity of the above mentioned temple, are strongly opposed to the construction
of the proposed mono-palm antennas tree and equipment, and asking the Commission
to deny construction permit of this project for the following reasons:
A. We want to preserve the natural beauty views from our properties as we origina�ly
had. The proposed unnatural and unattractive structure will become an eyesore and
will degrade such views and property values.
B. We feel that Temple Sinai, being a non-profit organization, located within a
designated residential zone, should not take advantage of its property for a financial
gain at the expense of the homeowners.
C. We are concerned that the proposed antennas-tree could possibly produce harmful
radiation to residents nearby, as well as to children that attend school at the
Temple.
NAME ADDRESS Date
_.
,
L �: i /� ' �
���� , �J�
� � " �.,��
� { .� a.��,
,
�-IO�is r',o Q,,� u ��\ C'.v-,_\e P.S7• ��S/►-5
t� �/rn t�f" �f�rn. �e.4 ��"' 3 1 S" �—
� 5�� !'�'_ GT f _ ��j -� -�T' .� /S/ 3
�--�c./ �i .� C�-�� — �
�� ,
� '� "� � � l r'. �; ;: �.�_ ��'fi� !�>S�r� •�/� 3
1-�.1Z2� .S" �" ����� ri� � r �. �.�.�,. �c� � �(�/.3
TO: Paim Desert Piannin ;:`° .�mmission `
SUBJECT: Proposed construction of wireless mono-palm at the Temple Sinai at
73251 Hovley Lane West, Palm Desert, CA. CASE NO. CUP '12-231
We, the undersigned homeowners of Palm Desert, who reside near Hov(ey Lane West,
in the vicinity of the above mentioned temple, are strongly opposed to the construction
of the proposed mono-palm antennas tree and equipment, and asking the Commission
to deny construction permit of this project for the following reasons:
A. We want to preserve the naturai beauty views from our properties as we originally
had. The proposed unnatural and unattractive structure will become an eyesore and
will degrade such views and property values.
B. We feel that Temple Sinai, being a non-profit organization, located within a
designated residential zone, should not take advantage of its property for a financial
gain at the expense of the homeowners.
C. We are concerned that the proposed antennas-tree could possibly produce harmful
radiation to residents nearby, as well as to chiidren that attend schooi at the
Temple.
NAME ADDRESS Date
�, J A.�}r► I"��C�G l.! > L{ 0.� ( J (, c'ry f CYl�1 }�i�, (i l�G.L�i -�'' / l 7 f 2C 13
m. m�, ���. U�-�-�� c���-��,,►,����� c� , 3`i �--� ���a � 3
�
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Re: Legal Notice Case No. CUP 12-231
March 13, 2013
Ci11► � P� V�K
�ommunity �e�etopmant
MAR 14 2013
Attention Palm Desert Planning Commission:
Let it go on record that we approve of the Verizon Wireless mono-palm tower provided
that the tower:
1. Does not interfere with wireless service
2. Does not interfere with wifi service
3. Does not interfere with blue-tooth capabilities
4. Does not interFere with N services
5. Placement is at least 150ft from residential property lines and does not impede our
views of the mountains.
Thank You for your concern in these matters.
�-�' �(
on and Linda Wells
40820 Avenida Estrada
Palm Desert, CA 92260
�
//
�
PAUL S. PARRY
40800 AVEIVIDA ESTRADA
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
Nlarch 11, 2013
Ms. Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Re: Case No. CUP 1 Z-231
Dear Ms. Aylaian:
�tty of Palm Desert
d:ommunfty gevelopment
��aR z 2 zo�3
I am a resident living in very close proximity to the proposed 68 foot mono-palm antennas
planned by Verizon Wireless.
Pursuant to your recent Legal Notice in the referenced matter, please accept this letter as
having no objection to the Verizon Wireless request, so long as there is a written guarantee that the
construction and operation of the proposed mono-palm antennas will not interfere with local
television and cell phone reception.
Very truly yours
,
PAUL S. PARRY��
('e)�...:�j �;#��'.t"�j ��-c� �.:�';,/1;r�1
..� ;
3 f
�_�y' ��'��� ��w��
,$
�`
Authorized Agent for Verizon Wireless
8390 Maple Pl. Suite 110
Rancho Cucamonga, CA � 1730
Phone: 909-268-3920 Fax: 909-944-5971
Verizon Wireless Project Name: Moonflower
City of Palm Desert CUP 12-231
Application for a new unmanned wireless facility.
�
Verizon Wireless is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction and 24/7 operation of
an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility (cell site), and presents the following project information for
your consideration.
Project Location
73251 Hovley Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
APN: 318-140-004
Zoning: Public Residential PRS
Project Representative
Mike Hayes
8390 Maple Place Suite 114
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909-944-54 71 Ext. l l
mhayes@spectrumse.com
Applicant
Verizon Wireless
15505 Sand Canyon Avenue, Bld. D, lst Floor
Irvine, CA 92618
949-286-7000
Project Description
The proposed installation consists of a new Verizon Wireless 67' antenna support structure disguised as a
monopalm. Included within the proposed project will be a three (3) sector antenna array. A 576' equipment
shelter is proposed to be installed within the parking lot. The structure will match the look and style of the
synagogue. Access will be via the existing vehicle entry to the property from Hovley Lane.
Project Objectives
There are several reasons that a wireless camer has the need to install a cell site at a specific location:
Coverage — No service, or insufficient service currently existing in the vicinity.
Capacity — Service exists, but is currently averloaded 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 geometry wi"��:.= the overall network is needed to achi�+4� accurate location information
for mobile users through triangula `` n with active cell sites (half of alI 911 c s 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 Verizon Wireless radio-frequency engineers (RF) have identified a
significant gap in radio signal in the vicinity of the intersection of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue,
as well as the surrounding area. This site is also designed to provide coverage for the surrounding residential
and commercial neighborhoods and offload tr�c from the surrounding sites that are approaching capacity due
to heavy call volume.
Alternative Site Analysis
The following locations were evaluated for possible locations for the facility: Chaparral Country Club but due
to City requests and LL desires we were unable to agree to a location.
Alternative sites are considered and automatically eliminated from consideration where unfavorable zoning
exists, there is no suitable space available, and development standards cannot be met, or are owned by parties
that are uninterested in entering into a lease agreement with Verizon Wireless.
Verizon Wireless Company Information
Verizon Wireless is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to operate and is a state-
regulated Public Utility subject to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Verizon Wireless is one
of the fastest growing nationwide service providers to offer all digital voice, messaging and high-speed data
services to millions customers in the United States.
Verizon Wireless 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, FCC Declaratory Ruling to Ensure Timely Siting Review, and other applicable laws. Copies of the
laws will be provided upon request.
The enclosed application is presented for your consideration, and Verizon Wireless requests a favorable
determination and approval of a(Conditional Use Permit) to build the proposed facility. Please contact me at
909-268-3920 if you have any questions or requests for additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
�i��%' ,�¢!�/G��"�''
Michael Hayes
Authorized Agent for Verizon Wireless
APPRar/6719 dC %onr
0/v ,3--/9-/3
APPEftCJi Ld C1-ridA7
PAGE 2
Verizon Mono -Palm
Date:
3/2013
VICINITY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
12-231 ALLOWING A NEW VERIZON 68-FOOT WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MONO-PALM AND NEW EQUIPMENT SHELTER
LOCATED AT TEMPLE SINAI AT 73251 HOVLEY LANE WEST.
CASE NO: CUP 12-231
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 9t" day
of May 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Verizon Wireless
for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 19th day of March 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
Verizon Wireless for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is
� subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine
whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further
environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result
in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant
impact on the environment. The said application has complied with the requirements of the
"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act," Resolution No. 2012-20, in the Director of Community Development has determined
that the proposed project is a Class 3: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures (15303) Categorical Exemption for purposes of CEQA and no further review 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 approve the said request:
Findings for Approval:
Pursuant to the Telecommunications Act, wireless facility applications are evaluated
based on finro fundamental questions.
1. Is there a significant gap in coverage?
2. Is the proposed location and design the least intrusive available solution?
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 19
Is there a Significant Gap in Coverage?
The proposed wireless telecommunication facility is located within a Planned
Residential zone. The proposed 68-foot tall mono-palm is to enhance wireless
telecommunications services within the general vicinity. Coverage areas must be
improved and network capacity expanded to handle the growing number of calls and
wireless data usage. The coverage map illustrates that there is a significant gap in
coverage in this vicinity.
Is this Design and Location the Least Intrusive Available Solution?
Throughout the City of Palm Desert there are a number of mono-palms ranging in
size from 60 to 75 feet in height, especially in south Palm Desert. The site itself is
landscaped and located 226 to 480 feet away from any residential homes. The 68-
foot tall mono-palm design, with existing palm trees will adequately camouflage the
mono-palm to mitigate any negative aesthetic concerns. The applicant originally
proposed the mono-palm closer to Hovley Lane West, which is closer to the
residential homes to the west. Staff expressed concerns with the original location
because it would have been more visually intrusive to the residents, and motorists.
The Planning Commission believes that this is the least intrusive location at this
property.
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 technologically afford the applicant the
ability to provide service to the service area of the applicant or service provider.
A project description letter has been submitfed by the applicant and attached to
the staff report to provide documentation as to the service needed in the
proposed service area. A propagation study was undertaken to analyze the
optimum placement for the 92 cellular panels. It was concluded that the area
had low service and the proposed facility was necessary to off-load congested
sites, to provide phone service for users within the area, and to provide carriers
with expanded services.
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.
Site selection and the 68-foot mono-palm height is the result of a computer
ana/ysis of service coverage requirements for Southern California and the
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 19
United States. Topography (both natura/ and man-made) and vegetation
characteristics of the Coachella Valley make it difficult to cover the proposed
service area even with multiple sites.
c. That the applicant shows compelling technological or economic reason(s) for
requiring a new freestanding facility.
The technologica! and economic reasons are stated in the project description
letter submitted for fhe Planning Commission's review and attached for the
record. Existing coverage in the area is inadequate for existing customers. The
proposed wire/ess te/ecommunication facility disguised as a 68-foot tall mono-
palm would allow for better service, and provide expanded services. The
applicant has enclosed a copy of their existing coverage map based on the new
wireless site, along with a letter of site justification.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby recommend approval of CUP 12-231, subject
to conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 9t" day of Mav 2013, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: BENSON, SPIEGEL, TANNER, WEBER, and HARNIK
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
JAN C. HARNIK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 19
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO: CUP 12-231
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. 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.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the
use contemplated herewith.
4. All conditions of approval shall be recorded with the Riverside County Clerk's office
before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to
the Department of Community Development/Planning.
5. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city against any third party
legal challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the city at applicant's
expense.
6. Any proposed change of this Conditional Use Permit will require an amendment, which
will result in a new public hearing.
7. Improvements that are not on the approved site plan may be subject to additional
requirements and plan submittals by the Public Works Department.
8. The lease agreement for the 68-foot mono-palm must be in place prior to installation.
9. The applicant must remove the existing 50-foot middle palm tree and replace it with the
68-foot Verizon mono-palm, and install three to five live palm trees that vary in height
from 35 feet to 50 feet around the mono-palm. The applicant may use the 50-foot palm
tree that's being removed as one of the additional live palm trees. The applicant must
work with staff and the residents in placing the live palm trees.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - 19
10.The roof and outside walls of the equipment shelter must match the existing building.
11.The equipment shelter building pad must be raised six inches to match top of parking
lot curb.
12.A landscape planter must be added around the equipment shelter. The landscape
plans must be approved by the Landscape Specialist before issuance of building
permits.
13.The construction drawings must come back to the ARC for final approval. The air
conditioning units must be shown on the construction plans.
14.This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes:
A. 2010 California Building Code and its appendices and standards.
B. 2010 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards.
C. 2010 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards.
D. 2010 California Electrical Code.
E. 2010 California Energy Code.
F. 2010 California Green Building Standards Code
G. Title 24, California Code of Regulations.
H. 2010 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards.
15.All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5.
16.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.
17.Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1217 (Palm Desert
Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1217 regarding street address
location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from
street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible
obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may
render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review
process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1217 or Municipal Code Section 15.28
from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff.
18.Please contact Cherie Williams, Building and Safety Technician, at the Department of
Building and Safety (760-776-6420) regarding the addressing of all buildings and/or
suites.
5
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Stanley, Jane
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 1:08 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle; Mendoza, Grace
Subject: FW: 5/9/13 City Council Agenda: Opposition to Appeal of CUP 12-231 (Approval of Verizon
Wireless Mono-Palm at Temple Sinai)
Attachments: Palm Desert Moonflower3.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Burbidge fmailto:sburbid�e�amallp.com�
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 12:44 PM
To: Swartz, Kevin; CityhallMail; david.erwin(�bbklaw.com
Cc: Michael Hayes
Subject: 5/9/13 City Council Agenda: Opposition to Appeal of CUP 12-231 (Approval of Verizon
Wireless Mono-Palm at Temple Sinai)
Dear Mayor Harnik, Mayor Pro Tem Benson, Council Members Spiegel, Tanner and Weber, and City
Attorney Erwin:
On behalf of our client Verizon Wireless, I am attaching our letter requesting that the
Council deny an appeal filed f rom the unanimous Planning Commission approval of our client's
conditional use permit authorizing a mono-palm telecommunications facility at the Temple
Sinai property at 73251 Hovley Lane.
The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the Council this coming Thursday.
Thank you for your consideration of our letter in opposition.
Sarah Burbidge
Mackenzie & Albritton LLP
220 Sansome Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 288-4000
(415) 288-4010 (fax)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is priv.ileged or
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwarding it, and please notify us.
1
MACKENZIE & ALBRITTON LLP
22O SANSOME STREET, 14TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE 415 / 288-4000
FACSIM[LE 41S/288-4010
May 7, 2013
Bv Email & Hand Delivery
Mayor Jane Harnik
Mayor Pro Tem Jean Benson
Council Members Robert Spiegel,
Vann Tanner, and Susan Marie Weber
City Council
Palm Desert City Hall
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Bv Email
David J. Erwin, Esq.
City Attorney for Palm Desert
Best Best & Krieger LLP
74760 Highway 111, Suite 200
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Re: Mav 9. 2013 Citv Council A�enda: Verizon Wireless Onnosition to
Mr. Hedram's Anneal of CUP 12-231, Mono-Palm at Sinai Temple,
73251 Hovelv Lane West, Palm Desert
Our Reference: VZW Palm Desert Moonflower
Dear Mayor Harnik, Mayor Pro Tem Benson, Council Members Spiegel, Tanner, Weber
and Mr. Erwin:
We write to you on behalf of our client Verizon Wireless to strongly urge that you
deny the appeal of Mr. Eitan Hedram (the "Appellant") in which he seeks to overturn the
Planning Commission's approval ("Approval") of a conditional use permit authorizing a
mono-palm telecommunications facility (the "Approved Facility") to be located on the
grounds of Temple Sinai, at 73251 Hovley Lane West (the "Property").
The Planning Commission's approval on March 19, 2013 was unanimous, and
throughout the process, Planning staff has consistently recommended approval of our
client's project. The design was extensively reviewed during two hearings by the City's
Architectural Review Committee. Appellant states in his appeal that the mono-palm will
disrupt his view, and that Sinai Temple "was agreeable to [an] alternate location" on the
same Property. There is no merit to the appeal. The Approved Facility meets all
applicable height limits, will be located hundreds of feet from any residential property,
and will be situated in a landscaped area among living trees between an existing building
and the Temple parking lot. As set forth in the attached email, and contrary to
Appellant's claim, Temple Sinai has never agreed to Appellant's alternate placement of
the facility on its Property. (See Attachment A.) Certain objections raised at the
Planning Commission hearing also centered on the alleged health effects of the facility.
Yet as the Council is well aware, the Approved Facility is required to meet all federal
safety standards, and consideration of alleged health effects is beyond the scope of the
City's authority.
Mayor Jane Harnik &
Members of the City Council
David J. Erwin, Esq., City Attorney
May 7, 2013
Page 2
Apart from federal preemption issues, failure to uphold the Approval would create
a clear case of discrimination against Verizon Wireless (see Telecommunications Act, 47
USC 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)). As noted in the Staff Report, throughout the City of Palm
Desert there are a number of mono-palms of similar height, approved without issue. In
the present case, there are no feasible alternatives to the current location, the Approved
Facility location is much less intrusive than the stand-alone location proposed by
Appellant (and rejected by the Temple), and federal law prohibits any action that would
prevent Verizon Wireless from providing service in an acknowledged coverage gap.
Under the circumstances of this case, there is no lawful basis to deny the
application under either the City's own Municipal Code or the Ninth Circuit's opinion in
T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City ofAnacortes, 572 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2009).1
The Project and Approval Findings
The Approved Facility consists of a 68' mono-palm with 12 panel antennas
mounted at no higher than the 65' level of the tree. It will be located between the
existing Temple building and the parking lot, and the supporting equipment will be
housed in a nearby equipment shelter. The shelter will measure 576 square feet, be
located within the parking lot, and is designed to match the look and style of the
synagogue. Access to the unmanned facility will be by way of the existing vehicle entry
from Hovley Lane. In order to provide visual relief for residents to the east, the Planning
Commission required as a condition of approval that the applicant plant five live palm
trees varying in height from 35 to 45 feet in line and/or in front of the mono-palm.
These are in addition to the palm trees already located on the Property.
The applicable regulations provide that the mono-palm is permitted on
institutional property pursuant to a conditional use permit provided that three iindings are
made: (1) that existing towers and buildings do not technologically afford the applicant
the ability to provide service to the service area of the service provider; (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 reasons for
requiring a new freestanding facility. (See Palm Desert Municipal Code section
25.104.030(E)(1)).
The Planning Commission properly made all required iindings, and they are all
fully supported by the evidence. The evidence submitted by Verizon Wireless
� See also T-Mobile West Corp. v. Ciry ofAgoura Hills, 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 134329 (C.D. Dist. Cal.
Dec. 20, 2010).
Mayor Jane Harnik &
Members of the City Council
David J. Erwin, Esq., City Attorney
May 7, 2013
Page 3
demonstrated a significant gap in service in the vicinity of Country Club Drive and
Monterey Avenue, and further demonstrated the need to off-load existing cell sites due to
the increase in wireless usage.
Verizon Wireless provided documentation including coverage maps and the
existing sites in the area, to demonstrate the clear gap in service and the wireless
coverage to be provided by the Approved Facility. The Planning Commission reviewed
all the evidence, including radio frequency propagation analyses, the existing sites, the
topography of the area, and the absence of preferred alternatives. Under all criteria set
forth under the Code, there was overwhelming evidence supporting the Approval.
In contrast, Appellant has provided no evidence, much less the substantial
evidence required to overlurn the Approval.
The Telecommunications Act and Its Applicability to the Appeal
Verizon Wireless is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission
("FCC") to provide wireless telecommunications services in Palm Desert, and its
authority to place wireless facilities in the City is governed by the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended (the "Telecommunications Act"). The
Telecommunications Act contains fundamental limits on the right of a local jurisdiction
to regulate the placement of wireless facilities. Section 332 states:
-- The local government must act on a permit application within a reasonable
period of time (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii));
-- The decision must be in writing and supported by substantial evidence
contained in a written record (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iii));
-- The local government may not regulate the placement, construction, or
modi�cation of a wireless facility on the basis of the environmental effects of
radio frequency emissions to the extent such facilities comply with the FCC's
regulations concerning such emissions (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(iv));
-- The local government may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services (47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I)); and
-- The local government's decision must not "prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" (47 U.S.C.
§332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)).
Mayor Jane Harnik &
Members of the City Council
David J. Erwin, Esq., City Attorney
May 7, 2013
Page 4
The "substantial evidence" requirement means that a local government's decision
must be "authorized by applicable local regulations and supported by a reasonable
amount of evidence (i.e., more than a`scintilla' but not necessarily a preponderance)."
Metro PCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 2005);
see also Sprint PCS, 583 F.3d at 726 (a local government decision must be valid under
local law and supported by "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
acceptable to support a conclusion"). Generalized concerns about aesthetics are
insufficient to constitute substantial evidence upon which a local government could deny
a permit. Ciry of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 101 Cal.App.4th 367, 381 (2002).
The City must have speciiic reasons that are both consistent with the local regulations
and supported by substantial evidence in the record to deny a permit; generalized
opinions or concerns are insufficient.
Under the "effective prohibition" criterion, a local government runs afoul of the
Telecommunications Act if it prevents a wireless provider from closing a"significant
gap" in service coverage. This issue involves a two-pronged analysis: (1) whether the
provider has demonstrated the existence of a"significant gap" in coverage; and (2)
whether the proposed facility is the "least intrusive means," in relation to the land use
values embodied in local regulations, to address the gap. See e.g., Metro PCS, 400 F.3d
at 734-35; Sprint PCS, 583 F.3d at 726. In California, courts follow the "multi provider
rule," which means that the focus is on whether the provider shows a significant gap in its
own service coverage; the availability of wireless service from other providers in the area
is irrelevant for purposes of the analysis. Metro PCS, 400 F.3d at 733; Sprint PCS, 583
F.3d at 726, n. 8.
If a provider demonstrates both the existence of a significant gap in service, and
that the proposed facility meets the "least intrusive means" standard, the local
government is required to approve the facility, even if there would otherwise be
substantial evidence to deny the permit under local land use regulations. This is because
the requirements for federal preemption under the Telecommunications Act have been
satisfed, i.e., denial of the permit would "have the effect of prohibiting the provision of
personal wireless services." 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(1)(ii); T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. City
ofAnacortes, 572 F.3d 987, 999 (9th Cir. 2009). For the local jurisdiction to avoid such
preemption, it must show that another alternative is available, that it is technologically
feasible, and that it is "less intrusive" than the proposed facility. T-Mobile v. Anacortes,
572 F.3d at 998-999.
In the present case there is no substantial evidence supporting denial under the
City's own wireless criteria, and even if there were, there is no evidence of a feasible
alternative that is "less intrusive."
The Property location chosen by the Temple and Verizon Wireless (and fully
supported by the City) represents the best solution to resolve an acknowledged service
Mayor Jane Harnik &
Members of the City Council
David J. Erwin, Esq., City Attorney
May 7, 2013
Page 5
gap. The stealth facility will be in a landscaped area among other trees, including a
number of palm trees, and, as set forth in the staff report, will be 226 to 480 feet from any
residences. (See Staff Report dated March 20, 2013, at p. 2.) In contrast, the location
suggested by Appellant would be in a"stand-alone" area next to an existing basketball
court, away from the landscaped area of the Property, and adjacent to the Property's
school. While Appellant contends that the Temple's representative, Mr. Olshansky, is
agreeable to Appellant's proposed location, that is in fact, not true. See Attachment A.
In sum, Appellant's argument has no merit.
Furthermore, as noted earlier as well as in the Staff Report, the City has
previously granted applications for a number of mono-palms throughout Palm Desert.
(See Staff Report dated March 20, 2013, at p. 2.) Under the circumstances, granting the
Appeal would plainly constitute a violation of the Telecommunication Act provision that
prohibits unreasonable discrimination among competing wireless carriers.2
Conclusion
The written record before the Council to deny the appeal could not be more
complete. The Planning staff carefully reviewed the design and confirmed that the
Approved Facility fully complies with the relevant provisions of the City's wireless
provisions and standards. Verizon Wireless has designed an unobtrusive facility that fits
well within the existing Property, and has worked extensively with the City for a long
period of time to ensure appropriate placement.
Accordingly we respectfully request that the Council deny the appeal and allow
for improved wireless service without further delay. We note in this connection that the
Telecommunications Act requires that local approvals to install wireless facilities be
issued "within a reasonable period of time," taking all relevant factors into
consideration.3
Very truly yours,
�� �r��'n
Sarah L. Burbidge
Attachment A: Email from Mr. Jack Olshansky, Temple Sinai
47 USC §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I).
47 USC §332(c)(7)(B)(ii).
Mayor Jane Harnik &
Members of the City Council
David J. Erwin, Esq., City Attorney
May 7, 2013
Page 6
cc:
Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner
Michael Hayes, Project Manager, Spectrum Services
Verizon Wireless
Attachment A
-------- Original Message
Subject: moonflower
From: jack olshansky
To: Michael Hayes
CC:
Michael. I want to remind you that in our discussion about the "tower" there never was a
presentation, suggestion or discussion about relocating the tower other than in the
original spot within the parking lot.
Jack Olshansky
Temple Sinai
MOONFLOW ER 73251 HOVLEY LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
(19S0d0)id
4.0
nri
i•NA
72
MOT 01
MOI.V301
501
omP
g1r4 NH
72
MOONFLOWER 73251 HOVLEY LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
4OIIYJO'I
s
A
3
MOONFLOWER 73251 HOVLEY LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260